206. Mass Electron vs Muon Electron

[cixe]

Regarding great circle planes( GrCP's )--- i.e. axi of great tubes imho ---I've arrived at two possible scenarios that add to the desired 206 mass differrence between the electron and the muon electron.

(8 * 25 ) + 6 = 206

I like/prefer this option above, because, it allows for only using the GrCP's of 3-fold and 4-fold polyhedral systems and not the 5/phi-fold.

450.11A 25 GRCs

ergo, this means that were using the VE/cubo-OCTAHEDRON,and that we're in the neighbor hood of my considerations of an electron particles association with the OCTAHEDRON and specifically the its 3-GrCPS, that are found in the contracted VE/jittebug cubo-octahedron ergo double-valenced as 6 GrCP's.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...s04/p6000.html

3, 4, 6, 12 = set of 25 GrCP's

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...gs/f5011a.html

So, we may say that we have 8 sets of the above 25 GrCP's + 6 GrCP's and that may be the only actually set that is double-valenced.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...gs/f5011a.html

I know this all appears somewhat adhoc, but then again, if others have any other ways of arriving at the desired 206 then please share them. Not likely any have any solutions.

This approach is the only scenarios I've ever seen that works. In some ways it is like my questioning in many groups-- and couple of forums --- for years, that, if any others know of any toy-like, hand held models, that will present/express more cosmologically exotic shapes/confgiurations, than the VE/jitterbug/cubo-octahedron, then please share.

 

Fullers discovery of the jitterbug is the Euclidean basis for a relatively simple Operating System of Universe( OSU ).

In ten years, none have ever offered anything else for the latter above, and now I'm offering this new challenge to others here at Sf(n), to present any way of arriving at the desired 206 mass differrence between electron and muon electron, that, have significant correlations to geometry or whatever,

 

and is not just a summing arbitrary sets of numbers to 206.

 

Cixe/r6

The mass of muon electron is approximately 206 times that of the electron. Below is two ways of adding together great circles to arrive at the desired 206 or come close to 206.

 

(7 * 25) + 31 = 206
..31 being the 31 GrCP's of the 5/phi-fold icosahedron

(8 * 25 ) + 6 =206
...could be 4-fold, 6-GrCPs or 5/phi-fold, 6-GrCP's...

I believe the electron is associated with the 4-fold octahedron's, double-valenced set of 3 GrCPS' but neither 3 nor 6 evenly divide into 206

206 / 3 = 68.66 66 66

206 / 6 = 34. 33 33 33.

206 / 9 = 28.88 88 88

206 / 27 = 7.62 96 29
..3^3 = 27....

206 / 81 = 2.54 32 09 87
..3^4 = 81.....

[swansont]

Great circle planes? You are starting from a point that is not mainstream, AFAICT. How about getting the foundation solid before you build upwards?

 

In any event: how does one test your model?

[Endy0816]

Why would you compare the two?

 

 

Fuller's Synergistics isn't widely accepted, which will likely be a stumbling block here...

[cixe]

Great circle planes? You are starting from a point that is not mainstream, AFAICT. How about getting the foundation solid before you build upwards?

 

In any event: how does one test your model?

I gave at least one link that graphically shows great circle planes. If you cannot figure out what a great circle plane is or how to conceptually create one, then I can help you figure it out via one of the links in my post plus others if need be.

 

I dunno what AFAICT is. Is that a mainstream term? Do you have a mainstream dictionary with that acroynym or whatever it is?

 

I'm not sure what foundation your talking about. If there is a word or sentence you don't understand I can try and help you.

 

I'm not aware of any tests invovling any of my comments as stated.

 

r6

Why would you compare the two?

 

 

Fuller's Synergistics isn't widely accepted, which will likely be a stumbling block here...

Why would I compare what two? I missing some part of thoughts above.

 

If you mean by "not widely accepted" you meang eometry is not mainstream, then you may be correct. I know my last formal education of geometry was in 9th grade. Many people may not understand geometric terms like triangle, polygon, sphere/spherical, octahedron, polyhedron.

 

Many people avoid math like it was a disease and I must admit to be very dense in the brain when it comes to mathematics. I guess that is why I like geometrical math because teh visual part doesn't require all those complex fourmale of algebra etc...

