Y-BIAS AND ANGULARITY - The Dynamics of Self-Organizing Criticality From the Zero Point to Infinity

Follow-up to Y-Bias and Angularity: The Dynamics of Self-Organizing Criticality

On January 21, 2007, David G. Yurth wrote:

I have just received a copy of the paper written by Dr. Paul La Violette. As you review it, you will see that it fundamentally validates one of the key concepts included in the Y-Bias model. This is extremely exciting because it means that we have suddenly been handed independent validation in a way that we had never anticipated, from a truly impeccable source. I still can't get unwound enough to get to sleep.

Introduction to paper

(snip)

Who we are, how we live and how we think; how the Universe functions, and how we relate to that universe: these are the great questions of our Time. Physics, in the classical sense that has inflamed the passions of untold thinkers in human history, is the quest -- for the answers. It is a quest that ultimately drives how we feel about each other, and profoundly influences how we treat the planet we live on. It frames our attitudes and values about life and living. To the extent that our notions about the origins of the cosmos and how Nature works are flawed, it naturally follows that our attitudes about our relationships with the world we live in must also be crippled. Consider, for example, the archaic Darwinian concept that the most evolved creatures are those most effective at slaughtering other creatures. It is this type of scientific bias which appears to have negatively affected our “modern” mindset, leading to a passion for consumption and conquest that is unrivaled in any written accounts of our history.

Today, more than at any other time in the known history of our world, we find ourselves faced with the daunting prospect of our own self-inflicted extinction. While the particulars are growing in number at a startling rate, the causes have remained starkly constant.

We have come to rely on the language of Science as the means for discussing how Nature works. If, as the current thinking about such things goes, the universe in its entirety was created in one mighty bang, it may be true that we are but passive expressions of the evolution of that event, however it turns out. If we are nothing more than inert byproducts of a giant, impersonal explosion, then what difference does it make if we exploit the planet and each other? Were Plato's notions about fate correct? On the other hand, if all the matter, energy, field forces and phenomena comprising the cosmos are being actively created and deconstructed everywhere, all the time, as part of an infinite, eternal cycle of self-organization and annihilation, our role in this process must be apprehended in a completely different context. If we are active participants in the process of creation, is it not in our best interest to produce a scientific model that defines our responsibility for the consequences of our choices and actions?
[link to www.pureenergysystems.com]

Two hundred fifty years ago, Rene` Descartes and the other keen observers of Nature who followed his example made a deal which still exerts a profound influence on the way we all think about such things today. The principal condition which governed Descartes' turf-deal with the Catholic Church was that he agreed to restrict his investigations and writings solely to considerations of the 'physical stuff' found in Nature; hence the science of all things in the natural world has come to be known as 'Physics'. According to this compromise, all things not seen or observed in the Natural world, the 'spirit stuff', were to be left solely to the considerations of the Church. The decision to make this distinction was political, not scientific. But the primary effect of this agreement has been the evolution of a cosmology that insists that the physical stuff and the spirit stuff are mutually exclusive: separate and distinct from each other. Today, Science denies that 'spirit stuff' even exists.

As a consequence, the Standard Model of Physics still specifically prohibits a long list of widely observed and impeccably documented phenomena which violate this dictum. Rigorous experimental evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, it is still not possible for competent scientists to report the results of rigorously conducted experimental protocols which attempt to penetrate these mysteries in the official organs of Science, because all such reports are implicitly or explicitly forbidden. It is not simply a matter of such things not being scientifically valid. Rather, even when scientific validity has been clearly established, the institution of Science has continued to preclude the publication of such heretical notions.

Is it any wonder, then, that the children of the 21st Century have little or no concept of the implicate order which defines the way the fabric of the universe is woven? How can anyone who looks carefully and thoughtfully at the most fundamental questions make sense of what we think we know, when much of the information we need to exercise informed judgment about such things is deemed unacceptable for public discourse? How can Science and scientists be trusted to provide valid, robust, meaningful answers to the most important questions of our time when the disciplines which govern their research are so severely crippled and proscriptive?
[link to www.pureenergysystems.com]

" Based on the precepts included in this new model, we have successfully developed, tested and independently verified four entirely new materials, including:

*

a positively charged ZnO2 thin film,
*

a transparent electrically conductive thin film with virtually no capacitance and ambient resistance of less than 2 ohms per square, regardless of surface area,
*

a semi-conductor-based thermal electric generator that converts heat to electrical power at efficiencies ranging between 38% - 45%, between temperatures ranging from 1°C - 240°C, and
*

a new material that has been shown to fluoresce, emit and lase across the visible spectrum [tunable] in nano-particle sizes, using direct electrical stimulation rather than up or down pumping. "

-------

Very nice. Wait until we are able to translate ambient infrasound and surface micro-turbulance into electricity with nanostructure lattices. ...coming soon.

Nice post OP, thanks.

Hahaha!

That is the other part I was going to put in this thread. Thanks Soupornuts!

