03-27-2021, 08:10 AM
(03-26-2021, 08:49 AM)Ymarsakar Wrote: Reverse causality. Quarks are the shadows projected on plato s wall by the true source, prime spirit.
Quarks, mass, are all illusions layered in photosphop. Strip off the layers.
Well said. To put it into simpler terms, perhaps, mass is a shadow cast on lower densities by the more truer and more undistorted manifestations of Light/Love. This creates the so called physical universe which is an illusion, a shadow from the source.
(03-26-2021, 11:42 AM)Steppingfeet Wrote:(03-26-2021, 03:42 AM)LeiwoUnion Wrote: Think, what are quarks? They represent certain type of electromagnetic interaction profile and, for example, in their most abundant form tend to gather together in threes to form an even more 'dense' and unique electromagnetic interaction profile and so on. This is called matter. So, as far as I understand, a quark is the smallest manifestation of Light, similarly as the photon is the smallest manifestation of Love in our octave (as they manifest in 3D). Photon is infinite in a sense that it has no mass (although in 3D they are limited by some physical factors like the 'speed of light') while quarks have 'mass' (the question what is mass could go a lot deeper), so they are inherently directed to a purpose due to the 'energy' given to 'them' by sun bodies (in truth they probably form out of this energy spontaneously as will is used). These ideas follow (as far as I understand) Ra's teachings of the first two distortions, but also the scientific knowledge about the existence of these two primal 'particle' types.
Thanks LeiwoUnion. It would be most interesting to apply the primal distortions to the building blocks of matter and the universe, but forgoing that in favor of time, care to take a shot at what characterizes "beauty quarks" in particular?
I would not dare to go deeply into such topic, as I'm only barely more into this than the completely uninitiated. Still, I think I can comment it a bit, but I fear the truth is not quite as exciting as it would seem from all the mediasexy names like charm, beauty and truth quarks. Scientists (at LHC) are currently suspecting from the decay data of the impermanent beauty or bottom quark (which is similar to the more 'permanent' down quark of which matter is formed; charge -1/3) that there could be some yet to be measured more exotically charged particles present (aka leptoquarks) during the collision. While ordinary matter is not constituted of bottom/beauty quarks, for example, they are interesting, if only because of their large mass (when compared to up, down and strange quarks) similarly to charm and especially top/truth quark. What does this mean physically, or metaphysically? Who knows, maybe Ra? You could ask Quo, if they would like to share, if there is understanding to be found in the existence of the heavier charm, beauty and truth quarks. While those offer only limited interaction with our physical side of the universe they certainly exist.
(03-26-2021, 03:02 PM)zedro Wrote: Basically what I tell people when science talks about light being waves and/or particles, is that they are never particles, but that is only what we observe due to limited faculties/instrumentation. We cannot 'see/measure' waves, but we can observe what they pass through. So if a wave passes thru a thin slice of paper (single point of observation), it will appear as a dot (particle), but it behaves as a wave simply because that's what it really is.
One thing that blew me away was when they would map electron cloud fields, the more data points they got, the more it formed geometrical shapes! So the electron circling the nucleus is not a particle (of infinitesimal mass/size) at all, but a snapshot of the wave, and in the atomic structure is really an energetic polyhedron. Super fun rabbit hole to fall thru.
The funny thing about electrons is that for (us) chemists the electron orbitals (as these cloud fields are called) of atoms and molecules have for a long time been taken for granted (long before my time). That is how all chemical reactions occur, via the interaction of these orbitals. For scientists these orbitals are (random) probability fields where on a certain combined probability when two molecules collide a reaction can occur, which in other terms means the merging of two or more orbitals into one, or the splitting of them into whatever number is energetically most favoured. It is obvious that some simple molecular formations have been established eons ago (water, gas molecules etc.) so probabilities favour these over everything else (break a bunch of stuff with plasma and the most you'll get out are those easiest to form). As the molecules grow more complicated, the results of chemical reactions stop being so obvious. There's a massive amount of possibilities in 'a tabula rasa' point of view but over time certain 'facts' start to take precedence. This way chemists have created bit by bit the vast amount of reliable and repeatable reactions by the use of their collective will (in their belief of objective scientific process). To me it is obvious that the primal clouds of electrons, or orbitals, follow the conscious will of those observing or believing in these reactions and produce certain results. I even suspected something like this when I was doing my workings in the lab years ago as an uninformed and sleeping peon of the system, because many experiments just didn't make sense otherwise (of course, I didn't hold this as a true possibility, as I thought there would be some physically more 'sophisticated' way to explain it - go go gadget indoctrination).