"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:E1Hud.114445$7i4.92650 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|| "kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in
| news:X2otd.100317$7i4.47386 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...|| [...]
The Sysops at sci.physics.research
have posted my discussion, linked-to
above, in that NG.
But, since there's a delay between
my posts and their appearing in sci.-
physics.research, I'm going to work
"independently" here in bionet.neuro-
science, constructing my next "reply"
in the thread that will(?) build in sci.-
physics.research. [I'll post separately
in the two NGs, but folks here in b.n
will see everything first, albeit, in
This way is best for me. I can't "wait"
to continue working while the msg-
approval process [which I accept --
it's =their= moderated NG, I'm only
their [Grateful] 'guest', and must adhere
to their prerequisites] is taking place.
I don't have the 'time' to waste. And
my customary problem-solving 'style'
is to just immerse myself in the stuff
of a problem in a way that leaves me
no alternative but to Solve it.
In the case of the topic I'll be discuss-
ing, which is "Tapered Harmony", I've
already been over the fundamentals
reiteratively here in b.n. But there'll
be worth in folks' following this re-
iteration because, as =always= hap-
pens, the concepts being discussed
will be presented with more refine-
ment than was formerly the case
[which is one way of "measuring"
the TD E/I-minimization that's inter-
vened :-], but, more importantly,
before the end of my discussion,
I'll have resolved the problem of
how experience "addresses" the
genetic material, which I've discus-
sed reiteratively here in b.n [every
'time' I've discussed "3-D energy-
dynamics"], but I'm coing to make
it rigorous in this thread. [I'll demon-
strate how nervous systems literal-
ly capture physical reality, which
is 'just' Neuroscience.]
Working in this way will allow me
to post more-concisely in s.p.r.,
and that's important because Phys-
icists are 'brutal' with respect to
"conciseness". [I work the way
I've worked in b.n be-cause my
personal circumstances are "hard".
What folks see in my posts to b.n
include my superfluous-to-them
struggle to =just= continue. I force
myself to "stick-my-neck-out" so
that I've, then, got "too much to
lose" if I don't finish what I started.
I've got to force myself to work,
by using this 'method', else I'll not
be able to endure the high-TD E/I
that completing the problem-resolu-
tions require. Understand? My
'style' is particularly-strong in this
way, because, after 'decades' of
using it, the "meta-phase" [AoK,
Ap7] stuff that occurs within my
nervous system has become
strongly-TD E/I-minimized, and I
can know, with Certainty, that I'll
be able to find my way to a prob-
lem's resolution, if I only =begin= in
a way that's highly-TD E/I(up)-in-
ducing [ADMONITION: Do =not=
attempt this until you come up to
speed in your understanding of
NDT's stuff [at least to the 'level'
of AoK.] Otherwise, there's a pos-
sibility that you'll 'wander' into the
"zone of randomness" [AoK, Ap4]
without being able to guide yourself
out of it].
Anyway, here's the contents of
what was my first follow-up to
To the sci.physics.research Sysops:
Thank you for posting my discussion.
I've Proven the same stuff at the "atomic"
scale, and can discuss that much online,
if anyone's interested.
The essence of it is that what have been
referred to as "atoms" are quantities of
energy that have become 'trapped', dur-
ing some creation violence, within "spher-
ical" volumes that undergo compression-
expansion harmonics within an energy
'containment' happens because the var-
iation of the volume to surface area of
a sphere that undergoes compression
and expansion is extremely nonlinear.
In this model of the "atom", what have
been referred to as "atomic nuclei" are
just the 'contained' energy at it's most-
There is an illusion of there being "sub-
atomic particles" in there be-cause the
compression-expansion harmonics so
fleetingly exist in their maximally-com-
pressed 'state' that interactions with
externally-applied energy can only oc-
cur within periods that are defined by
the harmonic motion.
This is w[h]y, for instance, there's the
illusion of there being three "quarks"
comprising a "proton". At existing en-
ergies, only three "hits" can occur be-
fore the harmonics expand ou[t] of
their compressed range -- any other
energy passes right through the "atom"
without any "quark"-like interaction.
All such events are =exactly= analogous
to the "squirts" that occur in the "sham-
poo experiment", and occur for exactly
the same non-minimal-energy-density
I know of no observed physical phen-
omenon that cannot be explained via
the same continuous energy-flows.
Both "thermodynamics" and "gravity",
for instance, are integrated.
The Proof to which I refer above builds
upon Compton's "scattering" results,
and demonstrates that what's actually
happening in those results is =refraction=,
not "point"-like "collisions".
This refraction occurs in exact accord
with the minimal-energy-governed fluid
dynamics of the "shampoo experiment".
k. p. collins
I'll post this as-is, then, soon after, up-
date it with stuff I 'wish' I'd said in the
original reply [which I'll, then, work
into the discussion that'll continue(?) in
Hang onto your seats, the end result
will put all of Science in a an entirely-
k. p. collins