cixe

Ive given a few links in this thread that graphics that were in reference to the specific context of my statements ex 87 primary great circles ergo my extrapolation as great tubes. Did you open to view them? The appropriate visual can be worth a thousand words, or so they say. 4-fold symmetry based (( 25 )) + 5-fold based (( 31 )) = 56 primary great circles/tubes however, since the 5-fold( icosahedral based ) 31 have < left and right > skew versions--- think bilateral ergo your negative part of a bilateral sine-wave set, as I mentioned in last reply to you ---- 3,4,6,12 = (( 25 )) 6, 10, 15 = 31 left skew -------------------------------(( ((Z)) )) heat death Universe graphic---Z is the 24 chords/vector of cubo-octahedron when collasped as subdivided triangle that I gave link to previously in this thread. And take note, it is that jitterbug that also folds into sine-wave with centeral axis, and cetaccean( mammals } 4 appendage body plan with axis/spinal chord, woth 90 degree spin of two of the waves, we get the fish's 4 appendages and again a central axis-like spinal chord. 6, 10, 15 = 31 right skew Ergo, 31 + 31 = 62--- see Pi^3{ 3D i.e. volumetric XYZ } = 31.00 62 7.... ---and see 31 bilateral spinal nerves ergo total 62. 56 + 2nd skew set of 31 = 87 primary great circles/tubes, see the above link Ive posted in twice in this thread. See also that, when the jitterbug folds into the regular sine-wave, it has a central axis ergo that is flexible because of a central set of joints/vertices that allow it too flex. I say 'see', however, Fuller never explored this configuration or its two cetaccean and fish bdoy plan counter parts, so I have no graphics, but have posted my texticonic versions of these three configurations of sine-wave variations elsewhere. I will try to do that at bottom of page, to help with the explanations I have given in this thread previously. There is left and right skew because icosahedron is found within the the jitterbug cubo-octahedron when it begins its contraction either left or right on either of iany of 4-axes, that leads to left and right icosahedra as the jitterbug contracts its 8 equalateral triangles to be aligned with 8 of icosahedrons 20 and define most of the 30 edges of the each icosa{20}hedron. I clicked on your web page link but no time now to even skim, but again, if you can address the the specifics as I posed them to you, with some step by step--- you did that some for some stuff ---then I can better understand. Ok, let me try and create the texticons for the sine-wave. These are texticons so do not expect too much but you the jitterbug infolds into basic double sine-wave set aka EM sine-wave i.. two waves on out of synch waves on one plane and two on the other plane at 90 degrees, and with the jiiterbug configuration there is central axis, likened to a spinal chord, that even flexes in the middle joint{ 4 vertices} because jbug is made from flexable rubber tubing. Dots.....below are for formating purposes Ok so this next one is EM sine-wave pattern ^.... ------blue triangles are at 90 degrees, so flat( horizontal } to our view. One points towards us with peak the other away. ....v Next is config for cetacceans{ ergo mammals } tail flippers and flukes parrallel to each to each other. ^^ this configuration before wave are folded over ----central axis 8 struts/lines/vectors and 4 verticed joint is half way on this line vv.....this is config before waves are folded over With fish we have to turn the front top and bottom wave 90 degrees to become side fins. ..^ this configuration before wave are folded over --........front fins are are on same plane{ horzxontal } as our viewing ...v this is config before waves are folded over Here is another link to jitterbug that shows its contracting from cubo-octahedron, going through icosahedron phase, then ending at octahedron. Sine-wave Unification of Universe in many ways, with my most recent addition to the overall cosmic scenario, is theirregular and complex , inside-outed sine-wave, which has its sine-waves variations within it. If you have something specific, that you need a visual aid too, then I can perhaps better address your specific needs as stated. Thx r6

It was this previous statement by you that made me think that you maybe thought is was only primes; A single particle--- do yo mean any fermionic or bosonic particle? --- and if so, that sounds like some kind of holographic scenario that your proposing. For the moment, let us say there exists a finte set of elements, teh first set of 92 we discovered randomly, and the 2nd set of 92 that are discoverred more in sequence of the atomic mass/wiegth, because it takes more and more energy to discover them. So you suggesting that any particle contains any of the 184 elements? Also elements atomic and particles are sub-atomic, so that appears problematic to me also, as being able to be holographic. I dunno. Yeah, you've jumped to the atomic/elment scale ergo combinatiorial particles. Again, as for primes referenced to elements, I would need to have this laid out more clearly, step by step i.e. with a list that--- does not have to be one of your charts ---you stated that primes drop off considerably(?) after lead( 82 ). I point out that primes, on the prime line( L1 ) begin to drop off at after 23 ergo the next contiogus number is (( 25 )). I was talking in regards to analogy between entropy and the dropping off of primes getting greater and greater as tho primes seeeking equilibrium, ergo Universe is allededed to seek thermal equlibrium aka heat death, and that eventually( not now ) one very large, very flat, least energy ergo longest wave/frequency photon. I think you misunderstood, I was pointing out, that, I dont believe that our Universe will eventually become flat, except possibly in place between the two, overlappiing, spherical/sphieroids (( ((Z)) )) each being no less thatn (( 31 )) great tubes. This flat place would be similar to subdivided triangle--- see fullers 3D cubo-octa{8}hedron/jitterbug flattened ----. I use the red z to point out, that, the subdivided triangle, has a outer triangle ratio set of 2;1 ergo the one triangle can fold towards left spherical/spheroid set of (( 31 )) great tubular bosons , and the other two triangles fold in toward the right spherical/spheroidal bosonic set of (( 31 )) great tubulars. I see this as being the basis for bilaterism in Universe i.e. why we we dont see that many anti-paticles, or perhaps even why biological amino-acids are of the left-handed type, ie because 2, in the 2:1 ratio carrys more significance in the long term til the next ending-beginning of Univese recycling. To further clarify, and hopefully help us understand each others overall cosmic view, I'm not opposed to the idea of Multiverse, or Ominverse etc...type scenario of many local universes, but they still sum-total--- ergo not infinite because infinity has no systemic integrity ---to a finite set and there all minimally connected by gravity. Ok, that help with clarity. So when you say multi-dimensional you also mean those are 2D representations of some 3D volumes/polyhedra? Yeah, and those are derived from the other simple beginning drawings you posted, to whcih I replied, I believe my mathematicia friend is making almost the exact drawiings your were making. I will try and take a screen shot and send to him, to compare yours and his. Takes time to do that, and he is very busy dude, at moment with his business,.... Ok, cool. Reminds me of others like flower-of-life type overlappin hexagons type graphics. Or Penroses grapahics that overlapp etc..... The 2D flower-of-life hexa(6)gons are based on the four hexa(6)gons of the cubo-octa{8}hedron ergo jitterbug and I was in constant contact for a few years with the dude who discovered this cubo-octahedral basis for 3D version of the flower-of-life pattern. I'm not sure what each Z is above, I rememmber from previous post, you laid out some simple drawings--- like my mahetician friend did ---and there was a least one Z there. I see you have a square, subidivide with diametric diagonal from two corners, creating red and aqua right triangles....oh ok, now I see that teh Z is the yellow line top and bottom with the yellow diametric diagonal connecting those two other yellow lines. So you spin the square ergo you spin the one Z to create a circle. That could be true of any polygon and not just square.....but I maybe follow your drift, and just considering the subdivided square--- two right triangles ----. So is there two Z's you use in that square? .So the two colored, seven circles/discs are within every fermionic and bosonic particle of our finite Universe? I need to send link to this page to my mathematician friend so we can compare your initial simple drawings to his simpel drawings and associated numbers. They are so similar. You take off on directions he never got too. r6 Sunshaker, as for negative with the sine-wave or inside-outed sine-wave, is also likened to left-right or mirror imaged, and not ready to go there yet. It is too soon for me, tho I have considered it previously. There is plenty for me to consider, just with your introduction. you with what I have laid out with my basics; 1) 4-fold asymmetry cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron defined by its four great/equaltorial, hexagonal planes--- ergo internal cross-sectional, 24 equaltaral tringles ---, 8 equalateral surface triangles, and all 12-vertices, 24-edges and 14-openings that derive the primary set of (( 25 )) great circles/tubes, that infolds to a sine-wave-- VVV --- topology via Fullers hand held toy model, that also configures for basic body plan of cetacceans( mammals ) and fish, and is basis for the 3D expression of the commonly viewed 2D flower-of-life( overlapping hexagons ), 2) 5-fold symmetry icosa{20}hedrons, 20-surface triangles/openings, 12-vertices, 15-edges, that derive the primary set of (( 31 )) great circles/tubes, and 10 of those 31 define 5 overlapping sets, of the above mentioned cubo-octahedron, humans bilateral 31 spinal nerves ergo total 62-- see Pi powerings below 3) the 4-level, regular, numerical sine-wave and 4-level irregular and complex, inside-outed, numerical sine-wave that has the inner only regular sine-wave 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36( observed reality reference ) 4) My intensive Pi powerings explorations--- ex Pi^3{ 3D } = 31. 00 62 7... --- that I've not yet begun to reference too my the older the regular sine-wave or the newly discovered, irregular-complex sine-wave, 5) the introduction of your prime based(?) introductions. r6

