Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Polytopia] Re:Double Slit Experiment.

Expand Messages
  • rybo6
    ... 1) The One = The Wave = General Relativity = Macro-cosmic, abstract ( metaphysical ) generalized cosmic laws/principles and overall averaged out patterns,
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 2, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Heleni Harvey wrote:

      It is true, certain, and without falsehood, that whatever is below is like that which is above; and that which is above is like that which is below: to accomplish the one wonderful work. 
      HH]  I relate these two to the laws in physics as The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. But what unifies these two?

      1) The One = The Wave = General Relativity =  Macro-cosmic, abstract( metaphysical ) generalized cosmic laws/principles and overall averaged out patterns,
      .... that are true everywhere and everywhen as,
      .... a continuity of seemingly discrete frames of reference? I dunno.

      2) The Many = The Particle = Quantum Mechanics = Micro-cosmic physics of a special-case ( metered reality ) localized phenomena which appear as discrete discontinuous quantum events.

      What I've come to see via my Rybonic studies, is that there is not a clear, clean, decisive differrentiation between my belief of a generalized set of,
      ... icosahedrally based, 5-fold bosons,
      .....and 4-fold based fermions.

      E.g. my 5-fold icosahedral as gravity( 31 Great Circle-like polygonals ),
      ...is composed of integrated set of,
      ...multiple 4-fold hexahedral, dipyramids( non-90 degree hexahedrons ) and,

      I see electro-magnetic photons/radiation as the 2D triangle that expand as a higher frequency polygonal,
      ..that disperses out laterally from a approximating straight-line, diametric axis of the same said icosahedron,
      ...and at the same time that also travels forward on the 10 Great-Circle-like Polygonals of said icosahedron.


      At bottom of page of this link above we see the vertical expanding line as,
      ..the side view of a gravitons dymamic expression as,
      ...a ciricmfferential set of geodesic pathWAVEs,.

      There may many of this gravitonic geodesic circumferential pathWAVES to create *one* icosahedral spheric.

      My photon idea use the same graphic ideas  above except that,
      ..the photon also has relationship to a diamtetric axis pathway through,
      .. the diameter of the same icosahedron.

      This link to my file folder contains the file "Photons" which is,
      .. old model that is not exactly what I'm now envisionng but if,
      .. the 2D aspect of the gravitonic model is integrated into the photonic graphic then,
      ... hopefully others will follow my train of thought on this.

      I would remind the reader of 2D implications of all holgraphic models and those black hole mathematics of Jabcb Bekenstein that have also arrived at these MOST radical ideas of all of nature being 2D.

      Bekenstien states it as "we appear to be 2D creatures having and illusion of 3D".

      Rybo



       

       





      Could it be as simple as My own Observation? Or someone else's Observations?
      And is the power of my observation mathematically quantifiable.

      Still pondering the question.
      Heleni



      On Friday, March 3, 2006, at 08:09  AM, Peter Boos wrote:

      BTW intresting theory gaming theory reminds me about statistics (the science of gambling) in a way it's a new look to statistics it's like fractals and simple linear math something evolving.

       

      --

       

      I think of this yahoo group as a group of new thinkers giving people some ideas so perhaps someone else can also rethink it perhaps improve it. With a close look to the way we see our day to day reality.

       

      Like many others i'm puzled about the science of quantum mechanics, and the things they achieve with it. For example what's the connection between entangled photons. Or the double split expiriment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment.
      Because of this last expirement some believe the universe is a multiverse in wgich at any place everything happens while we are the lucky ones still living in a live-able universe.

       

      In regard to those last thoughts i've been thinking abuot something i never heard  people talk of. So perhaps its a new idea to share, or just something old i just never heard it. Well as i would take the 100$ so here i go ;) 

      I was thinking the folowing:
      Why should thise undetermind quantum physics work on a small scale?.

       

      Why wouldn't it be possible to work an a large scale?
      AND in combination with:
      Why is there a need for a multiverse?.

       

      It could also be that undetermined 'reactions' get determined later.
        (a quantum computer seams to work that way as i understand it).

       

      This would mean that an space area gets in an unknown state (like it was put into running possibilities in various states (or spaces). Then later it wil fit back in into our visibliy known determined state of how we see the world.

       

      Thinking deeper trough, no partical or wave knows all other particles or wave.
      Therfore at quantum level there is no real determined world, at a higher level it looks like there is a determined world still however particles and waves are not all connected to each other.

       

      Perhaps this world has a need for a common shared reality this would not be a mulitverse not a universe but... ehm how to call it in english don't know the english..
      Not a universe but a multiverse trying to behave like a single universe.
      It would be i gues efficient to do that, to behave in a certain reality scope.

       

      i think the above is a new idea.

       

       

      There is something else too about this, undetermined quantum states..
      lets gamble the next state.. could gamble math be used here, perhaps game theory?.
      Or is there something new thats waiting to be discovered.

       

       

      While i was reading the gamming theory i was thinking of this idea how about the people who took 100$ in a multiverse all people took 100$ in each of their worlds.
      The number of realities by all kind of actions in such a multiverse would be endless.
      instead of a 'smart' UNI-verse in which people get 1000$ dollar each. It might be that it's also accepted and less time consuming (efficiency..) that just someone takes that 100$ and so be it. This 'action' happend within a certain 'reaction time' and the other member would regred the 100$ but wouldn't regred the long wait time.

      This group of people is like the undetermined space.
      If they would live inside a black box, and i wouldn't know about their choice.
      When they open the door of their box, our spaces /reality would merge
      I see that one of them has 100$. While they see that i'am wondered where i lost my 100$ bill. They return my lost Bill. Just a way of reality scopes merging.

       

      Perhaps they saw also ten people and one them (me) has lost this 100$ bill.
      the number of people doesn't mater it's just a scope of a reality.

