Parry, thrust, advance!
AmounrA said:
"And of course: fire-photon, air-lepton, water-meson, and earth-baryon." Why do these connect? I dont see the connection.
Natural order of elements: fire-air-water-earth (active,
active-passive,
passive-active, passive), obvious from the cycle hot-wet-cold-dry as well as from the ancient definitions, bright-thin-moving (fire), dark-thin-moving (air), dark-thick-moving (water), and dark-thick-still (earth). Order of rest mass in matter: photon (0), electron (1), pi-meson (2-300), proton or neutron (1800+). Electrons are the main lepton in matter and constitute the clouds or atmospheres surrounding atomic nuclei. Nucleons (baryons) are the earthy mass of matter. Pi-meson (of parton-antiparton internal structure) exchange between nuclei (three-parton structure) is the strong nuclear interaction binding like charges together in the nucleus—unless you wish to go over the cliff along with the quark theorists, who believe in forces that do not attenuate with distance, which is utter silliness since a force can be overcome by greater force yet such a ‘force’ cannot (making the concept untenable except in academia, where anything complicated
enough makes one forget the basics)—hence the meson (quantum of strong nuclear force) is
cohesion in matter, on which
form depends, form being the watery principle (waves have form, wind does not). And I presume you yourself can make the photon-fire link.
"Because things have to be in solution to be tasted" Call it liquid, instead of water. Does taste exist if there was nothing to detect it?
Here your words resemble the squirming of a worm out of its element. And by the way, when one is considering the four states of ordinary matter (energy-gases-liquids-solids), liquids
are the watery member of the sequence; but ‘in solution’ in this context I
believe means dissolved in water, not in, say, oils.
. . . I think this is word play. Inflate the line and you have a solid figure with two points.
Yours is the wordplay here.
Not a platonic solid<but what does that matter.Universe is far more likely to be such a "solid" than a platonic one.
(Methinks you have become so lost in string theory’s counter-intuitive universe that you have forgotten how to express things in plain English!)
Sure you need four points to form a tetrahedron, or six straight lines at correct 3d angles.It can also be three points folded,triangle, will form a solid.
Here you trail off into never-never land. You see, you introduce specialized concepts like ‘inflate’ and ‘fold’ rather than remaining within the realm being considered (Euclidean geometry)—it is a little like being charged with making a construction by straight-edge and compass and deciding to bring in ‘computer graphics’.
I dont think string theory is stupid or mine. Science is looking deep into the "reality" of the fabric of universe.
A more accurate description would be that it is looking into the reality of the fabric of its own neuroses. (I notice you ignore all talk of Forms.) Aside from the fact that string theory supposedly seeks ‘simplicity’ or ‘elegance’ (ala Brian Greene) yet ends up with a more hideously complex and complicated mass of mathematical assumptions than I could have come up with to satirize it (again ala Brian Greene), it is
rooted in the idea of its being necessary to reconcile quantum theory with Einsteinian relativity, a fool’s errand since the second of the two is provably irrelevant to a sound physics. It is
important to comprehend that the present instant
is the physical universe, something Einsteinists would deny, and that ‘fire’, meaning the electric or radiant, comes first starting
both from the very small and the very large—energy is at the core of every micro-particle, and plasma radiation is the substance of and
reason for the very large. For this latter, one must know enough to jettison worship of gravity and stop expecting its ‘second coming’ in the form of finding the other 90% of the mass big-bangism’s priesthood desperately needs to make its equations work (which they call
dark matter for the same reason moderns who have
lost gnosis call it 'mysticism': to paper-over ignorance).
The qabbalah is only one way. People can find there own truth without it. Meditating on anything will do it. Its not like its hiding.
Well, actually, it is, I would say, or science would not have gone so astray. Newton searched a lifetime for
prisca sapientia (pristine understanding man has lost through his decline) and managed to find the laws of gravity and motion but missed, for example, those of light. Anyway, in order for “meditating on anything” to “do it” what must occur is a clear delineation between what is eternal, what has finite duration, and what has no duration, and this is the
heart of the Qabbalah.
My point is only long winded, complex medieval explainations are perhaps now unneeded.
Read mine, then: they are neither complex (considering what they explain) nor long-winded (considering density of content).
Don't take any wooden ideas.