H,mmm so autamata is not Wolfram. Maybe Wolfram was Mathematica program. I would still need more step by step big dummies guide to your triangle seive thing as to how it relates to my either of my given sine-wave patterns. I do see you used ahorizontal, 3 level, 3 colored adaption to the my inside-outed irregular, multiple waves within the sine-wave pattern. Looks like you maybe combined L2 and L3 for that. I dunno not clear what exactly youve done and it leaves out some lines-of-relationship. As for the pencil drawings Z X etc....I have friend who does those patterns also or one very close to beng the same. As for primes in periodic table, and 45 and 82, would need to be more clarification with easyly readible step-by -step guide as to what is what where and why. My original numerical sine-wave is regular and the inside-oute sine-wave is irregular and complex because it has varied sets or frequency of waves involved. Also I want make clear to you that, your statements appeared to infer that you believe that prime numbers respresent gravity. That may be tru, but that is not what I've stated, and if I didm then I was in error to do so. I see gravity as being associated withe outer-convex-surface of two tubes. 1) top tube being L1 and L2, with L1 being the outer-convex-surface that has both multiple-primes and non-prime numbers, and is of higher count of integer positions two L1 too every one on L2. ergo the 2:1 ratio defines a triangle based top tube, 2) bottom tube L4 and L3, with L4 being the outer-convex-surface and no primes except #2, and L3 having only prime #3. And here again the bottom tube being defined by a 2:1 ratio of more integers on the outer surface ergo the outer-convex-surface defines the gravity membrane/fabric. These two tubes, in shape of a great toroidal tube, and collective set of 3 or more such tubes, defines a spherical or spheroid ergo a fermionic and/or bosonic particle, or pehaps even collectively as and atom, but I'm not prepard to go there just yet. I hope that clarifies where I stand on gravity and prime numbers. The primes may only make a monopolar graviton--- or any collective set thereof ---be imbalanced/tainted yet not be charged like common fermionic or bosonic particle. Also I see the primes as being less and less contigous so that also reminds me of entropy whichs is the Universe's thermal cooling off to eventually become the heat dead or at least appearing as one very large and very flat, least energetic ergo longest wave frequency photon. Personally I see it never being flat, rather one maybe two sphericals/spheriodal defined by no less than 31 great tubes each, that are feeding each other, like a figure 8 or OO or Oo, or (( ))(( )), or even perhaps the large flat photon of Universe we observe as the a place where those great tublar spheroids overlap. This is the end and beging of just another eternally set of cycling and recyling/regernation. imho r6

