cixe

Huh? Back what up? Here we go with the uneccesary chain-yanking of anothers pychie. Give it break Somersot. Go yank somebody else's chain. Your not making any sense and acting like as if got your panties are in a twit. Sad :--( What a waste of mind/intellect bandwidth imho. Now we wait for the tag team of chain-yanking to begin. Sad :--( waste of intellectual bandwidth. imho Ego rules at this forum not mind/intellect and certainly not realism or practicality. imho r6/cixe

Ive not suggested otherwise. The simpler it is, the more easy is it is to reproduce ex hydrogen is the most simple and the most abundant element of Universe ergo most repredouced element. Bacteria are simplest single-cell biologicals and left unchecked woud massively reproduce there mass to equal that of known Universe--- in 90's known Universe masss ---according to Fred Hoyle. If Steve Jobs always let practical stop him he would never have gotten to his goals that, required pushing of what was known. The desdktop mouse was partly invented by a person who's business was creative thought processing to find options. It was this person who invented the little signs we have seen on some public bathrooms occupied{ space } and non-occupied{ space }. We now have motorized unicyles with the internal gyerscopes and they come after the original 2-wheel thingies with gyrescope some years back. Do they meet your reality/practicality test? Is a square house more practical/realistic than a round house? Not if all the systems in place are designed for square house. Is the metric system more practical/realistic than English system? Not if systems in place are English. Yet teh conversion did begin in some areas. More efficient keyboard layouts were invented but the industrial standard was already in place. The industrial standard was MS, tho Apples was better Operating System. How much loss of realism/practicality drop now to get to a more realistic/practical future? Fuller states that, there are ttwo kinds of evolution; Class-1--- humans indirectly-- side-effects ---derive the doing-more-with-less technologies as they move into the future ass-backwards-- bumping their rears --- in stead of mind-forward, Class-2-- humans go mind-forward into the future using the highest technoliges available to do the most with least. r6

Imatfall, I'm no the engineer on spaceship Earth. I'm the navigator. You,Imatfaal, are the hemlsman, Swansot is Spacehip Earths counselor, Strange is the first mate and his duties are.....well, those duties are strange. The captain of Spaceship Earth died in 1982, and our prime directive is locked in his lockbox and he is the only one with the codes to that box. The coal and later petroleum industrial age infrastructure is in decay and as always, the future of what to replace the past it is a speculative unknown. Fuller first attempt was his quasi-tensegritly-like, mass-reproduceable, hexagonal, dymaxion house. He offered drawings for similar light-weight, 10-floor towers. Then his originally-design-to-fly car. Then his 2nd dymaxion house.--- currently at Henry Ford Museum in Detroit --- and his final attempt was his fiberglass fly's-eye dome--- not the exact geometry he requested ----. The link belows touches on these ideas above by some looking to see our future. ..."Catabolic Ephemeralization".... http://nea-polis.net/2013/10/24/catabolic-ephemeralization-carson-versus-greer/ r6

Fuller called it ephemeralizaiton--- doing more with less ----. So your question becomes is there a reason to do more with less? Yes there is; 1) we live on planet consisting of finite energy resources, 2) the sun is a finite source of energy, 3) our population growth is outpacing the current systems-in-place, that, are required to sustain that growth, and sustain the ecological environmemt, that, sustains the current number of humans. imho cixe/r6

Wind blowing tensegrity cargo ship across ocean is not a problem, tho air cargo tensegrity might be faster. Ive often thought of concocting a protective bubble for passenger is way to go, but tensegrity bubble certainly absorb impact, yet, the brain still moves around in the skull, and we know from football that is still a key problem ergo, a tensegrity based brain is needed. imho So a protein based nano-tensegrity, that way we can spread out the nervous system, ergo, minimizing jostling of the individual componets. I'm not a nuero-surgen nor a nano-scientist. r6/cixe

Take the 'helm' imatfaal. And perhaps you can have an epitaph like Fullers.."the call me trimtab".... Do you have one of Kaisers trimtabls as well? ;--) This proposed dymaxaion car 1in 1942, unlike his 30's dymaxions, was design to steered in front and have front wheel drive. The rear steering would be kept also for parking. What poeple dont understand about those times, is that there was a creative boon to be had because the future technologies were coming and all were looking for this, or that, for the future of humanity, or just what might be practically useful. So we have tensegrity robots, when do we get tensegrity cars? The wind will blow them off the road is a key problem, but can you imagine the gas mileage? Maybe just tensegrity harness for passengers? How bout a tensegrity cargo ship? cixe/r6