       

      Farr away my brother lives he looks at us, close to the blackbox. Trough a telescope he cann't see the details of the 100$ bill, it's to far away. All he can see with his telescope is the box some vageu people in front of it, and the stars. To him it all seams to be quite static almost like a newton world altough a bit blurry.
      My brother wonders; "Why can i never could get a real picture of it all could it be the fog at those late nights the world never seams to apear bright and sharp".

       

       

       

       

       

       

       




      <image.tiff>

      Brings words and photos together (easily) with
      PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
      <image.tiff>

      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

      +  Visit your group "Polytopia" on the web.

       

      +  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

       

      +  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


      <image.tiff>


    • Heleni Harvey
      Dear Ryob, I very much appreciate your input and will be taking some time to consider your point of view. I will be visiting the sites regularly. Thank you
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 4, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Ryob,
        I very much appreciate your input and will be taking some time to
        consider your point of view. I will be visiting the sites regularly.
        Thank you
        Heleni
        On Friday, March 3, 2006, at 02:40 PM, rybo6 wrote:

        > On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Heleni Harvey wrote:
        >
        > It is true, certain, and without falsehood, that whatever is below is
        > like that which is above; and that which is above is like that which
        > is below: to accomplish the one wonderful work. 
        > HH]  I relate these two to the laws in physics as The theory of
        > relativity and quantum mechanics. But what unifies these two?
        >
        >
        > 1) The One = The Wave = General Relativity =  Macro-cosmic, abstract(
        > metaphysical ) generalized cosmic laws/principles and overall averaged
        > out patterns,
        > .... that are true everywhere and everywhen as,
        > .... a continuity of seemingly discrete frames of reference? I dunno.
        >
        > 2) The Many = The Particle = Quantum Mechanics = Micro-cosmic physics
        > of a special-case ( metered reality ) localized phenomena which appear
        > as discrete discontinuous quantum events.
        >
        > What I've come to see via my Rybonic studies, is that there is not a
        > clear, clean, decisive differrentiation between my belief of a
        > generalized set of,
        > ... icosahedrally based, 5-fold bosons,
        > .....and 4-fold based fermions.
        >
        > E.g. my 5-fold icosahedral as gravity( 31 Great Circle-like polygonals
        > ),
        > ...is composed of integrated set of,
        > ...multiple 4-fold hexahedral, dipyramids( non-90 degree hexahedrons )
        > and,
        >
        > I see electro-magnetic photons/radiation as the 2D triangle that
        > expand as a higher frequency polygonal,
        > ..that disperses out laterally from a approximating straight-line,
        > diametric axis of the same said icosahedron,
        > ...and at the same time that also travels forward on the 10
        > Great-Circle-like Polygonals of said icosahedron.
        >
        > http://home.usit.net/~rybo6/rybo/id13.html
        >
        > At bottom of page of this link above we see the vertical expanding
        > line as,
        > ..the side view of a gravitons dymamic expression as,
        > ...a ciricmfferential set of geodesic pathWAVEs,.
        >
        > There may many of this gravitonic geodesic circumferential pathWAVES
        > to create *one* icosahedral spheric.
        >
        > My photon idea use the same graphic ideas  above except that,
        > ..the photon also has relationship to a diamtetric axis pathway
        > through,
        > .. the diameter of the same icosahedron.
        >
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Polytopia/files/Rybonics%20%20/
        > This link to my file folder contains the file "Photons" which is,
        > .. old model that is not exactly what I'm now envisionng but if,
        > .. the 2D aspect of the gravitonic model is integrated into the
        > photonic graphic then,
        > ... hopefully others will follow my train of thought on this.
        >
        > I would remind the reader of 2D implications of all holgraphic models
        > and those black hole mathematics of Jabcb Bekenstein that have also
        > arrived at these MOST radical ideas of all of nature being 2D.
        >
        > Bekenstien states it as "we appear to be 2D creatures having and
        > illusion of 3D".
        >
        > Rybo
        >
        >
        >
        >  
        >
        >  
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Could it be as simple as My own Observation? Or someone else's
        > Observations?
        > And is the power of my observation mathematically quantifiable.
        >
        > Still pondering the question.
        > Heleni
        >
        >
        >
        > On Friday, March 3, 2006, at 08:09 AM, Peter Boos wrote:
        >
        > BTW intresting theory gaming theory reminds me about statistics (the
        > science of gambling) in a way it's a new look to statistics it's like
        > fractals and simple linear math something evolving.
        >
        >  
        >
        > --
        >
        >  
        >
        > I think of this yahoo group as a group of new thinkers giving people
        > some ideas so perhaps someone else can also rethink it perhaps improve
        > it. With a close look to the way we see our day to day reality.
        >
        >  
        >
        > Like many others i'm puzled about the science of quantum mechanics,
        > and the things they achieve with it. For example what's the connection
        > between entangled photons. Or the double split expiriment
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment.
        > Because of this last expirement some believe the universe is a
        > multiverse in wgich at any place everything happens while we are the
        > lucky ones still living in a live-able universe.
        >
        >  
        >
        > In regard to those last thoughts i've been thinking abuot something i
        > never heard  people talk of. So perhaps its a new idea to share, or
        > just something old i just never heard it. Well as i would take the
        > 100$ so here i go ;) 
        >
        > I was thinking the folowing:
        > Why should thise undetermind quantum physics work on a small scale?.
        >
        >  
        >
        > Why wouldn't it be possible to work an a large scale?
        > AND in combination with:
        > Why is there a need for a multiverse?.
        >
        >  
        >
        > It could also be that undetermined 'reactions' get determined later.
        >   (a quantum computer seams to work that way as i understand it).
        >
        >  
        >
        > This would mean that an space area gets in an unknown state (like it
        > was put into running possibilities in various states (or spaces). Then
        > later it wil fit back in into our visibliy known determined state of
        > how we see the world.
        >
        >  
        >
        > Thinking deeper trough, no partical or wave knows all other particles
        > or wave.
        > Therfore at quantum level there is no real determined world, at
        > a higher level it looks like there is a determined world still
        > however particles and waves are not all connected to each other.
        >
        >  
        >
        > Perhaps this world has a need for a common shared reality this would
        > not be a mulitverse not a universe but... ehm how to call it in
        > english don't know the english..
        > Not a universe but a multiverse trying to behave like a single
        > universe.
        > It would be i gues efficient to do that, to behave in a certain
        > reality scope.
        >
        >  
        >
        > i think the above is a new idea.
        >
        >  
        >
        >  
        >
        > There is something else too about this, undetermined quantum states..
        > lets gamble the next state.. could gamble math be used here, perhaps
        > game theory?.
        > Or is there something new thats waiting to be discovered.
        >
        >  
        >
        >  
        >
        > While i was reading the gamming theory i was thinking of this idea how
        > about the people who took 100$ in a multiverse all people took 100$ in
        > each of their worlds.
        > The number of realities by all kind of actions in such a multiverse
        > would be endless.
        > instead of a 'smart' UNI-verse in which people get 1000$ dollar each.
        > It might be that it's also accepted and less time consuming
        > (efficiency..) that just someone takes that 100$ and so be it. This
        > 'action' happend within a certain 'reaction time' and the other member
        > would regred the 100$ but wouldn't regred the long wait time.
        >
        > This group of people is like the undetermined space.
        > If they would live inside a black box, and i wouldn't know about their
        > choice.
        > When they open the door of their box, our spaces /reality would merge
        > I see that one of them has 100$. While they see that i'am
        > wondered where i lost my 100$ bill. They return my lost Bill. Just a
        > way of reality scopes merging.
        >
        >  
        >
        > Perhaps they saw also ten people and one them (me) has lost this 100$
        > bill.
        > the number of people doesn't mater it's just a scope of a reality.
        >
        >  
        >
        > Farr away my brother lives he looks at us, close to the blackbox.
        > Trough a telescope he cann't see the details of the 100$ bill, it's to
        > far away. All he can see with his telescope is the box some vageu
        > people in front of it, and the stars. To him it all seams to be quite
        > static almost like a newton world altough a bit blurry.
        > My brother wonders; "Why can i never could get a real picture of it
        > all could it be the fog at those late nights the world never seams
        > to apear bright and sharp".
        >
        >  
        >
        >  
        >
        >  
        >
        >  
        >
        >  
        >
        >  
        >
        >  
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > <image.tiff>
        >
        >
        > Brings words and photos together (easily) with
        > PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
        >
        > <image.tiff>
        >
        >
        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        >
        > + Visit your group "Polytopia" on the web.
        >
        >  
        >
        > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        >  Polytopia-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >  
        >
        > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        >
        >
        > <image.tiff>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > SPONSORED LINKS
        <image.tiff>
        >
        >
        <image.tiff>
        >
        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        >
        > +  Visit your group "Polytopia" on the web.
        >  
        > +  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        >  Polytopia-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >  
        > +  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        >
        >
        <image.tiff>
        >
      • Robert Webb
        ... We humans are used to the medium-scale world, and our instinct tells us that observing something is completely passive. To observe something at the atomic
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 4, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          > What I found fascinating was the power of the observer to influence
          > the process of the pattern making.