Sun, well you are a strange one indeed, welcome to the club... ha ha! Again, I agree there is not yet any discovered proofs that connect any physical/energy phenomena, to static geometric polyhedra or polygons, Lee Smolin in his book 3 Roads to Q Gravity, predicted we would quantify gravity via geometry in and around 15 years, and I think it has been in around 15 years since he made that statement in his book. I think he is being to optimistic. We do see EM patterns that resemble toroidal patterns at the more medio-macro level/sacel, and this is well documented facts of osbervation via dipolar phenomena. Ex earths magnetic field, tho, that is graduall going to become wierd as the poles shift over next few thousand years. Yeah, abstract = conceptual = metaphysical-1 = mind/intellect and that is what we use to explor and discover answers to the mysteries of Universe. I post my exploratory findings in hopes that that there others out there who share my enthusiasm for any possible detective type leads too answers. Again, I had already had ultra-micro gravity idea being the close-packing of nodal-vertexial events on the convex outer surface---- think Van Der Grapph spheres as an analogy ----in my belief system for years, but only some years after I discovered the numerical sine-wave pattern, so, when i recently had revisted my numerical sine-wave patterns, I said to myself, the row of higher set of integers in middle does not jive with my belief system regarding gravity being outer conve surface membrane. So, I turned the sine-wave pattern inside-out and I was like WOW, this is fits the bill perfectly. The sine-wave pattern is great, as I stated orginially is found with Fullers hand held toy model vector flexor, that I too discovered, because no where on the net or in any of Fullers books does he mention teh EM sine-wave configuration. Same goes for the EM sine-wave pattern having two of its wave altered so as it fits the bill for basic body plan of cettaceans side flippers to tail flukes, and skew 90 degrees for fish. All of these findings are like tantelizing genralizations, that appear to have specific reality connections. Or so it seems to me. So then finding that, my idea of inner concave being the reality we observe, I find the L2 and L3 triangulated sine-wave having those quark and electron and neutrino numbers and my ears remain perked high... ...in anticipation, once again, of possible signifcance of these findings. I love it that you use automata. Isnt that a Wolfram program? I followed his exploits--- web law suit etc ---from aside for years but always too advanced for my more lack-of-education brain. I saw a quote from him, where he stated, that, he met with Feyman and Feynman spent sometime trying to figure out this mathmatical discovery of Wolframs, and in the end, said that, he could not crack it. Feynman was probably in his later years and who knows how his health was doing at that time. So Sun, I clicked on your large traingle produced by automata....can you please walk me through what exactly is happening, cause the is no sequential set of numbers. there is one wave within the triangle. I really dont know much about Pascals seive etc....tho I ve visited those kinds of info sites over the years. Maybe if you ran my two kinds of sine-wave info through the autaomata, we would have a reference of what was, what it became etc...... Gravity is the odd-bird-out. For years, I had viewed EMRadiation{ photons/sine-wave ) as matter{ electron } dispersing itself on gravitational geodesics. I had many times viewed the EM sine-wave being embraced by a spiraling tube--- ergo a third nearly 90 degree phemonena ---that connected to each peak of sine-wave and embraced the EM sine-wave. So this recent turnig of my numerical sine-wave inside-out, really is a novel idea in someways, if you know what a I mean. We observe reality via the metaphysical-1 asbtraction the sine-wave pattern--- Fulles jitterbug model does that ---we do not observe gravity directly and not really indirectly, it is presumedto exist by most, to be a spin-3 bosonic force, and others not a force out all, rather, only space being warped by mass. Duhh, for so many years now, I say to people, we warp a spoon, a piece of plywood, a 2x4 lumber, so those are a physical/energy somethingness, and I say to them over and over, that space has to be a somthingness, in order to be warped! ......Or as I state if for years now, gravitational space is quasi-pysical somethingness,altho ultra-micro, ergo far beyond our ability to quantise if not also quantify. And again, the prime line, whether as L1 or L4, with its higher integer count--- 2:1 ---over inner line L2 or L3, is fits the close-packing set of events on outer shell for whatever oddities that gravity may do, and we see only sopooky action at a distance etc... type mysteries and paradoxical, mind bending, cosmic law violation phenomena. And 2ndly, the primes whether on L1 or L4 outer convex surface, making for and imbalance, of a monoploar graviton or set of gravitions. And finally Sun, in case I didn't mention it previosusly, the primes are concentrated in sequence for the first 8 primes, on prime line, the (( 25 )) occurs, to break the contigous pattern. And primes overall continue to accrue less and less the further we go on this sequential patter, ergo I see a possibly analogyu to entropy--- see below ---and to squaring distance of gravitational effects as two masses get closer or futher apart i.e. the primes number drop off the futher the distance, and the force of gravity falls off, the further away two masses. Tho of course gravity never is not connecting the two massess. And as for entrop, the falling of primes may also be likend to less and less primes seeking equiilibrium, or between the top and bottom tubes i.e. dos the particle seek equilibrium or decay by primes may somehow seeking to reach and equilibrium between top level and bottom level. That idea is not clear in my head as that that requires a shifting of the numbers, ex shfiting of numbers while maintaining the 2;1 ratio. I dunno. Maybe your automata program can give us some ideas and diffferrent perspective. I dunno. Thx for response strange one r6 PS: if you do indeed become truly interested and want to delve further on this, we maybe could take it site that will not inhibit exploration of this type. I have my own yahhoo group, but wherever does not matter to me. The nice thing about a forum, is that an go back and make corrections, within a given time limit.

There is the sine-wave and there is the inside-outed sine-wave. In both cases, the top{ L2 } and bottom{ L4 } have same spacing, tho they have differrent intital starting place ergo there peak and valleys are not the same. Same goes for the two inner levels/lines L2 adn L3. The brackets are my texticonic expression for associating great circles( 25 ) and( 31 ) great tubes (( 25 )) and (( 31 )) and specicficall the primary set of 25 great cirlces--- or in my scenario tubes ---of the 4-fold cubo-octa{8}hedron aka Vector Equlibrium and the primary set 31 great circles/tubes of the 5-fold icosa(20)hedron. See http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s11/figs/f3201b.html Yes I'm familiar with two quark mesons( aka wierd short lived bosons as strong nuclear force between hadrons ) I was in hurry to throw this together and get posted this morning, and I did not take the time to offer a more comprehensive list of quarks. I also corrected electron and neutrino error belows, as I was doing it all from recall and in a hurry, ergo easy to transpose a 6 where only 3 is meant to be. But they total total to 6 each. Minor error but thanks for pointing it out. I appreciate any corrections and ammendments by others to better clarify these two patterns, but it is the inside-outed version that is my new facination. It is with the inside-outed sine-wave that we find a higher set of values on the outer convex side of the tube on L1 and L2--- see that there is 2 to 1 ratio between L1 and L2, and L4 and 3. To this fits in my belief, that, there exists an ultra-micro set of close-packed, nodal-vertexial events, that define a gravitational membrane/fabric, that embraces every fermionic and bosonic particle, and connected to each other througtout our finite Universe. As for your--- sunshaker ---triangle seive(?) I dunno much about it. I'm slow when it comes to anything mathmatical, except that which I previously explored to a few times over and over ;--) It is also hard to read all them little numbers. Since teh original sine-wave was numerically hex{6}-based then it is not surprising it is triangle based in many ways. That is because I began with 0 not 1, I think. However, the original sine-wave is an hepta{7}-based set of integers. Based on my given scenario, that gravity--- as the higher value set of intergers{ nodal-vertexial-events } on the outer convex side--- L1 and L4 ----set of two tubes, that, are connected to each other i.e. each of these two tubes part of integral set of toroidal tubes that define a spherical particle ---I see at least one possible significant way, that, consideration of a gravity or integral set of gravitons, not being dipolar ergo being monopolar, yet being attractive to each other--- with the the torodial set --- or other toroidal based, spherical, graviational membraned particles, is as follows; 1) in the both of my given sine-wave patterns--- outside-out and inside-out ---, if we presume a cause and effect scenario exists, then we begin with initial 0 event on L2 or L3 for inside-out sine-wave ---we could go to either L1 or L4, and then #1 event as sequential following effect from initiating 0 event, too make long story short, in either scenario, we get alll primes on either L1 or L4. This is a numerical bias, inherent to the pattern, and makes it dipolar but perhaps without having a charge( + or - ). I dunno, just finding out and exploring possibilites.... Here is another way to consider this. A person reminded me, that metaphysical shape/form/geometry effects teh physical and he gave the example of shape of car affects its dynamic davntage or disadantage, ergo metaphysical( nothingness ) effects physical/energy( somethingnesss ). So here above, in the latter all prime numbers on either top or bottom scenario, makes the overall integral set of great cubes/circles bias this way of that way or spin this way or that way, or something that I'm not sure of yet. Can metaphysical numerical sequence, and prime numbers, cause mass-attraction ak gravity? There are plenty Universe mysteries still to discover, and this is my journey to attemt to help discover some answers to those mysteries. I have been so happy to see the inside-outed sine wave be so accomodating to so many of my beliefs regarding gravity, and root core set of 3's internal to the the spheroidal, integral set of great tubes. Gravity = outer convex membrane--- that we do not quantify or quantise --- Obseved reality = inner concave sine-wave set which we do quantify and and many case quantized. I dunno, and not sure that any one idndividual, or colletive set, has all the answers, yet. r6 Another thought regarding the numerical bias--- most primes L1 or L4 depending ---of the inside-outed sine-wave is that, perhaps, like entropy, the numerical sine-wave seeks to balance the numerical imbalance of prime numbers? The two-to-one ratio of more nodal-vertexial-events on L1{ 1 } L2{ 1 } and L4 and L3 is suffiecient for reprsentation of higher set of events on convex side as ultra-micro gravity membrane. Again it is why does mass attract? Can it be a numerical inbalance of primes to non-primes on L1 vs L4? So many mysteries stil not answered. Is this line of exploration crazy enough for someone like Feyman? Is too crazy for the likes of moderators here? I think probably so. Most people in general, are slow or not inclined to think outside the box of 'norm'. It is kinda of like the old sci-fi movies where the cowboys always want to shoot the aliens first and ask questions later. r6