Tensegrity is a word concoction--- portmanteau --- created by B Fuller and adopted by some dictionaries. Dictionaries evolve i.e. dictionaries adopt newly concocted words and new definitions to already existing words. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eC4A2PXM-U&feature=player_embedded cixe/r6 Dymaxion term/word--- portmanteau ---was coined by a journalist interviewing Fuller for his prototype/speculatve mass-prodcable hexagonal house tension-integrity house. ...."Kaiser had dabbled with cars since 1942. In that year he commissioned Buckminster Fuller, the industrial designer, to design a car. Fuller came up with what he called a dymaxion car, a three-wheel job, with a motor that could be hitched to front or rear, or to any of the three wheels. He made a mock-up of the car’s tear-drop body in plywood. This and engineering drawings he submitted to Kaiser, expecting Kaiser to commission him to do the further necessary engineering toward a completed prototype. ....Kaiser shipped the plywood mock-up of the dymaxion car to his cement plant at Permanente, Calif. There, without waiting for such refinements as a specially designed motor, he slung a secondhand Willys-Knight engine on the three-wheel job and started riding." http://kaiserpermanentehistory.org/latest/henry-j-kaiser-and-buckminster-fullers-dymaxion-car/ r6/cixe

Swansot{ alias 007 license to kill }.... "cixe 1. Insulting people is not an acceptable way to get your point across, and you've been warned about this before. It is wearing awfully thin. 2. Much of this thread seems to be people pointing out that they can't make heads or tails of what your point is. e.g. telling people if they can't figure it out they should go elsewhere is also not acceptable. I can't see any reason to let this continue." -------------------------------------------------------- Dear Swansot, If Im being repeatedly/continually treated rudely/disrespectfully unneccessarily, then, it is not only within my rights, as a human, it is also fair for me ask and/or tell other{s} to go elsewhere, from within a thread that I initiated. Just because people say/claim something, and this is detrimental the nature of our social integrity, when people are acting as clique with the same ego agreements. There was plenty of evidence for a lot of false claims in the thread pattern integrity that I initiated and you locked. To let what continue Swansot? To continue to allow a few people--- as a clique of ego agreements amongest them ---willfully/freely chose to hang around a thread of my creation, and repeatedly/continually make false insinuations--- aka needling and/or chain-yanking ----even after I made many sincere attempts to assist, and clarify some of their specific concerns and or queiries, with not one reply of acknowledgement from anyone there of my efforts to assist them in clarification. I'm being locked out of a thread of my creation, because of clique of ego-agreements, because of clique, that freely chose-- not forced ---to be a part of that thread. I think there is questions of fairness, that, are not being addressed at many levels, by the members, and moderators of this forum i.e. I believe, and feel there exists, a sad lack of intellectual and moral integrity amongest a few in this forum, as members and/or moderators. cixe/r6

Dear John, as I stated previosuly, and you may have ignored, initially, I chose the most simple expression for the topic of conversation--- pattern integrity as proton/soul{ ? } = 3 quarks = 2160 degrees OO OO OO ---as more would be much more complicated to explain, ergo I left that open for any of sincere heart i.e. desire to understand more, to ask for clarification, and then we could potentially open the portals of pondering/thought, to even much more complex configurations, that, perhaps, even the best mathematician on Earth could not winnow-ou, from micro-quantum scales of existence, what-is-what, how and why etc......via 3 sets of 2 great circle associations There is even more to this proton = 3 quarks scenario that is to me has more tantalizingly curious associations, however, I believe few here have the sincerity-of-heart and/or desire to delve deeper--- or afraid of getting their chain yanked ---into what I believe,makes this scenario appear to me, to be an appropriate approach to knowing more about quarks and their inter-associations with each othe, and other particles. I dunno. I am curiou enough, and naive enough, to not be afraid to be ridiculed and thwarted by the likes of some here, or other groups, where there is very narrow limits on what can be posted/expressed. imho. To not attempt to understand the underlying nature of Universe is shortsided. imho cixe/r6