          We humans are used to the medium-scale world, and our instinct tells
          us that observing something is completely passive. To observe
          something at the atomic scale is quite different. Photons don't just
          bounce off electrons the way they would a chair, so I'd like to know
          HOW they observed the electron. Even without quantum physics,
          observing a particle will necessarily change its behaviour. When you
          bounce a photon off an electron (can you do that?) both particles will
          be affected.

          My understanding is that the word "observer" was possibly not the best
          choice, as it makes us think of conscious beings. It seems that
          quantum states aren't stable over a certain complexity, so once you
          get enough particles interacting the state will collapse with or
          without someone there to see it.

          Quantum physics still doesn't make any sense of course :-)
          Rob.

          --

          Robert Webb <RobertW@...>,
          Want to make polyhedra?
          <http://www.software3d.com/Stella.html>
        • Heleni Harvey
          Dear Robert, ... From my experiences working in a Childrens Hospital, some years ago I discovered that observation is not just passive. It is also active. It
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 4, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Robert,

            You wrote that:

            > and our instinct tells
            > us that observing something is completely passive. 


            From my experiences working in a Childrens Hospital, some years ago I
            discovered that observation is not just passive. It is also active.
            It is true that we place ourselves in an receptive state to observe,
            However there is also a part of us that is actively analyzing the
            situation, and throwing off emotional energies to the object observed.

            Having written that my mind says, is there a connection between the
            body and the mind.
            Can thoughts take physical form. What I mean is: yes we think of
            something and go out and try to make it by finding the corresponding
            physical materials, But what if the actual thought in the mind of a
            person, (mind is made up of electrons, as is the person), what IF
            thought simply had the power to manifest itself into physical form, by
            concentrating and collecting a mental image and collecting enough free
            electrons from the environment to support its image building.

            You wrote:
            > My understanding is that the word "observer" was possibly not the best
            > choice, as it makes us think of conscious beings. 

            And my fascination is does consciousness (being one universal
            substance) work even at the level of an electron? Is Consciousness the
            unifying principle? And if it is what are the numbers involved in its
            function?