The following is a continuation > of my original doodling 1994(?) > that led to my discovering that all primes-- except 2 and 3 ---. To better understand the sequence of this sine-wave evolution, and my latest resulatants here at top of page, it is best to start at bottom of page. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I see another sine-wave possibility based on 3's ergo triangulation i.e. 0, 3, 6, 9, 15, 18, 21, 24, and that is the inner concave aspect between top and bottom tubes ergo our observed reality may have a basic/root/core structure based on triangulated sine-wave pattern. Non-counting 0 and prime #3 initiate this inner-only, triangular wave pattern. L1--....1...........5....7.........11.....13...........17......19............23|...((25))...........29..((31))...........35.....37.............41 L2--0.................6.................12....................18....................|24......................30.....................36..................... ............3........3.......3........3..........3...........3..........3.........3.|.........3............3..........3...........3.........3........3 L3--..........3.................9...................15.....................21........|.............27.....................33....................39........... L4--......2.....4..........8.....10..........14....16............20......22....|.........26.....28.............32.....34...........38.....40....... Quarks( fermions ) come in 3's, 6's, 12's, 18's and 18 anti-quarks. Electrons( fermions ) and neutrinos( fermions ) come in 3's when considering mass ergo 6 types and 6 anti-electrons and neutrinos. Gluons( bosons )in 9's mathematically, tho 8 are a manifest or realized Weak force( bosons ) comes in 3's W-, W+, Zo Photons? Multiple frequencies ergo multiple energy values. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inside-outing of original numerical sine-wave ergo top and bottom tubes with gravity being associated with the blue outer convex side of each tube, ergo gravity has a 2 to 1 ratio, of close-packed, nodal-vertexial events, over our observed reality, as the inner concave aspect of each top and bottom tube. L1--....1...........5....7.........11.....13...........17......19............23|..((25))...........29..((31))...........35.....37.............41 L2--0.................6.................12....................18....................|24.....................30.....................36..................... L3--..........3.................9...................15....................21........|..............27.....................33....................39........... L4--......2.....4..........8.....10..........14....16............20......22....|.........26.....28.............32.....34...........38.....40....... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- L1--odd numbers and multiple primes and non-primes...asymmetrica l L2--even numbers and no primes.....symmetrical L3--odd numbers and one prime....symmetrical L4--even numbers and one prime.....asymmetrical ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interval spaces between numbers on each line/level L1.........3......1......3......1........3.......1........3........1..........3..........1........3.........1...asymmetrical L2.........5..............5................5................5.....................5...................5..............symmetrical L3.................5...............5...............5...................5......................5...................5...symmetrical L4.........1......3......1.......3.......1.......3..........1.......3............1........3.........1........3....asymmetrical ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Numerical prime line{ L1 } sine-wave pattern inside-outed L1--....1.........-5-....7.........11.....13...........17......19...........23|...((25))...........29..((31))...........35.....37..........41 L2--0.................6.................12....................18....................|24....................30.....................36.................... L3--..........3.................9...................15....................21.......|.............27.....................33....................39......... L4--......2.....4..........8.....10..........14....16............20......22...|........26.....28.............32.....34...........38.....40..... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original prime line{ L2 }, numerical sine-wave below---- also see EM-Radiation double sine-wave found in Vector Equlibrium hand held toy model, the 'jitterbug' as it also, folds into 4 appendage configuration for basic body plan for both cetacceans( mammals ) and fish L1--0..............6...............12................18.................|24................30................36............42...............|48 L2--...1........5...7..........11...13.........17...19..........23.|..((25))........29.((31))......35..37......41..43.......47|... L3--......2....4.........8...10........14...16..........20..22....|........26...28.........32..34......38..40.......44..46...|.... L4--.........3...............9...............15................21.......|...........27...............33...........39.............45......|.... To my suprise, around 1994(?), the mathematician Ian Stewart(?) replied to my magaine entries, from Oxford to let me know that he have never seen my 2D, hexgonal expression of the above, quasi-2D sine-wave, and that, the algibraic expression had been discoverd some 200 years ago. 6 * n + or -, 1 gives all numbers on the L2 prime line above. He suggested this pattern search would be fruitless.