Just a quick note. I am in touch with one of the authors and scientists of this paper. He has advised me that if anyone would like to Google his work, please note the following:

The Search Engines pick up an occasional Y or word Angular, some time it does not relate to the combined Yurth-Ayres Physics Law covered in the Monograph. I should point out, in reading the Brief Lines of any Google Capture using Y-Bias and Angularity. When the expression Y-Bias is used, it was never used before in any field of science literature. Not in any Table of Symbols existing in 2004 date of Publishing. The Angularity has been a Common Term for Centuries of writing. However when the Terms “Y-BIAS and Angularity” are combined (Copywrite Term), it forms the accepted Terms for Yurth–Ayres Particle Physics at all scales and in all fields of Science investigation. The Abbreviated scientific form, if you should desire to use it, is [ “Yb & Ang”], also a Copywrite Symbol”.

For those interactions which achieve coherence at the primary scale, the angularity of the subsequent Y-Bias interactions determines whether the eventual manifestation will subsequently become observable as matter, energy, time and/or field effects. Y-Bias interactions define the nature and extent to which all scalar interactions in the Physical Vacuum satisfy the SOC demands of fractal boundedness or unboundedness, which are observed to operate across the infinite expanses of time and space, in realtime. By this means, materiality in the physical world eventually unfolds and enfolds at all scales, as Bohm rightly suggested. While the dynamics and mechanics of SOC systems are neither widely addressed nor actually accommodated by the Standard Model, they are nevertheless rigorously observed and reported throughout scientific literature. The work of Bak and others demonstrates, and Y-Bias/Angularity Theory holds, that the cosmos is a single, open, complex SOC system at all scales.

Y-Bias and Angularity: The Dynamics of Self-Organizing Criticality
From the Zero Point to Infinity

by David G. Yurth and Donald Ayres
Holladay, Utah

hey SS, this is off topic, but I was looking for your thread with all the UFO believers and I couldn`t find it. Can you link it please?

GLP made me take it off (no link to my research).

I will upload it to my blog. Many people like that information, and since its not here now, I will put it on my blog. Give me a sec and I'll do it. i'll let you know when it is done.

Thread: Quite a List of UFO Quotes!

No problem, glad I was unbanned to take part in such passing of info...

I'm glad too! Interesting stuff. I'm working through the Y-Bias/Angular paper right now. 137 pages of brain drain, but I'm well into it.

But wait! What do I see here? REAL...actual...MATERIAL THINGS using this model? :) Whoooodathunkit!

Good info. Gonna take a little while to finish the paper, though.

One thing that keeps coming to mind is we must not let thing become to complicated. Things must stay logical in an infinently imaginitive state of complex thoughts.

My dog just reminded me that our logic is at best questionable and most often highly unadvisable.

I am part way through this research paper.

IT IS AN AMAZING BIT OF RESEARCH! Highly recommend...

Definitions - Self-Organizing Criticality:

Criticality is mathematically defined as the state of highest efficiency in a complex system.[48] At the point of criticality, catastrophic events happen in a big way, all at once, and not by gradual degrees. This is as true of rush hour traffic jams as it is of mass extinctions and major weather events. When we understand this aspect of complex systems, we also begin to understand something fundamental about the way Nature works. When it is understood that this set of rules operates at all scales, it then becomes possible to develop a model which explains the observable phenomena which are not accommodated by the Standard Model. It also becomes possible to predict the existence of phenomena not yet discovered, which can be logically presumed to operate according to these rules at larger and smaller scales than previously imagined.

Y-Bias and Angularity: The Dynamics of Self-Organizing Criticality
From the Zero Point to Infinity

by David G. Yurth and Donald Ayres
Holladay, Utah

:boobbump:

bump

Wiesenfeld sandpile

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Thank you I've learnt something today.

Peace out.

Last Edited by G2DU on 10/03/2011 01:31 AM

Stinky, look closely at that frog.

Imagine on the left side, that is Zero and the right side is One. As the frog MOVES from Zero to One, it occupies space & time, and at Zero, it occupies space & time, just as it occupies space & time at One. Therefrom, the space-time of numbers isn't in-between the numbers, it is the number itself!

Newton's Laws of Motion apply to Mathematics because Mathematics is kNOwTHING more than numbers in motion.

Ribbit

Ps: I love the thread! It looks like science is finally coming over to an Open System Universe!

Last Edited by Butt Ugly Toad on 10/03/2011 12:49 AM

Complexitism is where it's at, kNOT Complicationism!

Just like a woman. They are kNOT complicated, they are complexed!

Ribbit

"Order, via Control, breeds Chaos but Control, via Order, isn't Control." - Old Toad Proverb

The reason why rush hour traffic jams occur, is dew to Order via Control, thus, Chaos ensues.

As to mass extinctions & major weather events, what if they are Controlled events?

Ribbit

:boobbump:

The Law of Eristic Escalation... Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos

Throwing that out there so I can delve deeper a little later :)

Toad and I were discussing this...

Control = Chaos
Freedom = Order

How I read it...

Control = Destructive Order/Chaos
Freedom = Constructive Order/Chaos

You know me and my distinctions... not all chaos is "bad". We couldn't create anything without the combination. :)