Sorry if I recalled this as being from Strange, I went back to find this amongest a flurry of replies to me at that time, from diffferrent individuals and my ability to respond in timely manner to each and every query has also been limited by my unfamiliarity with this specific forum format, i.e. there exists many differrent possible formatting circumstances with one type of forum app, and then there is many differrent type's of forum apps. Andrew, I will attempt to address your questions above. Conceptually speaking, when using a mathematically geometric system, that is based on 360 degrees as unity, a/the circle = unity = 360 degrees. See, that, some surveying transits are based on 360 degrees. See, that, some protracters used in grade school or junior high are 360 degrees etc..... I have 6 circles ergo 6 * 360 = 2160 ergo I equate 2160 degrees with a proton. I also equate the same with a neutron. This is where my use of the word variation comes into play, and yes, I could have explained better the first time around, but hey, is there any humans that have not typed something and upon a 2nd look, realize that, they could have stated it better? By using the word variation, I was meaning to include any hadron in that catagory ex neutron that also is composed of 3 quarks, albeit the relationship between the kinds of quark is reversed. So my point was and still is, that even that is some kind of variation of the 6 circles, that, is responsible for the 3 quarks, and for the natural stability of the proton( pattern integrity } vs the much less stable neutron{ patten integrity } Before explaining how there can be variations of each circle, I would first reconfirm, that, there are distinct 3 sets of two circles ergo one set of two circles = 1 quark. 3 sets of 2 circles = 3 quarks. It seems fairly obvious and simple to me i.e. not that difficult to ascertain that aspect of diffferrenation of quarks, and specifically 3 sets, in of my line of text. imho And again, I was very clear in making one set of 2 circles{ 1 quark } differrent from the other two sets of circles{ 2 quarks }, by placing the one set of 2 in bold{ OO }. By putting that set of 2 circles in bold, I felt, that, I as making the minimal amount of variation to the texticons used to represent circles. Ok, now we delve deeper into the idea of variation for a single circle, before going into variation possiiblities of 2 circles, or a specific set of 3 sets of circles relationship to each other. This all can get fairly complicated so I initially only chose to begin with the simplest concept, and if others want clarification--- simply address specific comment and ask ----I can do what Ive done here above and more as follows. Conceptually speaking, we envision our 360 degree circles as perfect flat plane, however, we can take any circle-- or fixed length piece of string-like material ---constructed of any flexible material/medium and give it negative saddle-shape curvature or other variations of curvature that I dont know the name of cylindrical quanzet-hut, etc.....I dunno. So we can have a specific variation of one circle and it goes with 2nd circle of some variation or another and that specific pattern set--- whatever it may be ---is equal to 1 quark. Simple, not difficult, or so it seems to me. Of course the ultra-micro or micro-level scales existence is the devil-is-in-the-details, of which I have no specific variations, beyond the more generalized I just gave above. Next we 18 kinds/types of quark, and 18 kinds of anti-quark. With proton and neutron were only dealing with two kinds of quark. With mesons{ OO OO }--- those strange, fermioinic force/boson particles ---were dealing also with anti-quarks, however, were still only dealing with 2 circles as 1 quark irrespective of its type/kind of quark. So, next we can get into variation between only two quarks( OO OO }, or 3 quarks{ OO OO OO } and in doing so, we now get into specific variations for all 36 quarks, and/or anti-quarks relate/associate to each other as any one of the fermions, or mesons of consideration. This requires the reader with a sincerity-of-heart, toi consider the 6 great circles of the 3-fold, tetra{4}hedron, and/or, the 6 great circles of the 4-fold cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron. See graphic A in the above 6 great circles hyper-link . The variation here involves, taking the already given above variation of the individual circles, scenario, and integrate that with how these 6 conceptually static 6 great circle planes positioning to each other. So were talking, at minimum, two primary kinds of variation. 1) variation of the indvidual circle, 2) variation of two circles relationshie/association, or orientation/position to each other, and/or, 3) variation of two sets of two circles to any other set of two or more circles, depending on the specific particle{ pattern integrity } of consideration. r6/cixe