Yeah, so if what is your point? Everything I've stated in not only factual truths, it is rational, logical common sensical, with perhaps a little specuation. If you or others cannot understand the relatively simple facts-- if not some speculation --then I believe, the problem lies with your or others various reaons and a morally intellectually integral response would be to address any comment by me that you do not understand, or you find to be invalid. Why somes initial reponse is ridicule, is more telling of a lack of morality, intellectual integrity, and unneccesarily mean. My experience is, that some here have and ego problem with truth, facts and intellectual integrity ergo they are like the poeple in the black and whitesci-fi movies from the 50's i.e; in response to me, you and others want to shoot-from-the-hip--- like an alledged good cowboy should ---and ask questions later, if ever. Sad :--( If and when, you have a question regarding ,my comments in my orginal post, that you do not understand--- apparrently most everybody who has replied so far --- or find to be invalid, then please address given commment specifically as stated, with your question or what you believe I've stated that is invalid. Those who want to generalize all of my comments as "fuller again", or not not mathematics, have and ego problem if not mental problem to grasp fairly obvious given facts/truths as stated by me. r6 Thx for your reasonable commments. You and me appear to be the only one here who know how to have civilized conversation. The minimal circle is a triangle--- ergo a finite set of points ---and I may have even stated that in the original post. "..." are texticonic represenation/expression of concept of infinite or infinite etc....never ending i.e. a non-terminating decimal point( infinite ). As best as I recall--- and understand ---physicists from some 70 years ago, could not make sense of infinities occurring in there data so the did a process called 'renormalization", so that, they could make rational sense of those infinite values occurring in their data. A perfect circle exists only as ,metaphysically abstract concept, just as infinite this or that is just a abstract concept. So I think we agree on that issue. My personal belief, is that, the only true infinite existence is that of non-occupied space, that exists beyond our finite occupied space we call Universe, and I believe there exists rational, logical common sense explanation to support that conclusion. I think there are some here that actually fear rational,logical and common sense thinking process, as it may mean they may have to drop their ego to accept a truth(s) they have not ever considered. I dunno. Who knows what thoughts lurk in the minds of those who only want to ridicule and not have rational, logical, common sense--- if not relatively simple ---set of ideas. So, if you have a question or intellectually considerate comments, in regards to my givens, as stated, please share. We are in the trash can of speculation, so I really do not understand some of the other persistence on ridicule being expressed here. Numbs/dulls the mind. imho r6 If you need something explained then you can ask. That is pretty simple and acceptably civilized behaviour, to best of my knowledge. "wrongly" is correct if are not willing to entertain the concept of synergetic application, tho those numbers, and that appears to be your and others problem.Hey fine by me, then move along and leave me and any may be inquistive, to further our knoledge base of information in these regards. Leave your ridicule elsewhere. You can address my comments as stated, and ask questions of what you don't understand. Lets see, what was the opening word finite 1.0? You do not understand that? Maybe it was 0.999...? You dont understand that? "Non-system" nad yes that would have been better stated as non-systemic. Either way you dont udnerstand that? How far do I have to go before I can find something I stated that you do not understand dude? Your being difficult, and my guess is it has to do wity your ego much more than my words as stated. imho When can address my comments, as stated, and have a question, or point out what invalid, then please do so. I've already made clear that the 1 + 1 = 4 is fact when used in synergetics conctext. You don't like mathematical truth, even in context of synergetics, then move along and take the moderator with you and let us decent people of a rational, logical, common sense-- if not relatively simple ---and ridicule free conversation. Please and thank you as were in the trash can of speculation to begin with so please give it a break already. Please and thank you. R6

Ditto my given statements to you before. When you have constructive and valid reply to my comments, as stated, please share. This is not a warning it is request for moral, intellectual integrity and respect. Not continued ridicule by you or other. If you cant understand English then you may need to start by getting your self a dictionary. r6

Mre of the same. Come back and talk to me when you have something constructive and valid to say. Not likely is my best guess. r6 There is more than just mathematics associated with Fullers synergetics in that post. Please come back and talk to me when you actually have something constructive and valid to say please. Not likely is my best guess. r6 "Problem"? You appear to have a "problem" with even having/entertaining the concept of perfect circle ergo you have a problem with infinite set of degrees also. Now if you want to get into defininning "degrees", then that may to lead to your problem with entertaining a concept of an infinite set of "points", as being some aspect of a perfect circle. Seems to me, the problem, is not one of having a presumption, just having concept your not willing consider, as stated. Why is that? What is it your afraid of, if you had concieve of such a concept in your mind? "quantum"? I dont recall my saying anything about a "quantum". You appear to be confused. If you were to just try adn address my comments as stated then perhaps you wil find clarity. All I've stated is a concept of perfect circle composed of infinite set of degrees. Not a circle out i my yard, or yours, or on the moon or wherever. Just and abstract concept. Nobody suggesting we build a perfect circle, of infnite set of degrees, out of trash laying around the cosmos. If any want to address my comments as stated, and leave all of there irrelevant mind games at home, then please do so. So far there does not appear to much intellectually integral response to my givens as stated. I think it has alot to do with ego, and fear of ego death if not fear of ego death in public place. I dunno. r6

You apparrently did not understand the part regarding "synergetically". If you don't know the answer to that one I can help you out with. It is not and algebraic answer tho, so you will need to think outside of the box. The correct answer has been around for at least 60 years so I'm suprised you nor the ridculing responder are familiar. It is does not take rocket science to figure this one out, just internet exploration. Still if you can't find the correct answer I will inform you. Thx for you attempt at correction, via an algebraic equation. I'm not getting replies in my emails so didn't know anyone had replied. Need to check my settings. r6

Expert ar ridicule it appears to me. We need that around here like we need another hole in our heads. Please Ccome back and talk to me when you actually have something contructively valid to say. Not likely is my best guess.

Metaphysical 000: not a space Mind/intellect ex abstract concepts whether relative truths or absolute truths( cosmic laws/principles ) exist beyond the quasi-physica( gravity )l and physical yet complementary to the quasi-physical( gravity ) and physical/energy( fermions and bosons other than gravity ). Not a space only concepts of space, spaciality/spatiality. ---Ilusionary(?)---line-of-demarcation---- Metaphysical 02: space Macro-micro infinite, non-occupied space, that exists beyond our finite, occupied space Universe. Metaphysical 3 space Ultra-micro, quasi-physical gravity occupies space and is the buffer-zone membrane/fabric/net between physical/energy( fermions and bosons other than gravity ). Physical/energy: space Finite, occupied space Universe, as fermions, bosons( other than gravity ) and any combination thereof. Following is a simplistic texticonix expression for inclusion of three aspects of space I list above; macro-out < ( IN > O < IN ) > macro-out < OUT > IN >< IN ( ) = gravity O = finite physical/energy Universe r6

Value 0.999... Non-system( infinite ) and non-integral aka the mathematiclly 'perfect', circle. In this 'perfect' sense, we do not have a finite set of 360 degrees, rather we have an iinfinite set of degrees 0.{n}.....and never resolving it self as complete, 2D whole. A similarly rational, logical and common sense thought process, applies also to a 3D sphere. ----the illusionary(?)----line-of-demarcation-------- Value 1.0 = Systemic( finite ) Integral The minimal, systemically integral, 3D( XYZ ) value 1 point, is a a finite tetra(4)hedron. The minimal, systemically integral, 2D value 1, is a finite, subdivided tri(3)angle, with a central( nucleated) nodal vertexial crossing/point. The minimal, systemically integral, (w)holistic phenomena, is composed of overlapping sets of radial( convergent and divergent ), and circumferential( precessional ) vectors( magnitude and direction ) as associated with geometrically visual or tactile,finite lines-of-relationships. With overlapping systems comes synergetic resultants ex in the following we have a red vector overlapping with blue vector to produce green vector. (--(--)--) (--(--)--). Via mathematics, we can say that, synergetically, 1 + 1 = 4, or 3 + 3 = 12. Via some experiences we can see that a systemically integral whole, is synergetically greater, than the sum of some of its parts. r6

I've addressed as bet I can eveyones concerns, repeatedly, there is nothing new here above to respond to and certainly does not meet the criteria of my two challenges. When you can do that please share. r6