 

most of that goes way over my head, tho I have have learned some simple algebra stuff along the way in doing my geometric explorations and ponderings of their specific numerical sets as potentially related to all aspects of our cosmos. imho.

 

I.e. my personal pursuit of theory of everything via relatively simple geometric pursuits. imho

 

r6

[Endy0816]

AFAICT = As far as I can tell

 

 

Why would I compare what two? I missing some part of thoughts above.

 

If you mean by "not widely accepted" you meang eometry is not mainstream, then you may be correct. I know my last formal education of geometry was in 9th grade. Many people may not understand geometric terms like triangle, polygon, sphere/spherical, octahedron, polyhedron.

 

Many people avoid math like it was a disease and I must admit to be very dense in the brain when it comes to mathematics. I guess that is why I like geometrical math because teh visual part doesn't require all those complex fourmale of algebra etc...

 

most of that goes way over my head, tho I have have learned some simple algebra stuff along the way in doing my geometric explorations and ponderings of their specific numerical sets as potentially related to all aspects of our cosmos. imho.

 

I.e. my personal pursuit of theory of everything via relatively simple geometric pursuits. imho

 

r6

 

 

I mean in general why compare an electron to a muon instead of the tau?

 

 

Fuller came up with or popularized a number of novel concepts, many in widespread use today, but he was still fairly eccentric. If his writings give you additional insight, all the better, but most will be approaching a given problem from a different direction.

[swansont]

I gave at least one link that graphically shows great circle planes. If you cannot figure out what a great circle plane is or how to conceptually create one, then I can help you figure it out via one of the links in my post plus others if need be.

I know what a great circle is. I don't see how it applies to establishing the mass of any particle, or that there is any reason to think it is related.

 

I dunno what AFAICT is. Is that a mainstream term? Do you have a mainstream dictionary with that acroynym or whatever it is?

As Far As I Can Tell

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/8923-common-acronyms/

 

I'm not aware of any tests invovling any of my comments as stated.

Then what does this have to do with science?

[cixe]

AFAICT = As far as I can tell

 

I mean in general why compare an electron to a muon instead of the tau?

 

Fuller came up with or popularized a number of novel concepts, many in widespread use today, but he was still fairly eccentric. If his writings give you additional insight, all the better, but most will be approaching a given problem from a different direction.

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

I know what a great circle is. I don't see how it applies to establishing the mass of any particle, or that there is any reason to think it is related.

 

As Far As I Can Tell

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/8923-common-acronyms/

 

Then what does this have to do with science?

"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

Edited September 24, 2013 by cixe

[Bignose]

"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.

Sure, but this is forum primarily on the subject of science. Science as it means today is almost wholly accurate prediction of phenomena. It is the process of formulating an idea AND THEN using that idea to make predictions AND THEN checking those predictions against what is actually observed. Note that those are 'AND's, not 'OR's. Almost always, it is loop; after comparing the prediction and the observation, usually one then modifies the idea and repeats.

 

If all you want to talk about is truths, this is primarily the domain of philosophy.

 

Without predictions and comparisons to those predictions (synonymously referred to above as testing the idea), it really isn't all that interesting scientifically. This is why you were asked about testing the idea. The point being two fold: firstly, if you can't make predictions using the idea, then again it is uninteresting scientifically. It may be interesting story telling, but it isn't science. Secondly, if you can't make predictions using it, how do you ever check if it is correct or not? Without the loop of comparing prediction and observation, the idea doesn't have any validation. That is, if the idea leads to a really poor prediction, then that acts as a check on the idea and tells you that this idea isn't right.

 

If you want to talk about truths scientifically, then the prediction and comparison to measurement steps are essential. That is how science gets to 'truths', with the implicit understanding that if someday an idea comes along that makes even better predictions that what was 'truth' will be replaced by a new 'truth'. This is part of the reason that science doesn't like to use the word 'truth'. Because science recognizes that any idea may someday be replaced by an even better idea.

 

Lastly, please note I am not disparaging you or your idea here. Just trying to explain why the attitude above won't really be embraced on a forum dedicated to science. You may find a metaphysics-type forum more welcoming.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Bignose

[swansont]

 

"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.