            Thank you for your thought provoking comments

            Heleni


            >
            On Sunday, March 5, 2006, at 04:46 PM, Robert Webb wrote:

            > > What I found fascinating was the power of the observer to influence
            > > the process of the pattern making.
            >
            > We humans are used to the medium-scale world, and our instinct tells
            > us that observing something is completely passive.  To observe
            > something at the atomic scale is quite different.  Photons don't just
            > bounce off electrons the way they would a chair, so I'd like to know
            > HOW they observed the electron.  Even without quantum physics,
            > observing a particle will necessarily change its behaviour.  When you
            > bounce a photon off an electron (can you do that?) both particles will
            > be affected.
            >
            > My understanding is that the word "observer" was possibly not the best
            > choice, as it makes us think of conscious beings.  It seems that
            > quantum states aren't stable over a certain complexity, so once you
            > get enough particles interacting the state will collapse with or
            > without someone there to see it.
            >
            > Quantum physics still doesn't make any sense of course :-)
            > Rob.
            >
            > --
            >
            > Robert Webb <RobertW@...>,
            > Want to make polyhedra?
            > <http://www.software3d.com/Stella.html>
            >
            >
            > SPONSORED LINKS
            <image.tiff>
            >
            >
            <image.tiff>
            >
            > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
            >
            > +  Visit your group "Polytopia" on the web.
            >  
            > +  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            >  Polytopia-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >  
            > +  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            >
            >
            <image.tiff>
            >
          • rybo6
            ... Heleni, your welcome. I want to try one more time to make a clear distinction between the 2D Triangular Plane operations in graviton as compared to the
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 5, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mar 4, 2006, at 10:29 PM, Heleni Harvey wrote:
              I very much appreciate your input and will be taking some time to consider your point of view. I will be visiting the sites regularly.
              Thank you
              Heleni

              Heleni, your welcome.

              I want to try one more time to make a clear distinction between the 2D Triangular Plane operations in graviton as compared to the photon.

              1)Graviton- Pod-like, 4-vertexial, expanding contracting, 2D triangular plane of the non-90 degree hexahedron( dipyarmid ) travels circumferentially around( geodesic pathWAVE ) of the 5-fold icosahedrons 31 or more Great Circle-like pathways.


              2)Photon- Similar to the Pod-like geometry( which may include inside-outing tetrahedron ergo overall a dipyramid process ) but the central vertex is following a diametric axis pathway through the center of the icosahedron while the outer edges of the 2D triangle( becomes high frequency polygon ) and follows the circumferential 10 Great Circle pathWAVEs  of the gravitons.

              Im not sure that helps, as  this is only my first few times in putting in words my 2D perceptions of our seemingly, 3D universe.  

              Rybo 
               
              On Friday, March 3, 2006, at 02:40  PM, rybo6 wrote:

              On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Heleni Harvey wrote:

              It is true, certain, and without falsehood, that whatever is below is like that which is above; and that which is above is like that which is below: to accomplish the one wonderful work. 
              HH]  I relate these two to the laws in physics as The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. But what unifies these two?


              1) The One = The Wave = General Relativity =  Macro-cosmic, abstract( metaphysical ) generalized cosmic laws/principles and overall averaged out patterns,
              .... that are true everywhere and everywhen as,
              .... a continuity of seemingly discrete frames of reference? I dunno.

              2) The Many = The Particle = Quantum Mechanics = Micro-cosmic physics of a special-case ( metered reality ) localized phenomena which appear as discrete discontinuous quantum events.

              What I've come to see via my Rybonic studies, is that there is not a clear, clean, decisive differrentiation between my belief of a generalized set of,
              ... icosahedrally based, 5-fold bosons,
              .....and 4-fold based fermions.

              E.g. my 5-fold icosahedral as gravity( 31 Great Circle-like polygonals ),
              ...is composed of integrated set of,
              ...multiple 4-fold hexahedral, dipyramids( non-90 degree hexahedrons ) and,

              I see electro-magnetic photons/radiation as the 2D triangle that expand as a higher frequency polygonal,
              ..that disperses out laterally from a approximating straight-line, diametric axis of the same said icosahedron,
              ...and at the same time that also travels forward on the 10 Great-Circle-like Polygonals of said icosahedron.


              At bottom of page of this link above we see the vertical expanding line as,
              ..the side view of a gravitons dymamic expression as,
              ...a ciricmfferential set of geodesic pathWAVEs,.

              There may many of this gravitonic geodesic circumferential pathWAVES to create *one* icosahedral spheric.

              My photon idea use the same graphic ideas  above except that,
              ..the photon also has relationship to a diamtetric axis pathway through,
              .. the diameter of the same icosahedron.

              This link to my file folder contains the file "Photons" which is,
              .. old model that is not exactly what I'm now envisionng but if,
              .. the 2D aspect of the gravitonic model is integrated into the photonic graphic then,
              ... hopefully others will follow my train of thought on this.

              I would remind the reader of 2D implications of all holgraphic models and those black hole mathematics of Jabcb Bekenstein that have also arrived at these MOST radical ideas of all of nature being 2D.

              Bekenstien states it as "we appear to be 2D creatures having and illusion of 3D".

              Rybo



               


               






              Could it be as simple as My own Observation? Or someone else's Observations?
              And is the power of my observation mathematically quantifiable.

              Still pondering the question.
              Heleni



              On Friday, March 3, 2006, at 08:09 AM, Peter Boos wrote:

              BTW intresting theory gaming theory reminds me about statistics (the science of gambling) in a way it's a new look to statistics it's like fractals and simple linear math something evolving.

               


              --

               


              I think of this yahoo group as a group of new thinkers giving people some ideas so perhaps someone else can also rethink it perhaps improve it. With a close look to the way we see our day to day reality.

               


              Like many others i'm puzled about the science of quantum mechanics, and the things they achieve with it. For example what's the connection between entangled photons. Or the double split expiriment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment.
              Because of this last expirement some believe the universe is a multiverse in wgich at any place everything happens while we are the lucky ones still living in a live-able universe.

               


              In regard to those last thoughts i've been thinking abuot something i never heard  people talk of. So perhaps its a new idea to share, or just something old i just never heard it. Well as i would take the 100$ so here i go ;) 

              I was thinking the folowing:
              Why should thise undetermind quantum physics work on a small scale?.

               


              Why wouldn't it be possible to work an a large scale?
              AND in combination with:
              Why is there a need for a multiverse?.

               


              It could also be that undetermined 'reactions' get determined later.
                (a quantum computer seams to work that way as i understand it).

               


              This would mean that an space area gets in an unknown state (like it was put into running possibilities in various states (or spaces). Then later it wil fit back in into our visibliy known determined state of how we see the world.

