andrewcellini

i understand that definitions can change, i think this is a pointless endeavor and here's why: as there is no evidence for what is commonly referred as a soul, the supernatural spiritual kind, this is merely just redefining something such that we can say it exists. there's no point and it offers no use for science as the terms necessary to describe phenomena relating to what is commonly attributed to the soul such as awareness, will etc (and what you are also referring to the soul such as protons etc) either already exist or will exist and soul will probably not be one of the terms. i urge you to reread your posts as they are riddled with not only incoherent analyses of roots of words and their relationships to words you've made up such as "U"niverse > Universe > universe{s} > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse but also more recently numerology. there isn't very much that is rational about your posts

if you read my sentence i speak of how you indiscriminately call them just quarks rather than specify what flavor as if they're all the same. I even give you a source which says 2 up's and 1 down. i suggest reading comprehension for silly persons book series, but i understand that may be asking a lot for you. if you want people to take you seriously you should -refrain from becoming emotionally attached to your "ideas" such that you becoming angrily defensive of your "work" -write your "ideas" in and intelligible form that can be understood by someone other than you

nothing relates the proton and the bacteria except that they have behavior that is observable and predictable to a certain degree. if you are using soul as characteristic behavior(s) or qualities of a system or collection of systems then that is more metaphorical than what most people refer to, some sort of ineffable or supernatural and supposedly existent entity.

you said "Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation" where you are: -equating proton with soul and thus using your own unconventional definition of the words proton and soul which are clearly ill defined in your op. -state that the proton is 3 quarks but don't say which quarks which seems to imply that all quarks are the same flavor. they're not. -equate this with some pretty pairs of colored O's -equate this with "2160 degrees of stable variation," which is ill defined. degrees of variations in what? what does it mean? how do you measure 2160 of them? this isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. close enough. either way your definition of proton and soul (or both I guess) are nowhere to be found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

if someone can figure out then they need to come in here and explain because it is pretty meaningless. for example how is it meaningful to equate biological to soul? you're going to be hard pressed to find someone to accept this assumption. another example is how ill defined the concept you're trying to introduce, pattern integrity, is in each of your posts. what do you exactly mean by pattern integrity?

what are you trying to discuss?

what is the point of this aether? is it in the same vein as previous aethers? what do you mean by aetheric pressure?

can you clarify your original statement if my understanding of it is not the same as yours then?

then what would be your point? clarification is most definitely needed.

is your point in mentioning those two scientists who happened to be christian that because they were very intelligent that it is also intelligent to believe in some personal creator god? this seems to be an appeal to accomplishment fallacy. smart people can have irrational beliefs; critical thinking, skepticism and empiricism do not necessarily extend to all the different parts of peoples lives.

pg 4 #79 fair enough

he asked something to that effect

it's moving at the same tangential speed as the bucket that is carrying it and is falling with the bucket under gravity.

i think that in order for you to get clear responses to your posts you should try not convey them as if they are musings from the armchair and you should simply ask clear and concise questions which properly use terminology to the best of your ability. the way that i read your opening post, it seemed as if you were speculating and wanting feedback on your idea rather than on learning any particular topic.

in post 3 i have a link to an encyclopedia entry on what i am talking about.

if we're being creative (and again barring feasibility) why not "manipulate" the strong force? it also gives rise to mass, most of the mass in a proton is due to the strong interaction. i think this is well outside the scope of this thread and the subforum (this is in classical physics after all).

barring the feasibility, this assumes incorrectly that the higgs mechanism is the origin of all mass (i believe it accounts for about 1 % of the mass of a baryon). it gives rise to mass in elementary particles such as an electron (fermions) or W and Z bosons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

xD is a "laughing really hard" kind of face.

bigfoot is hard to interview (from what i hear), but once you get him laughing and out his shell he's actually a pretty cool guy.

citation needed.

i don't think so. what mordred said is reasonable and helpful. you should actually try to make an effort and learn the models you are trying to overthrow because without understanding them, how can you know what predictions they make? how can you make comparisons between these mainstream models, your model and reality?

so do you now disagree with your former statement that "charge is a collection of electrons?" the way this sentenced is phrased along with subsequent statements, it seems as though you are saying that charge (in all things) arises from the gain and loss of electrons. now you seemed to have changed your tune a bit. i'm somewhat confused.

again, i ask how this can explain the charge of quarks? the up quark for example is +2/3, are you saying that it is missing 2/3 of an electron? the electron cannot be the fundamental progenitor of "charge" then because it must be broken up in or to make a quark. are you saying that the electron is broken into "pieces?" the electron is a fundamental particle.

this view could work for visualizing how the charge on a species in a chemical reaction can appear, but it's not the case for fundamental particles.

the point i was trying to make is that charge and electron are not synonymous. electrons have charge, so do quarks (among other particles). it seemed as though you were equivocating the two in your idea, when you said "charge IS a collection of electrons." quarks are fundamental and they have charge. they do not consist of any other particles. charge is the property that allows something to interact electromagnetically (when placed in E/B fields), not a separate physical object.