Greetings,
MINDWALK is based on Fritjof Capra's 'The Turning
Point'. When this VHS tape was available, I
bought many to give to friends and family. It
has never been made into a dvd version, and it is
unavailable to purchase as a vhs version, new or
old. If anybody would like a dvd backup copy
sent to them, let me know offlist. It's a great movie.
Marsha
At 03:09 PM 5/5/2009, you wrote:
Marsha, I would love a copy, I'll give you an
address off-list, what I know of modern standard
theory is that entities are assumed in order to
use mathematical calculations. for example: " In
1926, Erwin Schrödinger, using Louis de
Broglie's 1924 proposal that particles behave to
an extent like waves, developed a mathematical
model of the atom that described the electrons
as three-dimensional waveforms, rather than
point particles. A consequence of using
waveforms to describe electrons is that it is
mathematically impossible to obtain precise
values for both the position and momentum of a
particle at the same time; this became known as
the uncertainty principle, formulated by Werner
Heisenberg in 1926. In this concept, for each
measurement of a position one could only obtain
a range of probable values for momentum, and
vice versa. Although this model was difficult to
visualize, it was able to explain observations
of atomic behavior that previous models could
not, such as certain structural and spectral
patterns of atoms larger than hydrogen. Thus,
the planetary model of the atom was discarded in
favor of one that described atomic orbital zones
around the nucleus where a given electron is
most likely to exist.[25][26]" Â "In the
Standard Model of physics, both protons and
neutrons are composed of elementary particles
called quarks. The quark belongs to the fermion
group of particles, and is one of the two basic
constituents of matterthe other being the
lepton, of which the electron is an example.
There are six types of quarks, each having a
fractional electric charge of either +2/3 or
â1/3. Protons are composed of two up quarks
and one down quark, while a neutron consists of
one up quark and two down quarks. This
distinction accounts for the difference in mass
and charge between the two particles. The quarks
are held together by the strong nuclear force,
which is mediated by gluons. The gluon is a
member of the family of gauge bosons, which are
elementary particles that mediate physical
forces." Â Historically, the hadrons (mesons
and baryons such as the proton and neutron) and
even whole atoms were once regarded as
elementary particles. A central feature in
elementary particle theory is the early 20th
century idea of "quanta", which revolutionised
the understanding of electromagnetic radiation
and brought about quantum mechanics. For
mathematical purposes, elementary particles are
normally treated as point particles, although
some particle theories such as string theory
posit a physical dimension. Â All elementary
particles are either bosons or fermions
(depending on their spin). The spin-statistics
theorem identifies the resulting quantum
statistics that differentiates fermions from
bosons. According to this methodology: particles
normally associated with matter are fermions,
having half-integer spin; they are divided into
twelve flavours. Particles associated with
fundamental forces are bosons, having integer
spin.[3] Â Â ________________________________
From: X Acto <[email protected]> To:
[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 5,
2009 2:30:51 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns s/o
or relationship??? Marsha, I know you like to
think of most physicsts as being stuck in the
1930's but most of the physicists who still
thought in terms of objects are either dead or
retired. I know you and Platt were just
communicating, sorry for stepping in, I just
thought that u-tube link was terribly
interesting. -Ron
 ________________________________ From:
MarshaV <[email protected]> To:
[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 5,
2009 2:19:00 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns s/o
or relationship??? Ron, I agree with you. It's
impossible to find the words, and why
understanding the nature of these patterns
(word-labels) is ........  There is no
common assumption. At their most
understandable they're relationship, but in the
end they are so much dust in the wind. If you
want to be the hammerer on top, be my guest. A
hammer is not as elegant as an X Acto Knife. I
was just trying to communicate with Platt. As
far SOL being obsolete for MOQ'ers, I was
thinking of yet-to-be MOQ'ers. And Earth to
Ron, many physicists do not know other than s/o
with lots of space. Marsha At 01:43 PM 5/5/2009,
you wrote: >Platt, Marsha, >Â Basically that is
what she is saying only she uses the term
relationship >which is commonly understood as
interaction between objects, but, she >already
states that what we assume as objects are
actually greater sets >of relationships,
relationships of relationships or a better word
for what >she is describing is value. > >As I
keep hammering on, common assumptions about
common terms >in our culture is what creates
philosophical paradox , the failure >of
rationalism. Our language is based on the
grammatic predication >of subjects and objects.
So even when we hear the term relationships >we
automatically conceptualize the interaction of
objects and have difficulty >even forming
concepts about entityless abstractions. The same
goes for value, >The terms "value" and
"relationship" are almost meaningless
without >the conventional conception of
objects. >Physicists have understood the
inherent emptiness of reality for the
past >60-70 yrs but has yet to percolate to the
public. >This is why SOL is redundant and
obsolete, as MoQists >we already know this,
physicists already know this. >Pirsig uses the
lingual distinction of Dq/Sq just to
avoid >essentialism in
conception. > >-Ron > > > > > >__________________
______________ >From: "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> >To:
[email protected] >Sent: Tuesday, May 5,
2009 7:16:19 AM >Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns s/o
or relationship??? > >On 5 May 2009 at 6:56,
MarshaV wrote: > > > > > Are all physicist as
enlightened as this one??? > > > >
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRduOpj1R7c&feature=related
> > > > > > 4:05 minutes > >Marsha, > >Don't
you think this physicist would be more
enlightened if she had >acknowledged the role of
values in the structure of the
universe? >Emphasizing relationships and
interconnections as she does strikes me
as >assuming an S/O premise. > >Thanks for the
link. > >Platt > >Moq_Discuss mailing
list >Listinfo, Unsubscribing
etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_d
iscuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqta
lk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http:/
/moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > >
> >Moq_Discuss mailing list >Listinfo,
Unsubscribing
etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_d
iscuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqta
lk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http:/
/moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ .
_____________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you
miss, you'll land among the stars......... . .
Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing
etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
   Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo,
Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing
etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
