> MIKE, on Mar 18 1998 you wrote at Serendip Forum,

Jake: On Quarks and Philosophy,
First was fire, water ...then it was electrons, protons and neutrons. And then there are quarks and matter and anti-matter. Suppose quarks are the ultimate answer for the subatomic structure of matter. But does it make a difference?

Mike, it's actually protons-antiprotons, electrons-positrons. Neutrons, as you well know, are neutral: proton+electron. More than 500 particles have been reported, mostly of very short life, as seen in the films made from the moment of the impact of an accelerated particle on a proton. I wonder how much of the interpretations can be believed . The fact that a COMMON SENSE SCIENCE (CSS) has been recently set up by respectable physicisists, attests to the reigning confusion.
Common Sense they define as the respect for Cause-Effect. You know, there was an early Greek who said that everything is predermined by the previous cause, buuut... an ATOM suddenly takes an 'UNEXPECTED turn' and...lo and behold, undeterminism, FREE WILL! After many centuries, this Greek surfaced in the 'original' lucubrations of UNDETERMINISTS.

BUT IT IS SIMPLY a matter of COMPLEXITY!
No need to fear Pascal's DETERMINISM. An EMERGENT is absolutely UNEXPECTED! RESULTANTS follow on its wake, even surpass it in their physical attributes, an then, another Emergent!
No need for Schroediger's 'cat,' nor for mystical 'mind-reading' particles. The 'tangled' photons will eventually be explained by some hitherto undescribed physical law.

I believe in the three quarks that make a proton, it sounds OK, I enjoy thinking that they are chockfull of electrons (e-) and positrons' (p+), some 1040 of each one. And I have my own heretical theory: They say, electrons have a so-called 'negative' electrical charge and the positrons a 'positive' one. I say, they just spin in opposite directions, and that creates a mutual repulsion (or attraction, depending...). But in NATURE we deal with ONLY electrons moving along a conductor. They are 'particles' (actually 'clouds' some 500 times the size of compact protons) that carry the sort of energy that was logically termed 'electric.' This is energy in its full splendor (the mother of all energies). And you know what is perhaps the only energy resource in NATURE for such energy?
FRICTION! Yes, friction energy , that's the source of STATIC 'electricity,' the one that exists in the inanimate world, the omnipresent electricity. What do you think is the cause of anti-inertia, the one that stops your car when you remove eyour foot from the gas pedal? Static electricity, the charged electrons acting upon the atoms in the tires of your moving car. Aristotle didn't possess such knowledge; he didn't know that it was that sort of energy from the air particles that made the light, large body fall slower than the small, compact one.

When static electrical energy reaches a critical level, it 'jumps' toward non-charged matter, while being converted into heat, even fire, light. It causes the explosion of silos, the death of Aaron's sons (on a very dry day), and the sparks when we touch our car on a dry day.

'Direct' electric current, composed of + and - charges, is present only in batteries and in living organisms, and it is all a question of electrons from metals moving towards the place where there are no electrons charged with energy. As for alternating electricity, leave it aside, it is man-made, artificial..

What have you to say about this fantasy, Mike? Well, I agree with you, who's going to care about it? I just have fun with it. But I'm not going to publish such rubbish, because I am really interested in the D-SP, which provides me with a higher intelectual pleasure.

Look at all the scientific, cosmological, and philosophical unanswered questions.

A source of pleasure for the inquisitive mind.

I'm relating again to the dualism of particles and waves. Our mind can live with this duality, because this is the only way to explain established physical phenomena. But, is your mind "happy" with that? "Who" and when makes the "switch" between a particle and a wave? Where does the particle "disappear" when does it behave as a wave?

My mind WAS not 'happy' with that conundrum. That's why I said, the 'particles' are actually shapeable 'clouds.' They would move in an economic linear path --a 'lazy' NATURAL way --were it not for the opposing energy-- originating at the Big Bang-- that fills the space created by matter.
The clouds of photons (electrons, too) are forced to zigzag, finding 'channels' among the BB's energy entity ('Zero Point Energy, 'Microwave Energy''?). Thus, the situation is exactly inverse: it is not the type of wave that characterizes the 'particle,' but the energy of the particle (cloud) that characterizes its wave.

Isn't it that a more plausible explanation is needed to understand what is underlying in the essence of the "visible" physical universe? Quarks and particle-waves are nothing but the physical manifestations of the world as WE GRASP it with our severe limitations. We "see" quarks because at the time and space of the particular experiment , this is how the universe seems to manifest itself. Has it always been, or will it only be like that?

What would you find were you to reach the present boundaries of the Universe?
You would find Space, because the MATTER of your body would be MAKING it.
The 'trail-blazing' stars there --being 'singularities'-- behave in peculiar ways, one of them being the speed and characteristics of the photons they emmit: not being affected by absent Zero Point Energy, the photons could travel much faster --the lazy, economical natural way-- were it not for 'horizon' (boundary) events, whatever those are.
If you find this explanation confusing, allow me to clarify that your question is even more so...

Man's geo-centric approach in the Middle Ages was a serious drawback to his understanding. The irony is that there was a grain of truth in this approach, but it was totally distorted.

The grain of truth was a shapeable cloud that was 'distorted' into the rigth shape.

If we continue to believe that the Universe is only what we can measure and grasp with our contemporary science, we are setting for ourselves the same limits set by Middle Age's Man.

That's why we ought to reshape our cognitive proteins (coprots) and affective proteins (feprots) --which I postulate to being the units that allow H. Sapiens to have Will. For, is it not Man's desires that shape the world?