Huh, your not making sense. I stated nothing about 'unicorns". I stated what may have been found in generalized sciences books then and now. Not only that but many times what was in generalized science books was incorrect then, incorrect now and will be incorrect in the future. You don't know that great circles are irrelevan to any sub-atomic particles. Your saying so is your belief, not evidence and not a scientific proof of no association between leptons and GrCP's. Next you apear to go into defining the number or attributes of the number 206. That is not what I have done with great circles adding to 206. I.e. defininng attributes of 206 is does not in anyway address my given challenge to others here. This is lame atttempt and in no way comparble to what Ive done. Then you go name sets of things there 206 and again, that is not what I have done so your attempt is again lame, at best, and certainly no way comparable to have I have done with the GrCP's, ergo it does not address the my given set of two challenges to others here. If you really think that bones( calcium plus ) are reprsentative of the asking and discovering why the electron repeats its mass at approximately 206 times itself, then your they should bemaking alot attempts at discouraging you from posting here in speculation catagory than me. The 25 GrCP's are derived from the cubo-octahedron/jittterbug and the jbug will transform into the a Eucliedean pattern that is exactly the same the EM double sine-wave, without violating the topology-- i,e no breakage or crossing over of the vectorial lines/struts/edges/trjectories. Based on you irrational, non-logic nonsense, you are likey next going to suggest to others, that, if we take some bones and place them into pattern of teh EM double-sine wave that bones again are associated with the structure of EM double-sine wave. I'm sorry dude, your bones are irrelevant to anything I've stated other than the number 206 appears in your post. Lame an that is the only nice thing can be said about your irrational approach to addressing my given challenges, i.e like the others you have nothing of significance to offer so instead of nothing you go the irrational deep end of nonsense. Lame. Please comeback when you actually have something that can even begin to be comparble to my givens. I'm sorry but there is no irrational nonsense catagory in this forum. Lame at best! R6 Huh, your barking at the moon is analogy of what you or others were doing. Sorry if you feel insulted. My intent to get you back on track and stop repeating what has been stated in so many ways from the very first reply. If you want to feel insulted well, I cant control peoples sensitivities i.e. I ve met people who wanted to punch me for looking at them. Barking at the moon over and over, is good analogy of what is happening. "tag team" insults you. Hey dude, thats how I feel on my end. Your insulted becuase I feel like I'm taking on 10 person tat-team. You try on my end for a while and see how you express yourself. There is not scientific process going on here, and sorry I've seen nothing in your comments that is somehow going to turn my speculations into "meaningfull scientifiv". When you have something that does that please share. repeated barking at the moon, same same ole is not benificial to me or others. When you or others actually have any scenario that addresses my two challenges with rational logic please share. Adding together linear set of arbitrary numbers is not comparable scenario, nor is the facts regarding that there 206 bones in the body as someone else lame attempt. 206 tooth picks in a box doesn't count either. I stated this just so we don't go off with another cadence of repeated barking at the moon with irrrational nonsense over and over. So the challenge still stands and nothing of any significance much less rational or logical has been offerrend and never will is my best guess. Please prove me incorrect. If you don't understand the concept of rounding higher or lower, then it will take someone with better explanatory abilities than mine to pentrate your surface mind/intelligence in those regards Sorry dude. I've already addresse this question twice. My last response too--- and I have no idea which member of this seeming tag-team that was ----, as I'm being overwhelmed on this end. Huh? if and when you want to actually explain why your given 3 * 3 23 is significant please share. I at least gave specifics of my methodolgy. Hopefully yours will be better than 206 bones, 206 toothpicks or even 207 of this or that.... ha ha...that other dude is extraordinarly lame with his approach, because he is insincere. Sincerity of heart is importantly quality to any forum and anything else is not worthy. Except nonserious humor. :--) r6

Because I was still going on older data from references to Feynman quotes. Feynman probaly made his comments some 50 years ago if not more. The last time I looked into this --- some years ago --- that was still the info I found to deal with so that is why I recently used 206. Ok so it is 206. rounded off to 207. Do you really want me to SPECULATE on how or why the 206 may be or may not neccesarilmy be critical,at this stage of my research? Again, there is strong backwash that is very discouraging to have me keep posting here at all, on my already given statements, much less go off and another one. I will look into 207 for sure. If you want to take on my given two challenges as stated, then good luck. Some body here said they posted a buch of random numbers that add to 206. I've not seen those, so I have no idea if they are in anyway significant or comparble ,my procedure or "methdology" as someone else infers. Thx for the new( to me ) info regarding 206 rounded to 207. Some one in another group mentioned it also, but again both came only after I had began posting the other value, which I'm not quick to jump off just yet. Consider that, 206.7 is not a complete set of 207 great circles. 206.7 is a little over half-way, and since there are not specialists in this area of expertize---- finding geometric to particle association ----then we are still left to that God awfull speculation catagory of non-science, although who knows what we may find in a generalized science book these days. Black holes? Are black holes in science books? Ok, if they are, then how many years have we had verification of such? Oh wait I forgot, einstien and his formulae preditct them. Darn, got myself there :--)) What about string theory, is that in generalized science book? Etc.... r6

1) Lets see, I seem to recall my first formal educational science book I can recall, was in 6th grade. It had a lot of different generalize and specific information in it, or so I presume. Planets, Earth or whatever the educational system considered science at that time. I don't recall geometry or leptons, although they perhaps made reference perhaps that stuff. Who can recall those kinds of details from 6th grade so many years later. Actually same goes for all of my generalized science classes and books on thorugh junior high. I personall think of anything having to do with how the Universe/Nature/Cosmos is structured, or blueprints or whatever to be in the realm of generalized sceince. My guess is that my belief is not that far off from the average person in and around my age group who is caucasion and went through the public school system. I dunno. 2) if you--- whoever you are ---gave me several gave me several random ways of arriving at 206, i'm sorry that I missed--- did NOT see them( sorry ) --- them because that may be exactly what was hoping for, tho again, I tried to be clear in opening post, not just some adding together of a linear set of arbitrary numbers that do not correlated to anything else, whereas my numbers correlate to specific sets of great circles, that, inturn correlate to specific set polyhedra symmetrical and asymmetrical polyehdra. Are the posts here numbered and if so, can you give me the number to your posts were you have all these random numbers that add to 206? Thx. Hopefully they will correlate to something significant, but I'm doubtfull that is the case. Sorry I missed them. I'm new to this forum and have not the foggiest idea of who I was replying too each time. It is like I'm in a wrestling match with tag-team of 10 or more people repeating similar stuff and not actually addressing the challenges I posted. So I hope you will address the 2nd challenge also. Thx r6 Huh,I hope you not serious. This sounds like more tag-team barking at moon irrationality. I'm sorry dude, if you dont know what the point of the thread is, then I'm not sure that your going back to my intial( #1 ) first post, will help you out much. If reading the first post does not give you the point, then it will take a far better explanatory person than myself to penetrated the surface of your mind/intelligence ha ha! r6

I did not state that it was true and Ive been clear that is speculaition. You don't know if my speculation is true or not. You nor any one else here, has offered any scenario that addresse my two challenges. It is getting difficult to keep track of these numerous tag-team-like responses, mostly whcih just keep where is the tests, it is not science etc.... Uh, yeah we got that covered in the very first reply to me. r6 r6