               


              Thinking deeper trough, no partical or wave knows all other particles or wave.
              Therfore at quantum level there is no real determined world, at a higher level it looks like there is a determined world still however particles and waves are not all connected to each other.

               


              Perhaps this world has a need for a common shared reality this would not be a mulitverse not a universe but... ehm how to call it in english don't know the english..
              Not a universe but a multiverse trying to behave like a single universe.
              It would be i gues efficient to do that, to behave in a certain reality scope.

               


              i think the above is a new idea.

               


               


              There is something else too about this, undetermined quantum states..
              lets gamble the next state.. could gamble math be used here, perhaps game theory?.
              Or is there something new thats waiting to be discovered.

               


               


              While i was reading the gamming theory i was thinking of this idea how about the people who took 100$ in a multiverse all people took 100$ in each of their worlds.
              The number of realities by all kind of actions in such a multiverse would be endless.
              instead of a 'smart' UNI-verse in which people get 1000$ dollar each. It might be that it's also accepted and less time consuming (efficiency..) that just someone takes that 100$ and so be it. This 'action' happend within a certain 'reaction time' and the other member would regred the 100$ but wouldn't regred the long wait time.

              This group of people is like the undetermined space.
              If they would live inside a black box, and i wouldn't know about their choice.
              When they open the door of their box, our spaces /reality would merge
              I see that one of them has 100$. While they see that i'am wondered where i lost my 100$ bill. They return my lost Bill. Just a way of reality scopes merging.

               


              Perhaps they saw also ten people and one them (me) has lost this 100$ bill.
              the number of people doesn't mater it's just a scope of a reality.

               


              Farr away my brother lives he looks at us, close to the blackbox. Trough a telescope he cann't see the details of the 100$ bill, it's to far away. All he can see with his telescope is the box some vageu people in front of it, and the stars. To him it all seams to be quite static almost like a newton world altough a bit blurry.
              My brother wonders; "Why can i never could get a real picture of it all could it be the fog at those late nights the world never seams to apear bright and sharp".

               


               


               


               


               


               


               





              <image.tiff>


              Brings words and photos together (easily) with
              PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

              <image.tiff>


              YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

              + Visit your group "Polytopia" on the web.

               


              + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

               


              + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              <image.tiff>






              SPONSORED LINKS
              <image.tiff>


              <image.tiff>

              YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

              +  Visit your group "Polytopia" on the web.

               

              +  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

               

              +  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              <image.tiff>


            • rybo6
              ... Robert, Feynman went into this in some detail in his Q.E.D. book, ala refraction and reflection, but, ..he also states that anybody who tells yu they know
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 5, 2006
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mar 4, 2006, at 11:46 PM, Robert Webb wrote:
                > Photons don't just
                > bounce off electrons the way they would a chair, so I'd like to know
                > HOW they observed the electron. Even without quantum physics,
                > observing a particle will necessarily change its behaviour. When you
                > bounce a photon off an electron (can you do that?) both particles will
                > be affected.

                Robert, Feynman went into this in some detail in his Q.E.D. book, ala
                refraction and reflection, but,
                ..he also states that anybody who tells yu they know the details of
                what is really happening at this quantum level dont know what their
                talking about.

                >
                > My understanding is that the word "observer" was possibly not the best
                > choice, as it makes us think of conscious beings. It seems that
                > quantum states aren't stable over a certain complexity, so once you
                > get enough particles interacting the state will collapse with or
                > without someone there to see it.

                The proton( fermionic hadron ) is only known complex or elenetary
                particle not known to have a time of decay. It is presumed that it
                will come apart on its own someday but there exists no empirical
                evidence that it will happen.

                > Quantum physics still doesn't make any sense of course :-)
                > Rob.

                That is the bottom line to date.

                However, I think that the visual and tactile aspects of geometry can
                provide all of humanity with an accurate glimpse into the quantum realm.

                This is partly, or exactly, what some geometric quantum gravity
                scenarios are about.

                Currently at best we have the toroidal like diagrams of magnitism,
                electro magnitism etc...

                Loop Quantum Gravitys well known theoreeticla scientist Lee Smolins
                predicts that,
                ..we will have a geometric quantfication of gravity, at best, within
                15 years.

                My own Rybonic Extrapolations based on Synergetic 1 & 2 are amateur but,
                ... does not discount any possiblities they are correct or,
                ....approimate the quatum realm, or,
                .... on the correct track for discovering the correct visualizng of,
                ..... the quantum realm.

                Rybo
              • Heleni Harvey
                Dear Rybo, I thank you and I know you are trying to help me, but I feel I don t understand enough of some things and too much of others. I will need to put
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 5, 2006
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Rybo,
                  I thank you and I know you are trying to help me, but I feel I don't
                  understand enough of some things and too much of others. I will need
                  to put pen to paper and spend some time working on the idea.

                  The idea of putting into 2D our 3D world and the limitations of that is
                  starting to dawn on me, and is showing me how little I really know. But
                  will continue to ponder this some more.
                  I tried to access this site you posted but all that came up was an
                  error message
                  http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s10/p7000.html#1073.10
                  With thanks
                  Heleni
                  On Monday, March 6, 2006, at 01:45 AM, rybo6 wrote:

                  > On Mar 4, 2006, at 10:29 PM, Heleni Harvey wrote:
                  >
                  > I very much appreciate your input and will be taking some time to
                  > consider your point of view. I will be visiting the sites regularly.
                  > Thank you
                  > Heleni
                  >
                  >
                  > Heleni, your welcome.
                  >
                  > I want to try one more time to make a clear distinction between the 2D
                  > Triangular Plane operations in graviton as compared to the photon.
                  >
                  > 1)Graviton- Pod-like, 4-vertexial, expanding contracting, 2D
                  > triangular plane of the non-90 degree hexahedron( dipyarmid ) travels
                  > circumferentially around( geodesic pathWAVE ) of the 5-fold
                  > icosahedrons 31 or more Great Circle-like pathways.
                  >
                  > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TriangularDipyramid.html
                  >
                  > 2)Photon- Similar to the Pod-like geometry( which may include
                  > inside-outing tetrahedron ergo overall a dipyramid process ) but the
                  > central vertex is following a diametric axis pathway through the
                  > center of the icosahedron while the outer edges of the 2D triangle(
                  > becomes high frequency polygon ) and follows the circumferential 10
                  > Great Circle pathWAVEs  of the gravitons.
                  >
                  > Im not sure that helps, as  this is only my first few times in putting
                  > in words my 2D perceptions of our seemingly, 3D universe.  
                  >
                  > Rybo 
                  >  
                  >
                  > On Friday, March 3, 2006, at 02:40 PM, rybo6 wrote:
                  >
                  > On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Heleni Harvey wrote:
                  >
                  > It is true, certain, and without falsehood, that whatever is below is
                  > like that which is above; and that which is above is like that which
                  > is below: to accomplish the one wonderful work. 
                  > HH]  I relate these two to the laws in physics as The theory of
                  > relativity and quantum mechanics. But what unifies these two?
                  >
                  >
                  > 1) The One = The Wave = General Relativity =  Macro-cosmic, abstract(
                  > metaphysical ) generalized cosmic laws/principles and overall averaged
                  > out patterns,
                  > .... that are true everywhere and everywhen as,
                  > .... a continuity of seemingly discrete frames of reference? I dunno.
                  >
                  > 2) The Many = The Particle = Quantum Mechanics = Micro-cosmic physics
                  > of a special-case ( metered reality ) localized phenomena which appear
                  > as discrete discontinuous quantum events.
                  >
                  > What I've come to see via my Rybonic studies, is that there is not a
                  > clear, clean, decisive differrentiation between my belief of a
                  > generalized set of,
                  > ... icosahedrally based, 5-fold bosons,
                  > .....and 4-fold based fermions.
                  >
                  > E.g. my 5-fold icosahedral as gravity( 31 Great Circle-like polygonals
                  > ),
                  > ...is composed of integrated set of,
                  > ...multiple 4-fold hexahedral, dipyramids( non-90 degree hexahedrons )
                  > and,
                  >
                  > I see electro-magnetic photons/radiation as the 2D triangle that
                  > expand as a higher frequency polygonal,
                  > ..that disperses out laterally from a approximating straight-line,
                  > diametric axis of the same said icosahedron,
                  > ...and at the same time that also travels forward on the 10
                  > Great-Circle-like Polygonals of said icosahedron.
                  >
                  > http://home.usit.net/~rybo6/rybo/id13.html
                  >
                  > At bottom of page of this link above we see the vertical expanding
                  > line as,
                  > ..the side view of a gravitons dymamic expression as,
                  > ...a ciricmfferential set of geodesic pathWAVEs,.
                  >
                  > There may many of this gravitonic geodesic circumferential pathWAVES
                  > to create *one* icosahedral spheric.
                  >
                  > My photon idea use the same graphic ideas  above except that,
                  > ..the photon also has relationship to a diamtetric axis pathway
                  > through,
                  > .. the diameter of the same icosahedron.
                  >
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Polytopia/files/Rybonics%20%20/
                  > This link to my file folder contains the file "Photons" which is,
                  > .. old model that is not exactly what I'm now envisionng but if,
                  > .. the 2D aspect of the gravitonic model is integrated into the
                  > photonic graphic then,
                  > ... hopefully others will follow my train of thought on this.
                  >
                  > I would remind the reader of 2D implications of all holgraphic models
                  > and those black hole mathematics of Jabcb Bekenstein that have also
                  > arrived at these MOST radical ideas of all of nature being 2D.
                  >
                  > Bekenstien states it as "we appear to be 2D creatures having and
                  > illusion of 3D".
                  >
                  > Rybo
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Could it be as simple as My own Observation? Or someone else's
                  > Observations?
                  > And is the power of my observation mathematically quantifiable.
                  >
                  > Still pondering the question.
                  > Heleni
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > On Friday, March 3, 2006, at 08:09 AM, Peter Boos wrote:
                  >
                  > BTW intresting theory gaming theory reminds me about statistics (the
                  > science of gambling) in a way it's a new look to statistics it's like
                  > fractals and simple linear math something evolving.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > --
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > I think of this yahoo group as a group of new thinkers giving people
                  > some ideas so perhaps someone else can also rethink it perhaps improve
                  > it. With a close look to the way we see our day to day reality.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > Like many others i'm puzled about the science of quantum mechanics,
                  > and the things they achieve with it. For example what's the connection
                  > between entangled photons. Or the double split expiriment
                  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment.
                  > Because of this last expirement some believe the universe is a
                  > multiverse in wgich at any place everything happens while we are the
                  > lucky ones still living in a live-able universe.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > In regard to those last thoughts i've been thinking abuot something i
                  > never heard  people talk of. So perhaps its a new idea to share, or
                  > just something old i just never heard it. Well as i would take the
                  > 100$ so here i go ;) 
                  >
                  > I was thinking the folowing:
                  > Why should thise undetermind quantum physics work on a small scale?.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > Why wouldn't it be possible to work an a large scale?
                  > AND in combination with:
                  > Why is there a need for a multiverse?.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > It could also be that undetermined 'reactions' get determined later.
                  >   (a quantum computer seams to work that way as i understand it).
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > This would mean that an space area gets in an unknown state (like it
                  > was put into running possibilities in various states (or spaces). Then
                  > later it wil fit back in into our visibliy known determined state of
                  > how we see the world.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > Thinking deeper trough, no partical or wave knows all other particles
                  > or wave.
                  > Therfore at quantum level there is no real determined world, at
                  > a higher level it looks like there is a determined world still
                  > however particles and waves are not all connected to each other.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > Perhaps this world has a need for a common shared reality this would
                  > not be a mulitverse not a universe but... ehm how to call it in
                  > english don't know the english..
                  > Not a universe but a multiverse trying to behave like a single
                  > universe.
                  > It would be i gues efficient to do that, to behave in a certain
                  > reality scope.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > i think the above is a new idea.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > There is something else too about this, undetermined quantum states..
                  > lets gamble the next state.. could gamble math be used here, perhaps
                  > game theory?.
                  > Or is there something new thats waiting to be discovered.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > While i was reading the gamming theory i was thinking of this idea how
                  > about the people who took 100$ in a multiverse all people took 100$ in
                  > each of their worlds.
                  > The number of realities by all kind of actions in such a multiverse
                  > would be endless.
                  > instead of a 'smart' UNI-verse in which people get 1000$ dollar each.
                  > It might be that it's also accepted and less time consuming
                  > (efficiency..) that just someone takes that 100$ and so be it. This
                  > 'action' happend within a certain 'reaction time' and the other member
                  > would regred the 100$ but wouldn't regred the long wait time.
                  >
                  > This group of people is like the undetermined space.
                  > If they would live inside a black box, and i wouldn't know about their
                  > choice.
                  > When they open the door of their box, our spaces /reality would merge
                  > I see that one of them has 100$. While they see that i'am
                  > wondered where i lost my 100$ bill. They return my lost Bill. Just a
                  > way of reality scopes merging.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > Perhaps they saw also ten people and one them (me) has lost this 100$
                  > bill.
                  > the number of people doesn't mater it's just a scope of a reality.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > Farr away my brother lives he looks at us, close to the blackbox.
                  > Trough a telescope he cann't see the details of the 100$ bill, it's to
                  > far away. All he can see with his telescope is the box some vageu
                  > people in front of it, and the stars. To him it all seams to be quite
                  > static almost like a newton world altough a bit blurry.
                  > My brother wonders; "Why can i never could get a real picture of it
                  > all could it be the fog at those late nights the world never seams
                  > to apear bright and sharp".
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > <image.tiff>
                  >
                  >
                  > Brings words and photos together (easily) with
                  > PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
                  >
                  > <image.tiff>
                  >
                  >
                  > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                  >
                  > + Visit your group "Polytopia" on the web.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  >  Polytopia-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  >
                  >
                  > <image.tiff>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > SPONSORED LINKS
                  >
                  > <image.tiff>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > <image.tiff>
                  >
                  >
                  > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                  >
                  > + Visit your group "Polytopia" on the web.
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  >  Polytopia-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  >
                  >
                  > <image.tiff>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > SPONSORED LINKS
                  <image.tiff>
                  >
                  >
                  <image.tiff>
                  >
                  > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                  >
                  > +  Visit your group "Polytopia" on the web.
                  >  
                  > +  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  >  Polytopia-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >  
                  > +  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  >
                  >
                  <image.tiff>
                  >
                • rybo6
                  ... Just tooting my theorys mostly. If it helps you or others, all the better. ... This link works for me but I don t remember posting it or in what context
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 5, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mar 5, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Heleni Harvey wrote:
                    I thank you and I know you are trying to help me, but I feel I don't understand enough of some things and too much of others.  I will need to put pen to paper and  spend some time working on the idea.