 

 

Not, it doesn't. But neither do we know that it's true. So how do we confirm that it's true? We need some tests. That's how we do science, and this is a science discussion site. Numerology or something similar is not pertinent.

[cixe]

Sure, but this is forum primarily on the subject of science. Science as it means today is almost wholly accurate prediction of phenomena. It is the process of formulating an idea AND THEN using that idea to make predictions AND THEN checking those predictions against what is actually observed. Note that those are 'AND's, not 'OR's. Almost always, it is loop; after comparing the prediction and the observation, usually one then modifies the idea and repeats.

 

If all you want to talk about is truths, this is primarily the domain of philosophy.

 

Without predictions and comparisons to those predictions (synonymously referred to above as testing the idea), it really isn't all that interesting scientifically. This is why you were asked about testing the idea. The point being two fold: firstly, if you can't make predictions using the idea, then again it is uninteresting scientifically. It may be interesting story telling, but it isn't science. Secondly, if you can't make predictions using it, how do you ever check if it is correct or not? Without the loop of comparing prediction and observation, the idea doesn't have any validation. That is, if the idea leads to a really poor prediction, then that acts as a check on the idea and tells you that this idea isn't right.

 

If you want to talk about truths scientifically, then the prediction and comparison to measurement steps are essential. That is how science gets to 'truths', with the implicit understanding that if someday an idea comes along that makes even better predictions that what was 'truth' will be replaced by a new 'truth'. This is part of the reason that science doesn't like to use the word 'truth'. Because science recognizes that any idea may someday be replaced by an even better idea.

 

Lastly, please note I am not disparaging you or your idea here. Just trying to explain why the attitude above won't really be embraced on a forum dedicated to science. You may find a metaphysics-type forum more welcoming.

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

[Strange]

Regarding great circle planes( GrCP's )--- i.e. axi of great tubes imho ---I've arrived at two possible scenarios that add to the desired 206 mass differrence between the electron and the muon electron.

 

Except the mass ratio is closer to to 207 than 206. Which makes your post meaningless as well as just random numerology.

 

As this is a science site, here is a reference: http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mmusme

Edited September 24, 2013 by Strange

[cixe]

 

Not, it doesn't. But neither do we know that it's true. So how do we confirm that it's true? We need some tests. That's how we do science, and this is a science discussion site. Numerology or something similar is not pertinent.

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

 

Except the mass ratio is closer to to 207 than 206. Which makes your post meaningless as well as just random numerology.

 

As this is a science site, here is a reference: http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mmusme

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

[Bignose]

It ppears your afraid of something I have said or might say in future. I dunno.

No. You've almost completely misinterpreted what I wrote. I shall try to be more direct.

 

You can sit there and pontificate about octohedrons, great circles, and electrons all you want. But if you cannot turn that pontification into testable predictions, then is isn't science. Period. End of story. It is story telling.

 

You say you seek "truth", but if you can't test it and make sure that its predictions are accurate, how exactly do justify calling it "truth"?

 

At one time, it seemed "truthful" to claim the earth was flat. At one time, it seemed "truthful" to claim the moon was made of green cheese. At one time, it seemed "truthful" to claim heat was a fluid call phlogiston. We have learned that just because something seems truthful (or logical, or aesthetically pleasing, or any of many similar adjectives), it doesn't make it so.

 

Truth-iness alone is scientifically meaningless. I wrote the above and my previous post in an attempt to urge you to think about how to turn your idea into something scientifically meaningful. And silly me, I thought you were posting on this forum for feedback, and I was providing my feedback. If you were just posting to post, you are free to start your own blog. A forum involves replies back and forth. And maybe, most importantly, you should read the rules of this forum before you post here. The rules require you provide evidence for your ideas -- yes even here in the speculations section. In other words, the rules do not allow soapboxing.

 

So, what are the odds you can provide some? You don't get to just claim your words are "truth". You need to provide as least some smidgen of evidence or support.

[Endy0816]

I recommend starting over at the beginning. Explain how Fuller's jitterbug is supposed to work and maybe we can find some equivalencies.

