[MD] The Anti-entropic Miopic(murdering MOQ?)

[Ron Kulp]

 [Mark]
"Biological systems are so far above these in scope, sophistication and  value they may be regarded in new descriptions and awarded a category of  their own.
For if you don't, one possible consequence is that all inorganic and biological patterns are one dissipative system: You have no more value than a  piece of shit (atoms are dissipative systems too and shit is made of atoms,  which is no shit).
Now, i know there may be some people who actually believe this to be true regardless of the moq, but i will defend you against this vial and demeaning charge with great vigour"

[x]
Sounds like a theist/atheist debate Moq says the universe is a pattern of values thus a morally ordered toward higher value, universe.
(Us yanks )say not necessarely, the universe works in a sort of thermodynamic way, but still MOQ. Interestingly enough,
 a paper was recently Written by Nassim Harame in which will defends this view without being vial nor demeaning. 
Caution It may mean the end The MOQ as you see it. Here is the theory: 

All rights reserved
 
What is the Origin of Spin?
 
By 
Nassim Haramein

 
 
 
Ask the question, "What is the origin of the rotation or spin of all objects from galaxies, suns and planets to atoms and subatomic particles?" and you  may  get  the answer that it originates at the big bag as an initial impulse (moment) 
and that it has been spinning since then in a frictionless environment.From this response, now you may
have two additional questions:is a frictionless environment a good representation of our observation, and 
where did the energy come from initially?  To the first one, our universe is comprised of not only 
space, but matter/energyÏall of which is interacting in plasma dynamics of galaxies, solar systems 
(solar winds), and so on. Even in the intergalactic vacuum, which is centimeters
 apart. All of this stuff interacting does not make for an ideal frictionless environment.  In fact, this 
idealization further standardizes the spinning object as a solid with no viscosity difference of spin. 
A good experiment that you can perform is to boil an egg and after the egg is completely cooled, try 
to spin it on your desk.  It will spin in a uniform manner and you can imagine that if it was in a frictionless 
environment it could spin forever.  Now perform the same experiment with a non-boiled egg; you will observe that the egg will slow down rapidly due to its viscous core.  Now envision the viscous magma inside our planet it  certainly  is  not  spinning  in  a  frictionless  environment.  In fact earths center is thought to act as a dynamo to generate our magnetic field; however, it takes torque to spin the dynamo! Currently there are elaborate thermal and magnetic models that attempt to explain the inner spin of the core of our planet; 
however, none explain where the impulse moment initially comes from.  Where is the force coming from? 
The same dilemma applies for the spin of all objects  our sun, galaxies, atoms, subatomic particles,  and  
so  on,  which  brings  us  back  to  the  second  part of our question above concerning the origin of the energy of 
spin. The origin of the energy is unknown, and at the quantum level of subatomic particles causation is not addressed! 
 Yet, without spin/rotation none of reality can come to exist. All things spin! Even things that appear not to! You may say,
 "a tree doesent spin"  but in fact every atom in that tree spins, and that tree is on a planet that is spinning, 
and this planet is in a solar system that is spinning inside a galactic disk and so on.  So we could say that spin is fundamental  to  creation, and objects  that appear to be  inanimate  exist solely  because spinning atoms within allow the objects to radiate, and hence, appear in our reality. So an important endeavor of physics would be to find the fundamental  forces  necessary  to generate spin 
since, if those were known, we would ultimately know the foundations of reality.  That is a valuable thing to know Î never
 mind the fact that it could provide very important clues about energy and gravity, which can have huge impacts on our current 
state of technology and ecology.  Yet, in all of the intricacies of both quantum theory and relativistic  equations 
 (and  I  assure  you  that  these  complexities  are  not  trivial),  no equations, no concepts, no fundemental theories
Have to date been postulated to describem the origin of spin.