Dear John, yes the problem is that many here have difficulty in understanding andything Ive stated, and if you dont understand that, then you need to go back to beginning and read the replies. imho Dear John, Pattern Integrity = Soul is the first line of text and I know that is difficult sentence for some around here however, when asked about word pattern--- maybe also integrity{ I forget now } ---I gave definitive expalnations and dictionary definitions. No one replied oh ok thanks for the explanation{s}. Cixe, now I understand. Yes, I regret not putting a { ? } after the word soul but I did do that in thread topic. Get over it already as I questioned the validity of the statement from the get go. Previously I always reference these two as synomym biological = soul ergo biological/soul is the 2nd line of text and I know some around here have difficulty understanding that, If you or others still cannot understand that, then you/they can ask. I think the problem is that some know-it-alls feel, that, if they have to ask, then it must be gibbrerish word salad, or that, maybe their not a know-it-all, after-all. Recently, and for no apparrent reason, I had equated soul with any pattern integrity, that re-incarnates itself is 3rd line of text and I know that is difficult for some around here to understand, so, ask and or use check a dictionary for some or every word. I then stated, that, a fermionic proton is the most stable pattern integrity of Universe, that, humans know to exist and, I presume, that, all protons are identical. Just as I presume all other fermionic particle identities are identical to another with the same indentity is the 5th line of text and I know that is difficult for some around here to understand. Ditto all of my above except no one directed any queries specifically to this line{s} of text ergo I did not go into specificic explanations, etc....... Then we get into the 92 atomic elements plus the transuranics, of which many or most have slight variations as isotopes of themselves-- is the 6th line of text--- or as others have called it, word salad, gibberish, cant understand it -----ditto my latter above. Then we get into a number of differrent kins of viruses, that have either RNA or DNA but never both within, their protein shells--- is the 7th line of text ----ditto my above. After posting that, I realized that, for a human to ever be reincarnated exactly, then that may only happen in a eternally existent Universe--- is the 8th line of text ---ditto my above. Dear John, H,mm it also just crossed my mind that clones, similar to identical twins, may be the closet we come to humans being identical, like two protons being identical--- is the 9th line of text ---ditto my above. So, I may have stuck my foot in mouth, or we may say that, we have differrent degrees of soul--- is my 9th line of text --ditto my above. "U"niverse > Universe > universe{s} > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse-- is my 10th line of text and there was a comment, that suggested that these words are made-up words. I corrected Andrew that Universe is not a made-up word. He denies his incorrect claims. As to the other words that are altered ex "U"niverse, no one asked what was meant nor asked what the whole line was meant to be representative of. I know it is difficult for some around here to step outside of there very narrow mind-set{ ?armpit? }, however, I think it is not a big leap of mind-set to extrapolate from a capital Universe to a small universe{s} plurality. Anyway no one has directed any queries specifically at those words, or the texticons, that are suggested as word salad, gibberish, not understandable. Human > bacteria > virus{ twilight-zone } > chemicals > atomics > sub-atomic{ time/charge{? } > gravity{ gravitational space{ twilight-zone }-- is the 11th or so line of text and there is so more of those not-understandable texticons that could be interpreted as mathematical meanging that humans are greater than bacteria in some way or another. etc...for the other words and > texticons, that, no one has directed any specific queries. Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation--- is 12th or so line of text ---and I was asked specificall about this line-of-text, however, the querie was mixed in with a long seemingly peppered list, that, I tried to respond/reply to. Sorry If I was preoccupied being defensive to all the other rude interruptions. Since the latter above was specificy quiered, I will do a seperated reply window for that one. Thx for your concern John and moderation suggestions. I hope this above helps to alleviate some of non-sense replies by others here and clarifies for you that section of my intial post. As always if not, then please address specific word{s} comments you do not understand. Thx r6/cixe So here, as follows below, is the one line of text, that, according to John has caused so many to incorrectly generalise the whole of my initial post with the labled word salad, gibberish, not-understandble, instead of just directing their attention to this single lien of text. Is it wonder why I feel some others have a sad ;--( lack of moral integrity in regards to my initial posting--- not any knowns according to some others Sad :--( --- and other back-n-forths that was more of the same from them? Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation Yes your are correct, and Andrew was incorrect, because, when I stated proton is 3 quarks is true and not as suggest only partially true. So get over it Jphn, and Andrew. Sad :--( lack of intellectual integrity imho i.e. if you or others want to add in specifics that further elaborate to the many possible specific attributes of a proton, then do please do. To suggest I dont know that that I dont know that two kinds of quarks-- as Andrew appeared to do ---is just non-sense. The evidence is in the line of above where I specifically gave 3 sets of two circles, ergo each set of two associates with one quark and two of those sets are identical ergo they as same kind of quark and the other set is differrent in that is embolden and the embolden aspect was to show that, that one quark is difffernt than the other two in proton, and in neutron. Proton/soul{ ? } goes back to the thread topic and beginning of this thread involve pattern integrity. Now if others believe, that, a proton does not have or is not, a pattern integrity, then please state so. None here have done that and here is why; 1) they claim the do not know what a pattern integrity is, 2) or they know what a pattern integrity is and it is a fair assemssment on my part to make that association. As stated from the beginning, that, a have for some years not, equated soul with biological( pattern integrity ) as biological/soul. This is not difficult concept to understand{ imho } irresepective if others agree with my association. So, Andrew goes on to state, that there is no evidence for the existence of soul, as commonly defined. Well John-Andrew-others, I look at definitions of soul in dictionaries, and hardly--- accept as my biological/soul ---see a commonly agreed upon definition and those that are there do not seem clear, or at minimum left open to so many interpetations, that, I long ago, tried to narrow the field of ambiguity, by simply doing the biological/soul synonym association. So John, proton/soul{ ? } is questioning, whether it is fairly reasonable assessment, to set outside of the biological parameters, to have soul be assciated with the most stable fermionic particle of Universe? If your answer is no, then fine. Move along and we see if others have oppinion on that specific. You like to say pointless as a dig-in of disrespect. There is a point to my considerations whether you understand/comprehend, agree-disagree, etc.............and that point is what I state above. I'm not proposing a change to rocket science in this philosphy thread, only a question of identifying soul as a biological and the possibility of as a any pattern integrity, that, reincarnates itself. I chose the proton specifically because of its seemingly eternal natural stability, tho we speculate it has finite limit of natural stability. Ok that covers you. As for Stranges peppered list of queston, and the specifics to how-why etc....of 6 circles there equaling 2160 degrees, I will have to find his original post with that question, or, just initiate a post to address that query of his. Thx agin for attempts to ask for clarification of why{ ? }, how{ ? } I came to make some of my statements-quieries etc..... cixe/r6