1) I've read a statment regarding that once and only once! and I replied in kind. Do I have to go and find my exact words to satisfy inference that I did not answer the "pertintent". 2) If it has been stated more than once in the same post, same poster or others I did not see the 2nd one. 3) what do want to hear, and how would that make any differrence to any of the concerns surrounding my challenge to you and others? 3a) any answer to the above is irrelevant to concerens of all of my other comments as stated. 3b) in regards to latter above, and 2ndary to irrelevance of any answer I give, is that, there is no one here who appears to be a great circles quasi-specialist other than myself. So if youor others cannot get past my my speculatory comments, to begin with, then there is absolute certainty that you or others can handle any answers to this 206 vs 206.8, so this is additional irrelevant addendum to add to the bottom of list of complaints. You nor anyone else has any better scenario to my two challenges. Nothing. Zip. Nada. r6 Sorry if my replies are out of sequence, as this forum is a little confusing and more so with so many posts and seemingly differrent people, so, i'm a little overwhelmed and doing the best I can to reply to each and every concern. Ir6

I stated repeatedly, that, I'm not offering a scientific fact that is testable in anyway, so yours or others continued asking for "verification" of my speculations is like a dog that keeps barking at the moon. Irrational, after a few repeated barks. Whats been rebuffed is exactly what I stated in the latter above. Like everyone else here, you have not one scenario that does what I have offerred to the group in arriving at the desired 206. If you haven't read in references to Feymans quotes making statements exactl or close to what I stated here, then you have not done nearly the amount of reading about Feynman that I have done in last 15 years or so. If you really believe there is no such references to those Feynaman quotes that I've seen for 15 or more years, then I can do the internet search for you, however, that inof itself does not make a hill of beans difference to the facts of my statements as given. r6

Ok so your afraid of soapboxing. I have never claimed toi have a testable anything, and specific stated I'm not aware of any.. I'm not arguing thy my comments were science. My statements may represent a truth regarding and association between leptons and geometry is all of expressed here and given a set of great circles that add to the desired 206. I've never seen anyone here or elsewhere offer any scenario that does so. I challenged others to show us any such scenario regarind that the 206 and the directly related cubo-octahedron/jitterbug as the most cosmicall comprehensive model that that is toy-like and can be hand held by a child to know so manty configurations of exotic shapes of our cosmos. I think your afraid of having nothing to offer that in any way approachs a scenario or model that does as much as the two I offerred. If you or other did have something, you would have offered such instead of ignoring my specific challenge as stated. I've not stated what I've offered that it is true, rather I stated, that because I dont have a testable procedure at this time does not make my givens invalid and certainly NOT and invalid approach to finding the truth. Why adding together specifically defined great circle planes of such a concern to others here, seems to me to have more to do with intellectual competition rather than soapboxing. i dunno. r6 The obvious rapid response to condem my comments as not worthy of this forums speculation/trash catagory, the suggestions to go to another philosophical forum, when there is a philosphical catagory in this forum, the repeated asking for test or how this is science when I've never claimed either and specific stated no known tests ergo not scienfic in that way. Nature is full of paterns. If your afraid to look for patterns in mathematics that may have and association with nature--- and specifically the nature of electron and muon electron ---then that appears to me to be a another type of fear on your part. I stated in first if not subsequent posts why 206. I will repeat here again, because for many years I've read of references to Feynman quotes of him and others of his generation having certain numbers on the walls of there office/cubicle and that they all had done all manner of number pattern searches to arrive at the desired 206. And I'm sure he was not refering to simple arbitrary linear additon of numbers only with out there having any correlation to anything else ergo pure numerology, which I repeat, I am not doing. This is the speculation/trash catagory, and my to move along was in regards to those who were stating it is not interesting. If not interesting then move along. Why the great fear of finding a mathematically geometric association to leptons is mind boggling to me in group that is infers it is interested in science. Science is word dealing with a process to verify what is many times obvious if not obviously true to many. Again, I think there is intellectual fear of my offering something that others have nothing comparble to counter with, other than their repeated claims of it is not testable, offers no preditions ergo is it totally void of having any validity in anyway. Except that you or others have never seen anyone else offer a scenario that does find the desired 206 mass differrence ergo no one else can meet my two challenges that are directly related to each other. Yeah, I offer something in the speculative/trash catagory that no one else has ever seen offered by anyone else on this planet that connects the desired 206 with specific sets of great circle planes of specific polyhedral patterns and all you and others want to do is throw the bum out. I think there is a fear on the parts of others here and that is why there is such opposition to my givens as stated. r6 Fullerscosmicallu comprehensive jittebug is directly related to the 25 great circles yet it was 2ndary aside to my primary( 1st ) challenge of others to show me any other scenario that arrives at the desired 206 mass differrence between electron and muon electron. "useful methodology" is the first moderation I've seen here. Yea!! Someone who allows for methodology even if not a testable scientific procedure. Yea!! I would be more than happy to explain the cosmic comprehensive attributes of Fulers OS-jitterbug, if were going to actually be allowed to have a rational, logical and if not methdological conversation in those regards. My first post did present my case for the primary challenge to others here. The OS-jitterbug challenge was 2ndary and I do realize will take require more explanation for those who have no idea what a OS-jitterbug is, even tho I did post a link to a graphic of it--- as related to an octahedron ---in my initial post here. Again, I stand by both of my challenges--- here in the speculative/trash cataory ---and be more than happy to give more explanation of OS-jubugs comprehensive set of exotic configurations, provided I'm allowed to do so, with the understanding that you or at least someone of authority condones such a disscussion--- or is soapboxing ---to occur, without jumping all over my case about how it is not science, it is not testable etc..... My challenge to have any others show as much or more correlation between mathematical patterns and the desiref 206, and, to show a more cosmic comprehensive model of so many exotic and non-exotic configurations with a relatively simple, toy-like hand-held model stands.. TheEuclidean, OS-jitterbug/VE list of configurations; 1) 3D and valenced parts/vectors contracted as 2D expression, 2) spherical OS-jitterbugs outer surface area equal to the internal, four bisecting great planes area that define it( see black hole event horsion expression of what is inside black hole ), an Archimedes discovery, 3) ability to contract( infold )-expand( out-fold ), torque/twist left or right--- ergo a potential pos-neg relationship --- spin, inside-out, 4) transforms to quasi-icosahedral structure, 5) double-valenced octahedral structure( see doubleness relations to octahedron ), 6) quasi-2-frequency tetrahedron( precursor too EMdouble sine-wave set ) 7) quadra-valenced tetrahedron( left and right verisons ) 8) octa-valenced triangle( left and right versions ) 9) saddle-shape neg-postive curvature( Euclidean ), 10) octagonal,quasi-2D, rippled-wave structure( ripple-in-spacetime ), --likened to clam shell rippling --- 11) hexagon with a 7th triangle set that remains perpendicular to 2D hexagon as finger waving( screw you ) to 2D, as refusal to collapse to irrational heptagon, 12) two rhombic precursor too the following EM double sine-wave set, ...this double rhombic set I believe is the root cosmic blueprint for a cetacceans that have there tw side fins parrallel to there tail flukes... 13) EM double-sine wave set( precursor to root cosmic blueprint for all fish that have their tail fin perpdencular to their sid fins ), 14) a quasi-double octahedral tube. So that is the list of configurations off the top of my head. There are more but more complicated to explain with simple text format. Most if not all of the above can occur from four differrent axial set contraction expansion, and left-right version of each as performed from each of the four axi tranformation beginnings. 15( cubo-octhaedron intertransformative system( OS ) 12-around-1 equal radius spheres whereas the icosahedron structure( see geodesic dome ) is 12-around-0 spheres. There is more to life and Unierse than meets the eye, but the eye leads us to inquery it is where looking at. I'm just a naive cosmic explorer r6