                    Just tooting my theorys mostly. If it helps you or others, all the better.

                    The idea of putting into 2D our 3D world and the limitations of that is starting to dawn on me, and is showing me how little I really know. But will continue to ponder this some more.
                    I tried to access this site you posted but all that came up was an error message

                    This link works for me  but I don't remember posting it or in what context it is relevant.  If you gave the orignal context with it, maybe.

                    Try a differrent browser.  I use Sarfari, Firefox and Netscape.

                    Rybo

                    Rybo
                    With thanks
                    Heleni
                    On Monday, March 6, 2006, at 01:45  AM, rybo6 wrote:

                    On Mar 4, 2006, at 10:29 PM, Heleni Harvey wrote:

                    I very much appreciate your input and will be taking some time to consider your point of view. I will be visiting the sites regularly.
                    Thank you
                    Heleni


                    Heleni, your welcome.

                    I want to try one more time to make a clear distinction between the 2D Triangular Plane operations in graviton as compared to the photon.

                    1)Graviton- Pod-like, 4-vertexial, expanding contracting, 2D triangular plane of the non-90 degree hexahedron( dipyarmid ) travels circumferentially around( geodesic pathWAVE ) of the 5-fold icosahedrons 31 or more Great Circle-like pathways.


                    2)Photon- Similar to the Pod-like geometry( which may include inside-outing tetrahedron ergo overall a dipyramid process ) but the central vertex is following a diametric axis pathway through the center of the icosahedron while the outer edges of the 2D triangle( becomes high frequency polygon ) and follows the circumferential 10 Great Circle pathWAVEs  of the gravitons.

                    Im not sure that helps, as  this is only my first few times in putting in words my 2D perceptions of our seemingly, 3D universe.  

                    Rybo 

                     


                    On Friday, March 3, 2006, at 02:40 PM, rybo6 wrote:

                    On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Heleni Harvey wrote:

                    It is true, certain, and without falsehood, that whatever is below is like that which is above; and that which is above is like that which is below: to accomplish the one wonderful work. 
                    HH]  I relate these two to the laws in physics as The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. But what unifies these two?


                    1) The One = The Wave = General Relativity =  Macro-cosmic, abstract( metaphysical ) generalized cosmic laws/principles and overall averaged out patterns,
                    .... that are true everywhere and everywhen as,
                    .... a continuity of seemingly discrete frames of reference? I dunno.

                    2) The Many = The Particle = Quantum Mechanics = Micro-cosmic physics of a special-case ( metered reality ) localized phenomena which appear as discrete discontinuous quantum events.

                    What I've come to see via my Rybonic studies, is that there is not a clear, clean, decisive differrentiation between my belief of a generalized set of,
                    ... icosahedrally based, 5-fold bosons,
                    .....and 4-fold based fermions.