Ive always been availble with patience, to explain and/or elaborate, what I mean, and have done so repeatedly in this thread. So your statement, in those regards, is moot. In regards to Stranges request, Ive repeatedly given him the pathway of understand where I'm coming from with 31, via; 1) a common agreement or acknowledgement of and understanding of how space is defined by me, 2) go back to the beginning of a thread, that, is referred to as word aslad, gibberrish that no one can understand, and start with the first word(s), or set in sequence, thereof, that, he cannot understand, and i will assist hm. I have offered these pathways repeatedly--- you may have missed those ---to others, and Strange is the one who lacks patience and sincerity-of-heart to understand anything ive stated, or the pathways that lead to these considerationns of futher explanantion. imho He is the one who lacks patience, and sincerity of heart. Thx Sunshaker for what appears to be a somone reasonable moderation of the circumstances we find ourselves in. r6/cixe---the slash/hash mark is not a division symbol, in cixe/r6 is meant as symbol for synonym. Ex and/or is and/or has been commonly used by humans for many years in such manner. I know this is difficult for some around here to understand, but, texticons, words, numbers can have differrent meanings and uses depending on the contex/content of where and how their used.

And Ive replied many times to you. My intention is not to insult you, only to give you feedback as to how I feel your attitude appears to me. Unhelpful, and lacking........etc... Like Andrew, you have no sincerity of heart or desire so please move along to somewhere that you golden attention has something helpful, relevant and of sinificant further my thoughts regarding pattern integrity = soul{?}. Thx. cixe/r6---Strange, the slahs/hash mark is not being used as division of cixe by r6, I know you have difficulty understanding the differrence of texticons, words, numbers etc...,have many diffferrent meanings and uses, but sincerity of heart, integrity of mind and moral judgement will help along the way. imho. Now where was I before being constantly and rudely interrupted by you....Oh yeah, the link I gave, shows, that, H2O{ water } has 6 electrons in the oxygen shell that are shared with 2 hydrogen electrons ergo 8 electrons in that shell. Humans are 75%, or more, water{ H2O }, ergo biological/soul{ 8 }....I love it when the cosmos lays one on me like that. Very cool! imho r6/cixe---the hash/slash mark is not a division symbol for r6 and cixe. I know this is difficult for some here to grasp, but texticons, words, numbers etc can have many differrent uses, meaning etc depending on the context where there used. My experience here tells me that many of you need learn how to use and then actually practice using a dictionary. imho. Thx.

Ive already pointed you to the begining and that is where you need to go, or just keep on going someplace else where your golden attention is helpful. If no one can understand any word{s} then they can ask. How many times are you and others going to yank my chain uneccesarily? Give it break dude. Thx to move along somewhere else where you can be of help to someone as your of no help to me and offer only the tinest shred of sincertity of heart, moral integrity and intellectual integrity in my regards. Thx, r6/cixe

Strange, Ive been prepared for some years now. You are the one who is not prepared. Sad :--( And you have no intention of doing any proper preparation, because you lack sincerity of heart, moral integrity and intellectual integrity, in my regards. Sad :--( Ive offered to prepare you and you refuse to be amenable to my suggestions, references, facts, speculations, ponderings, explorations etc....Sad :--(. cixe/r6