Agreed, So what is your afraid of? First of all typically classical numerology is not what I'm doing, so i think your mistaken, and really have do not understand what true numerology is, 2nd, I'm not aware of any so called "numerology" that incorporates great circle palnes or tubes in their processes, 3rd, as i stated in my opening statement, I challenge others to offer us any combination of things that add to 206, so as to give some rationall logical approach as I have done.. You nor anyone else certainly has not offered anything in that respect, 4th, my other challenge, that is very much related to the above, is that of a toy-like, hand held model that does more to show more exotic configurations of shapes/patterns associated with our knowns and osbervations of all scales of existence within our finite Universe ergo more comprehesnively wholistic mode the has earned the title of operating system of Universe, And on that latter count you again have nothing to offer us. Fullers jitterbug wil out perform any toy-liek hand held model you have--- or more precisely don't have ----or that you or others will ever get. imho. This latter is what I think it is what a few here are really afraid of,and that is something is actually more intellectual comprehensive on a cosmic scale, that can be hand-held and understood by a 10 year old. I will be overjoyed if you or any others here have anything more significant to offer us, than these two I've now mentioned in two posts is ignored because others can not meet the challenge head on, becuase they have nothing even nearly comparable in either of these catagorical challenges I've presented. Put forth your models and less compare their attributes, or move along is what I suggest, as I' in the speculative trash catagory already, so what is it others don't have or afraid to admit they don't have? r6 r6 Perhaps but neccessarily. I think you too are too quick to dismiss. This is the speculation catagory and others suggested philosophy and there is a philosophy catagory. I think the fear here is that others to do not have any intellectual scenarios are models that can begin to come close to what I'm offerring with my two challenges i.e. others have nothing intellectually comparable eergo their ego says get thid dude speculation/trash catagory. Typical/classical numerology has nothing to do with great circles, polyhedra, polygons. When you can learn the differrence then pehaps we can have rational conversation and you can begin to address those two challenges, if your not afraid to admit that you have nothing comparble in regards to my two challenges. Better to move r6 out of speculative/tash and out of forum and save intellectual face. My best guess to this attitude in the speculative/trash catagory. It mus really be tough to impossible to speculate in the philosophy catagory ha ha. r6

First of all I never claimed my comments were science; 2ndly if your or others are not interested then move along; 3rd, I'm fully aware of the scientific method being testable predictions, and i'm also aware their is more than one to arrive a sceintific method, testing predictions etc... 4th, this may be be "primarily science" forum yet you appear quick to send me away to a philosopy forum when there is catagory of for philsophy within this forum. Maybe you just forgot. Maybe you have some other reasons to send me out of this forum. Actually, this catagory is marked as 'speculation' so again, I'm not sure why there is the apparent urgency to send me out of this forum, unless there is some reason on you or others part that has nothing to do with comments. It ppears your afraid of something I have said or might say in future. I dunno. r6

Ok, "as far as I can tell". Will try to remmeber that ACRONYM Electron to muon electron because I've read references to Feynman quotes over the years that is one of two questions that Feynman and others like him from that generation had on their walls of their office/cubicle. Why does the electron repeat itself as the specific mass ego that specific number or at least that is a rounded off apprxoimation fo the actual more irrational number. Some years back I did also explore the tau electron mass differrence in relation to muon electron and electron and I may do that again, now that I've stumbled onto this great circle application/procedure. Here is another way to view these 8 sets ofthe 4-fold, 25 great circles plus the set of 6--- congruent set of 3 ---. 3, 4, 6, 12 3, 4, 6, 12 3, 4, 6, 12 3, 4, 6, 12 3, 4, 6, 12 3, 4, 6, 12 3, 4, 6, 12 3, 4, 6, 12 6 ----------------- Here above the latter 6 is the double-valenced--- i.e.congruent to whatever degree ----and depending on how the 8 sets of 25 GrCP's are actually configured to each other, we may say that they they are congruent also ergo we could add those numbers together to create a more simple one liner expression; 24, 32, 48, 96 6 ------------- Here above we have simplifed and presumed the 8 sets of great circles or great circle planes to be exactly or nearly congruent with each other, so expressed as a one liner representation + the double-valenced set of 3 as 6. We could not simplify and attain the most accurate representation of all gruent circles and/or planes by adding the double-valenced 6 to its 5 sets of 3; 30, 32, 48, 96 = 206 30 > octahedron 32 > duo-tetrahedral cube 48 > cubo-octahedron aka Vector Equlibrium( Synergetics ) 96 > rhombic-dodecahedron(?) So in regards to this above, my personal geometric standard model, associates aspects of octaehedron with the electron Most of Fullers Synergetics involves geometric facts/truths. Again, geometric facts/truths may not be realized by mainstream i.e. may remain an eccentric mathmatical catagory for many years to come. If humans were to ever find a geometry that proves to equate to a specific quantum particle, then my guess is, that geometry would advance more rapidly into the mainstream. Lee Smolin predicted that humans would quantify gravity via geometry by around/approximately the year 2014-2017 if I recall his statements correctly from some 13 or so years ago. He is probably being to optimistic has always been my best guess. r6 "Science" is word created by humans. Universe has existed eternally and that would appear to me, to mean that the facts/truths of Universe existed before humans on Earth, ergo before humans invention of the word science, and before human testing of anything humans have conceived of in their mind/intellect. I.e. because I nor anyone else has a specific scientific test, for their idea at this time, does not mean that their idea is invalid, not truth/fact. Another way to state the obvious above, the truth/facts exist irrespective of human activity and for cosmic truths/facts--- cosmic generalized laws/principles --that goes double. Hey maybe thats another double-valenced--- congruent ---set. Ha, just kidding :--) r6

..."Critical Path: Speculative Pre-History of Humanity"...R.B.Fuller .."Synergetics 1 & 2" Geometrical Explorations"..."' "" .."Hyperspace"...M. Kaku ..."Nine Princes of Amber"...R. Zelazny ..." Jack of Shadows"...R.Zelazny .."Dogs Eat Wolves"...M. Cruz r6