 

If it is part of a useful methodology I would like to know. I'm just not going to go out of my way to understand an alternative method if I already have a valid one at hand. I can't imagine most people are any different.

 

 

Try and just present your case. If you start crusading against "injustice" you are just going to get banned and none of the mod's will lose any sleep over it.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Endy0816

[swansont]

Agreed, So what is your afraid of?

 

How do you reach the conclusion that fear is involved here?

 

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,

I said numerology or something similar. Simply looking for patterns with no regard for an underlying physical basis.

 

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,

I am asking why anything has to add to 206 in the first place, i.e. asking you to justify that this approach has any meaning, instead of just assuming that it does. I "offer" nothing except the chance to keep this thread open by tying this into some kind of scientific inquiry.

 

 

First of all I never claimed my comments were science;

 

2ndly if your or others are not interested then move along;

On the contrary, if you are not interesting in posting science, then it is you who should move along. This is not your blog where you may post anything you wish. This is a discussion forum, and this is in a section where we discuss (speculative) science. If you are not up to the task of following the rules, then the thread will be locked.

[cixe]

No. You've almost completely misinterpreted what I wrote. I shall try to be more direct.

 

You can sit there and pontificate about octohedrons, great circles, and electrons all you want. But if you cannot turn that pontification into testable predictions, then is isn't science. Period. End of story. It is story telling.

 

You say you seek "truth", but if you can't test it and make sure that its predictions are accurate, how exactly do justify calling it "truth"?

 

At one time, it seemed "truthful" to claim the earth was flat. At one time, it seemed "truthful" to claim the moon was made of green cheese. At one time, it seemed "truthful" to claim heat was a fluid call phlogiston. We have learned that just because something seems truthful (or logical, or aesthetically pleasing, or any of many similar adjectives), it doesn't make it so.

 

Truth-iness alone is scientifically meaningless. I wrote the above and my previous post in an attempt to urge you to think about how to turn your idea into something scientifically meaningful. And silly me, I thought you were posting on this forum for feedback, and I was providing my feedback. If you were just posting to post, you are free to start your own blog. A forum involves replies back and forth. And maybe, most importantly, you should read the rules of this forum before you post here. The rules require you provide evidence for your ideas -- yes even here in the speculations section. In other words, the rules do not allow soapboxing.

 

So, what are the odds you can provide some? You don't get to just claim your words are "truth". You need to provide as least some smidgen of evidence or support.

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

 

How do you reach the conclusion that fear is involved here?

 

I said numerology or something similar. Simply looking for patterns with no regard for an underlying physical basis.

 

I am asking why anything has to add to 206 in the first place, i.e. asking you to justify that this approach has any meaning, instead of just assuming that it does. I "offer" nothing except the chance to keep this thread open by tying this into some kind of scientific inquiry.

 

 

On the contrary, if you are not interesting in posting science, then it is you who should move along. This is not your blog where you may post anything you wish. This is a discussion forum, and this is in a section where we discuss (speculative) science. If you are not up to the task of following the rules, then the thread will be locked.

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

I recommend starting over at the beginning. Explain how Fuller's jitterbug is supposed to work and maybe we can find some equivalencies.

 

If it is part of a useful methodology I would like to know. I'm just not going to go out of my way to understand an alternative method if I already have a valid one at hand. I can't imagine most people are any different.

 

 

Try and just present your case. If you start crusading against "injustice" you are just going to get banned and none of the mod's will lose any sleep over it.

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

[Phi for All]

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.

 

!

Moderator Note

Please take the time to read the rules of the Speculation forum. This may explain why requests for evidence seem "urgent".

[swansont]

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.

Soapboxing is also against the rules.

 

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.

This is not the trash subforum. If it was, you could not post. This is speculations, and there are rules even for speculations. It must, in some way, be a topic that can be addressed as science. If it's not, the it's true, as other(s) have suggested, a possible place is in philosophy.

 

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.

Science does more than look for patterns, though. It looks for a mechanism that generates the pattern. The Pashen, Lyman, Balmer (etc.) spectra series in hydrogen were patterns. It took quantum theory to explain the pattern, and that's where the actual science is.

 

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.

I would be interested in those quotes, because I am not convinced that they were not taken out of context or otherwise misinterpreted.

