IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

On UES-flow sharing

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Wed Jan 7 02:58:32 EST 2004


"Pakistan And India Agree to Hold Talks
Nuclear Rivals Attempt To End Decades of Strife"
By John Lancaster
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, January 7, 2004; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60339-2004Jan6.html

Quoting from the =Washington Post= Article:

"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Jan. 6 -- Less than
two years after theircountries nearly went
to war, the leaders of India and Pakistan
agreed Tuesday to begin formal talks aimed
at ending more than half a century of
bloodshed and hostility, including their
struggle over the divided Himalayan province
of Kashmir."

[...]


HURRAH!!!

Related issue:

The situation in North Korea =CANNOT= become
a 'political football' in the U. S. Presidential
Election dynamics.

It 'just' =CANNOT=.

I will actively 'campaign' against anyone who
attempts to make it so.

K. P. Collins


On UES-flow sharing:

The spectral series that are yielded in the
'atomic' line spectra are produced with the
elements under investigation being in their
gaseous 'state'.

But, if the spectral series can be routinely
viewed when the elements are in their gaseous
'states', where to they 'go' when the elements
are in their solid 'states'?

That is, why can't they be observed in the
solid 'state'?

The spectral lines that are characteristic of
each element don't 'disappear', but they do
become 'smeared' - be-cause of the UES-sharing
that, itself, becomes 'smeared' when the
elements exist in their solid 'states'.

"Huh?"

"Smearing?"

Yeah. The 3-D energydynamics I'm describing
are being described, publicly, for the first
time. They do not yet have a 'fancy' name.

So I just describe what happens within the
UES-flow. The distinct repetitiveness that
is what's observed in the spectral series,
when elements are in their gaseous 'states',
becomes 'smeared' be-cause the UES-flow that
is 'sustaining' the SSW<->UES harmonics that
comprise the solids is =shared= - the harmon-
ics that are discretely-visible in the gaseous
'state' are still in-there, but they occur in
ways that reflect the UES-flow sharing. That
is, the SSW<->UES harmonics literally do not
'stand-alone' in the solid 'state'. Instead,
the harmonics 'sync-up', and the spectral
series conform to that 'sync-ing-up, and,
instead of there being emission and absorp-
tion, the energy that would be emitted or
absorbed, if the SSW<->UES harmonics ex-
isted in a gaseous 'state', 'just' fill-
in the 'holes' that exist within the stand-
alone SSW<->UES harmonics' asymmetries,
which constitutes a collective sharing of
the local UES-flow.

In this, the solid 'state' SSW<->UES
harmonics 'lose' their 'individuality' in
a way that's correlated to their locations
within the solid. No two are exactly alike
be-cause the UES-flow, which 'sustains' the
harmonics' existences as 'atoms', is every-
where-unique within the solid - even within
a hypothetical 'perfect' sphere - be-cause
the UES-flow is directed in accord with
=universal= WDB2T, not only with respect to
the Geometry and composition of the solid.

For there to be emission, there must be a
degree of stand-alone-ness - like at the
surfaces of photo-emissive substances.
Internally, the UES-flow-sharing 'just'
'fills-in' the mutual SSW<->UES harmonics'
asymmetries, and the energy that would,
otherwise, be emitted, is 'just' shared
amongst the harmonics - which is why they
stick together.

Well, that's not exactly it. There is some
absorption and reflection, which is what
results in solids having characteristic
'colors' - which is a result that derives,
wholly, in the UES-flow sharing.

Increase the local UES-flow, say, by raising
the temperature of the solid, and the
harmonics become more-active until a 'point'
is reached [which is also rigorously-Determined
by the WDB2T energy-flow] at which the local
UES-flow cannot be shared sufficiently - there's
more UES flowing in-there than can 'fit-into'
the UES-flow-sharing harmonics, and this excess
UES-flow is what drives the harmonics more-
actively, which decreases their synchronicity.
[The decrease in synchronicity prevents UES-
sharing in a way that's completely reified in
the "Compton Refraction" app. 'Pump-up' the
harmonics, and the refraction angle changes,
which means that, although the energydynamics
remain continuous, each SSW<->UES harmonic's
expansion phase will still 'radiate', but will
do so in ways that become increasingly out-
of-sync with other SSW<->UES harmonics'
compression phases, and, to the degree of this,
energy just radiates into the UES, and the
SSW<->UES harmonics increasingly 'float' within
this 'sea' of augmenting energy - hence, "phase
transitions".]

