I recently posted a lot of material in rough state illustrating some of way of understanding relationship between maths and physics.
Please try and understand the following excerpt (with many philosophical comments omitted in this sample):
In "The Force Of Symmetry" by Vincent Icke; page 217: Van de Waals is described as it looks to me say about "question of: where?":
More or less quoting the book say:
"electrons : more likely to be found in same region if they have opposite spin;
whereas same-spin polarity electrons avoid occupying the same region of space."
Translate: calling "electrons": "modifications" of an idea: more likely to be found in the same region (to have the same base for different viewpoints) if they have opposite spin (if they are different spins on the same base).
Of course: by definition; if you count cycles of this circular loop; the effect of number-ambiguity will give you a frequency of "more likely" when you look for your definitions of "electron", "spin", "opposite", "same", and "region" in your number haystack!
Similarly: same-spin polarity electrons, as call these: "generalisation perspectives" or "modification possibilities of an idea"; will avoid occupying the same "space in a discussion" because by definition if you can see TWO of these "same spins on an argument" they must be "not quite the same" or you couldn't identify two of them (so they avoid occupying the same region of space).
When have a lot of numbers and you look for your definitions; you get the frequency pattern as the book says; due to the density effect on the collection of numbers of the pattern arrangements you are looking for.
This seems to be like what Dr. Stafford found; but given that in the beginning "what is "1,1" about in "2"? With two meeting in freedom: any sharing of what each one has is not defined here. So physics laws appear to be generated by math-counting assumptions of equal-spacing of numbers; beyond this when two meet their very move may be like a new law of physics.
From the outside an onlooker might see what look maybe? like say conserved laws relative their own conserved interaction; but that interaction is really a unique law also. Anything seems possible; counting may generate impressions of restrictions that are self-generated "Zeno's Arrow-like" imaginary limits or something?
Reality appears so free, how even comment one might start to wonder? Can create, can discuss. Can comment but voluntary not restricting say (up to you; two sides possibility to any discussion say).
"Shift in position of electrons distorts perfect electric shielding of atomic nuclei by their attendant electrons."
Translate: shift position of modifications of an idea, can distort perfect modification-shielding of nucleus of debate by attendant modifying viewpoints say.
Well that's like if you shift-base slightly in your presentation to a discussion; you will perturb the other viewpoints (mix slightl;y with them, so reduce their shielding of the topic because you are seeing things partly from their perspective). When apply this to numbers, by definition you get this pattern in cycles of counting. Physics bound by maths; but in reality much more free: every move a new math, a new 1+1 meet; a new physics possible.
Thus the "many worlds" interpretation: the whole universe divides every quantum (every meeting) from a math perspective (as math muddles nnumber and uses a skeleton-shell system of number defining that looks like Zeno's Arrow and by treating "math" as one world; gives a physics that looks like "many worlds".
Living in freedom in consciousness in Existence we are one in God.
"Slight shift of electron distribution away from atomic nucleus leads to electrical imbalance: so atom or molecule acquires electron dipole field (water has permanent electric dipole due to the asymmetrical placement of atoms)".
Translate: slight shift of "modification of viewpoint" distribution away from the nucleus of a discussion leads to "modification imbalance"; to getting off the (alleged) subject say? So "group of subjects under discussion" acquires a modification-of-view dipole field (mixing topics and viewpoints has effect of polarizing opinions (grouping several topics under same-broad-views), so you get identifying particlar alleged bias of discussion participants in a field of subjects say.
However, this pattern gets laid down over counting-cycles; in reality any-size "1" meets fresh with "any-size "1"; creations are voluntary and life appears far less restricted than math-physics as you don't have to count: let consciousness count and all is transparent, no coercion, no restriction except what is agreed to voluntarily.
"As you bind on earth, consider it bound in Heaven; as you loose on Earth, consider it loosed in Heaven" and "As you measure, so you are measured." is what this looks like, it appears.
"These dipole fields can produce attraction or repulsion at distances of a few atomic diameters, but in close encounters the Van de Waals force is always repulsive. It's a residual force, when atoms or molecules are bent slightly out of shape."
From a math-physics perspective; the above seems to follow using the translation of the ideas into "fields of polarised opinion in a discussion" if "atoms" refers to other discussions and "nearby" refers to potentialy overlapping say from numbers description; why Van de Waals repulsive force in close encounters?
Looks like two polarised discussions repel at close encounter by definition of "close encounter" and "polarised opinion"; if they didn't repel they would be mixing so from a math-countinhg cycles perspective; the impresion is they repel because the definitions of "polarise" and "repel" require that. When you bring two polarised groups together very close; they have to repel (in math particular system applied here say) or how could you count that they were "polarised" groups at all? If you want to see "polarised groups"; you are going to have to avoid un-polarising them by mixing them up too close? If you want to see your definitions; they might seem to avoid stuff that makes them invisible, from your viewpoint? Reminds me of cellular automata games. Something missing in this argument though?
Reality is voluntary; unrestricted by ambiguities and Zeno's arrows in math; physics + math entangled; reality is free in freedom, one could comment, say.
If the two polarised discussions did not repel at close encounter; they would have the same ground and the polarisations would get mixed up. The conservation of the definitions in physics requires, when layers of counting applied; that those definitions are conserved. So it looks circular.
But in reality; number-counting is generating restrictions from its own ambiguities.
The descriptions of Van de Waals force and gravity seem to have quite a lot in common.
"Van de Waals" seems to be about conserving the definition of polarity in polarity; "gravity" seems to be about conserving the potential for polarity of definition (freedom of definition: mass) in definition meeting definition (so in freedom of definition: space-time)(in potential polarity of definition).
Basically "gravity" and "Van de Waals" involve it appears a "mass" view of "space-time" and a "space-time" view of "mass".
I hope Dr. Stafford reads my posts; they often shed light on his ideas I think.
Regards,
Alan |