 

 

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.

It is mind boggling to me that you ascribe asking you to support your assertions to fear, and not to the normal process of doing science.

 

Science is word dealing with a process to verify what is many times obvious if not obviously true to many.

Yes, verification is key. You have been asked for ways your idea can be verified, and those asking have been rebuffed.

[Bignose]

I think your afraid of...

As was asked above, I'm not sure where you get any sense of fear from, because that isn't it. Not sure why you think this has to be so confrontational...

 

Let me put it this way. I don't accept just your word that anything you've written is correct or 'truth' without evidence presented that supports the correctness.

 

This is in no way personal. This is true for everyone. If Newton, Einstein, Hawking, swansont, or my barber simply told me what was in your first post, I would still ask them for evidence to support it, what predictions can be made with the idea, and how closely those predictions match experiments.

 

Science does this to everyone. In this way, science is very conservative. It is conservative that until a new model comes along and makes better predictions, science will stick with the previous model. Because there is no reason to replace a model that is making good predictions with a model that makes worse predictions. And science will be skeptical of all claims until evidence is presented to support that claim. (Look, as a farcical example, you wouldn't just believe me if I claimed to have an invisible dinosaur living in my garage, would you? Before you believed that, wouldn't you need some supporting evidence? I would hope so...)

 

This does not mean that science isn't seeking new ideas. Because it is. Creativity like what you've shown above is needed. Craved. But the creative part is only one step in the scientific process. The next step is to take the creative model and show how it makes useful predictions. That's science. That's what I'm urging you to present.

 

No fear here whatsoever. Just a skeptic that isn't going to simply take your word that what you've posted is truth. Because before I accept it as truth, I need you to show how well your model can be tested. It really is that simple.

[Strange]

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.

So you are just ignoring the fact that the value you are trying to calculate is not 206? It is not even an integer.

 

Please show how your method calculates the value 206.7682843.

Other ways of coming up with 206?

 

It is the lowest positive integer (when written in English) to employ all of the vowels once only.

 

There are exactly 206 different linear forests on five labeled nodes, and exactly 206 regular semigroups of order four up to isomorphism and anti-isomorphism.

 

There are 206 bones in the typical adult human body.

 

It is (mass of muon) / (mass of electron) - 1.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

cixe

You have now been asked this very pertinent question twice. Please at least attempt an answer

So you are just ignoring the fact that the value you are trying to calculate is not 206? It is not even an integer.

Please show how your method calculates the value 206.7682843....

 

[cixe]

Soapboxing is also against the rules.

 

 

This is not the trash subforum. If it was, you could not post. This is speculations, and there are rules even for speculations. It must, in some way, be a topic that can be addressed as science. If it's not, the it's true, as other(s) have suggested, a possible place is in philosophy.

 

 

Science does more than look for patterns, though. It looks for a mechanism that generates the pattern. The Pashen, Lyman, Balmer (etc.) spectra series in hydrogen were patterns. It took quantum theory to explain the pattern, and that's where the actual science is.

 

 

I would be interested in those quotes, because I am not convinced that they were not taken out of context or otherwise misinterpreted.

 

 

 

It is mind boggling to me that you ascribe asking you to support your assertions to fear, and not to the normal process of doing science.

 

 

Yes, verification is key. You have been asked for ways your idea can be verified, and those asking have been rebuffed.

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

[Strange]

I stated repeatedly, that, I'm not offering a scientific fact that is testable in anyway

So why are you presenting it on a science forum?

 

 

Like everyone else here, you have not one scenario that does what I have offerred to the group in arriving at the desired 206.

I gave you several random ways of arriving at 206.

 

But the value you actually want is closer to 207.

[cixe]

!

Moderator Note

 

cixe

You have now been asked this very pertinent question twice. Please at least attempt an answer

 

 

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

 

!

Moderator Note

Please take the time to read the rules of the Speculation forum. This may explain why requests for evidence seem "urgent".

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

[Strange]

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".

 

Your answer to my comment that you are calculating the wrong value was to say:

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.

 

Why are you not calculating 207, which is a closer integer approximation?

 

Better still, why are you not calculating the correct value?