Now for the Neuroscience.

The same thing holds True within macroscopic
nervous system function. It's what happens
during 'information-overload' conditions, and
is the primary reason that the low-'level'
amygdalar "supersystem configuration" mechanism
[AoK, Ap5] exists within nervous systems. The
amygdalar supersystem configuration mechanism
'handles' information-overload conditions by
exerting stereotypical 'fall-back' configura-
tions upon the "supersystem", the functioning
of which [supersystem] has become relatively-
'random' [literally, a phase transition to a
'fluid' 'state' [which is just the opposite of
the "fluidity" that is described artistically
in 'admiring' ways] When 'randomness' increases
within nervous systems, TD E/I soars, and, if the
low-'level' amygdalar supersystem configuration
mechanism did not 'take-over' control, the
nervous system's information-processing dynamics
would literally 'melt-down' into nothingness.
'Solidness' [minimized-TD E/I] is the 'goal' that
nervous systems 'seek'. Nervous systems 'abhore'
this sort of negative-'fluidity'. Get it? It's
Awesome how the macroscopic nervous system
energydynamics so rigorously 'replicate' the
'atomic' energydynamics. But, since nervous
systems are comprised of 'atoms', how could it
be otherwise? :-]

Anyway, solids transform [go through "phase
changes"] to liquids, and vice versa, and liquids
transform to gases, and vice versa, be-cause of
the UES-flow dynamics discussed above, and "heat
of fusion" and "heat of vaporization" are due
entirely to the work inherent in altering the
SSW<->UES harmonics with respect to their UES-
sharing.

The UES-flow inherent is rigorously-correlated
to the work inherent in altering "temperature",
and that quantity of work is Determined by WDB2T.

The 'state' changes literally 'ride' the UES-
flow - what's been referred to as "gravity" being
in-there as the residual SSW<->UES harmonics
asymmetries resulting from the fact that each
SSW<->UES harmonic's interaction with its
'sustaining' UES interferes with the 'sustenance'
of nonlinearly-relatively-local SSWE<->UES harmon-
ics, and they all 'just' move in ways that reflect
the UES-flow differential inherent - all in a way
that's Deterministically-coupled to WDB2T.

A commonly-occurring analogue of all of this
occurs when one tunes one's radio to a weak
signal. One twists the tuning knob, which adjusts
the output of a variable capacitor, which alters
the tuning of the receiver.

But when one moves one's hand and arm away from
the radio, the radio goes out of tune.

What's happening is that one's hand and arm are
sharing the UES with the radio's antenna, and
when one moves one's arm, one alters this UES-
sharing - which alters the tuning of the receiver.

My TV has only a 'rabbit-ear' antenna. Because
of this last stuff, on some nights, I have to
sit in my chair just-so, else I throw my TV
out of tune :-]

[My body doesn't 'radiate'. It 'just' 'soaks-up'
some of the local UES, which alters the UES-flow
that the antenna detects, which alters the TV's
'state' of tune.]

In the future, technology will take-advantage
of the UES-flow-sharing stuff that I've discussed
in this post - to make possible stuff that has
been 'unthinkable' [which could not be thought, or
conceived without what's here].

A highly-mechanical [crude] analogue of such was
the subject of an article in the Tuesday, 2003-12-30
issue of the "Science Times" section of The =New York
Times= - "Astronomy's New Grail" The $1 Billion
Telescope", by D. Overbye, p. D1 - "adaptive optics".

In the future, devices will be developed that act
directly upon the SSW<->UES harmonics, by 'reading'
the UES-'pressure' and directionalities inherent in
received 'light', and adjusting their contributions
to 'lensing' accordingly, with amplification [by
acting directionally with respect to increasingly-
smaller aggregates of SSW<->UES harmonics.

And folks'll see-farther.

This's =exactly= what nervous systems have been
doing all along - right down to their molecular
'levels'.

The only thing that was 'missing' was the under-
standing - and its incorporation as "biological
mass" within nervous systems.

With the understanding, nervous systems will
'see-farther', first.

K. P. Collins





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net