                    E.g. my 5-fold icosahedral as gravity( 31 Great Circle-like polygonals ),
                    ...is composed of integrated set of,
                    ...multiple 4-fold hexahedral, dipyramids( non-90 degree hexahedrons ) and,

                    I see electro-magnetic photons/radiation as the 2D triangle that expand as a higher frequency polygonal,
                    ..that disperses out laterally from a approximating straight-line, diametric axis of the same said icosahedron,
                    ...and at the same time that also travels forward on the 10 Great-Circle-like Polygonals of said icosahedron.


                    At bottom of page of this link above we see the vertical expanding line as,
                    ..the side view of a gravitons dymamic expression as,
                    ...a ciricmfferential set of geodesic pathWAVEs,.

                    There may many of this gravitonic geodesic circumferential pathWAVES to create *one* icosahedral spheric.

                    My photon idea use the same graphic ideas  above except that,
                    ..the photon also has relationship to a diamtetric axis pathway through,
                    .. the diameter of the same icosahedron.

                    This link to my file folder contains the file "Photons" which is,
                    .. old model that is not exactly what I'm now envisionng but if,
                    .. the 2D aspect of the gravitonic model is integrated into the photonic graphic then,
                    ... hopefully others will follow my train of thought on this.

                    I would remind the reader of 2D implications of all holgraphic models and those black hole mathematics of Jabcb Bekenstein that have also arrived at these MOST radical ideas of all of nature being 2D.

                    Bekenstien states it as "we appear to be 2D creatures having and illusion of 3D".

                    Rybo



                     



                     







                    Could it be as simple as My own Observation? Or someone else's Observations?
                    And is the power of my observation mathematically quantifiable.

                    Still pondering the question.
                    Heleni



                    On Friday, March 3, 2006, at 08:09 AM, Peter Boos wrote:

                    BTW intresting theory gaming theory reminds me about statistics (the science of gambling) in a way it's a new look to statistics it's like fractals and simple linear math something evolving.

                     



                    --

                     



                    I think of this yahoo group as a group of new thinkers giving people some ideas so perhaps someone else can also rethink it perhaps improve it. With a close look to the way we see our day to day reality.

                     



                    Like many others i'm puzled about the science of quantum mechanics, and the things they achieve with it. For example what's the connection between entangled photons. Or the double split expiriment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment.
                    Because of this last expirement some believe the universe is a multiverse in wgich at any place everything happens while we are the lucky ones still living in a live-able universe.

                     



                    In regard to those last thoughts i've been thinking abuot something i never heard  people talk of. So perhaps its a new idea to share, or just something old i just never heard it. Well as i would take the 100$ so here i go ;) 

                    I was thinking the folowing:
                    Why should thise undetermind quantum physics work on a small scale?.

                     



                    Why wouldn't it be possible to work an a large scale?
                    AND in combination with:
                    Why is there a need for a multiverse?.

                     



                    It could also be that undetermined 'reactions' get determined later.
                      (a quantum computer seams to work that way as i understand it).

                     



                    This would mean that an space area gets in an unknown state (like it was put into running possibilities in various states (or spaces). Then later it wil fit back in into our visibliy known determined state of how we see the world.

                     



                    Thinking deeper trough, no partical or wave knows all other particles or wave.
                    Therfore at quantum level there is no real determined world, at a higher level it looks like there is a determined world still however particles and waves are not all connected to each other.

                     



                    Perhaps this world has a need for a common shared reality this would not be a mulitverse not a universe but... ehm how to call it in english don't know the english..
                    Not a universe but a multiverse trying to behave like a single universe.
                    It would be i gues efficient to do that, to behave in a certain reality scope.

                     



                    i think the above is a new idea.

                     



                     



                    There is something else too about this, undetermined quantum states..
                    lets gamble the next state.. could gamble math be used here, perhaps game theory?.
                    Or is there something new thats waiting to be discovered.

                     



                     



                    While i was reading the gamming theory i was thinking of this idea how about the people who took 100$ in a multiverse all people took 100$ in each of their worlds.
                    The number of realities by all kind of actions in such a multiverse would be endless.
                    instead of a 'smart' UNI-verse in which people get 1000$ dollar each. It might be that it's also accepted and less time consuming (efficiency..) that just someone takes that 100$ and so be it. This 'action' happend within a certain 'reaction time' and the other member would regred the 100$ but wouldn't regred the long wait time.

                    This group of people is like the undetermined space.
                    If they would live inside a black box, and i wouldn't know about their choice.
                    When they open the door of their box, our spaces /reality would merge
                    I see that one of them has 100$. While they see that i'am wondered where i lost my 100$ bill. They return my lost Bill. Just a way of reality scopes merging.

                     



                    Perhaps they saw also ten people and one them (me) has lost this 100$ bill.
                    the number of people doesn't mater it's just a scope of a reality.

                     



                    Farr away my brother lives he looks at us, close to the blackbox. Trough a telescope he cann't see the details of the 100$ bill, it's to far away. All he can see with his telescope is the box some vageu people in front of it, and the stars. To him it all seams to be quite static almost like a newton world altough a bit blurry.
                    My brother wonders; "Why can i never could get a real picture of it all could it be the fog at those late nights the world never seams to apear bright and sharp".

                     



                     



                     



                     



                     



                     



                     






                    <image.tiff>


                    Brings words and photos together (easily) with
                    PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

                    <image.tiff>


                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

                    + Visit your group "Polytopia" on the web.

                     



                    + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

                     



                    + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                    <image.tiff>






                    SPONSORED LINKS

                    <image.tiff>



                    <image.tiff>


                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

                    + Visit your group "Polytopia" on the web.

                     


                    + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

                     


                    + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                    <image.tiff>






                    SPONSORED LINKS
                    <image.tiff>


                    <image.tiff>

                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

                    +  Visit your group "Polytopia" on the web.

                     

                    +  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

                     

                    +  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                    <image.tiff>


                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.