This deficiency in our understanding of the dynamics of spin/rotation is what lead prominent  Nobel-prize  laureate  C.N.  Yang  (of  the  famous  Yang-Mills  equation)  to comment that,"Einsteins general realtivity theory, though profoundly
Beautifal, is likely to be ammended.." and that ammendment, "somehow entangles spin and rotation." Although Dr. Raucher
And I were unaware of Dr. Yangs most accurate statement, we believe that our recently completed paper entitled
" The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einsteins Field Equations and Grand Unification
Theory " Addresses this very issue. As you can deduce from the title, we  imbued Einsteinian spacetime with a torq
ue and Coriolis term that becomes the cause and origin of all spins. 
 We then solved the equation and related the solution to a modified GUT Theory (Grand Unification Theory) for the electromagnetic and subatomic particle scale of reality.  In doing so we have arrived at a true Unification view, for we have bridged the macro 
and the micro.  Sure, there is much more math to be worked out; however, this ammendment to Einsteins Field Equations, we believe, becomes a landmark foundation from  which  a  new  level of physics can be written that generates a more accurate and complete picture of not only galactic formations and solar system structures, but as well as planetary plasma mechanics, and atomic and subatomic dynamics.  
Although the math involved  may  seem  quite  complex,  the  concepts  are  quite  simple.    Einstein,  with  his 
beautiful field  equations,  showed  that  gravity  is  not  a  force  resulting  from  objects themselves  (as  in  Newtonian  views),  but  that  gravity  is  a  force  resulting  from  the curvature of spacetime in the 
presence of matter/energy.  Imagine a ball placed in the center of a flexible surface such as a trampoline.  The ball would curve the surface of the trampoline (spacetime) around it so that any other ball on the surface of that trampoline would be attracted to it.
That is the standard simlified view of "Einsteins Field  Equations describing gravity.  Those field  equations  have  their  basis  in  earlier equations that are known as the LaPlace-Poisson Equations, which describe gradients (in this  case,  gradient densities), making spacetime curve more or less depending on the density/mass of the object. 
 Now what we have done is that we have added a term to Einsteins quations which  accounts  for  a  fundamental  force  in
 spacetime generating torque, which is forcing the spacetime manifold to spin Î just as the engine of your car must apply the force of torque to the wheels of your car in order for them to rotate.  One may ask, "But where is the spacetimetorque coming from?
Ie., "Where is the engine?'
The answer is, just as we think of the spacetime curvature generating gravity as a density increase  in  the  presence  of  matter  energy,  we  can  think  of  the  torque  force  of  the curvature  of  space  as  increasingas density increases. 
Thus,  the torque  comes from a change in density (or gradient) in the geometry of spacetime. 
   To  give  you  a  mental  picture,  replace  the  surface  of  the  trampoline  we  were discussing earlier with 
the surface tension of water as it goes down the drain of your bathtub. 
 The change of density between the air in the drain of your tub and the water makes  the  water  surface  curve  towards  the  drain,  but  significantly, the surface  is no longer a smooth curve (as in the trampoline example), but now it curls as the water goes down and as th
e air spins out. Another way to look at this is to analyze the dynamics of
weather patterns on Earth (note that in this example the same could be said  for water currents).  Take, for example, a hurricane.  As a result of a relatively small difference in density/temperature in the atmosphere, immense currents gather large quantities (tons and 
tons) of water orbiting in a highly defined structure sometimeshundreds of kilometers resulting in huge energy events that 
include enormous electromagnetic discharges, high velocity winds, and sometimes funnel tornadoes. Now compare those 
dynamics to the ones  of  spiral  arm  galaxies  with  their  spiraling  galactic  discs.    The  similarities  are obvious, however in our equation the change in density is not in the air of a planet, but in the plasma gases of our universe. 
 For  instance,  recall  that the density of the relative vacuum between galaxies although being the largest vacuum observed and millions of 
times more vacuum than that of our solar system has its atoms o
nly a few centimeters apart.    Yet the vacuum density inside our galaxy is much greater. 
 The difference  in densities  in  this  case,  just  as  with  the  differences  in  densities  in  air  currents  of  our atmosphere creating hurricanes, is what generates spacetime torquing matter/energy, and spinning  it into  the observed topology  of  a  galactic  disc
 with its galactic halos and galactic polar jets.  Further, as in the case for a hurricane, Coriolis forces dictate very specific 
structures that are related to a torus (donut structure) or more specifically to a dual torus bubble, because the Coriolis forces manifest in two opposite rotational patterns (   go   to 
www.theresonanceproject.org/research/torus.htm to view the dual torus animation).    We named this amendment to Einsteins Field
Eqautions the Haramein-Rauscher solution. 
 We believe that it will more accurately predict the observed dynamics of our universe,   including   its   galactic   clusters,   galactic   structures   and   planetary   plasma dynamics.  This solution may as well be able to describe galactic structures and universal 
behavior without the need for exotic inclusions such as dark matter and dark energy.
  Another   interesting result   from this amendment is that we have found a topological (geometric) relationship between the dual 
torus spacetime manifold of our solution and the structure of subatomic particles described by group theoretical models, 
typically used to describe subatomic particle  interactions. The relationship  involves  a very  specific  geometric  structure  called  a  cubeoctahedron,  or  in  other  cases  a  vector equilibrium, which can   be   constructed from   eight (8) edge-bounded   tetrahedrons 
generating twelve (12) radiating vectors and twenty-four (24) edge vectors.  This group theoretical model relationship then allows us to unify the atomic scale forces to the macro cosmological scale objects, and thus generate a Unified Field Theory. Furthermore, the 
twelve radiating topological cubeoctahedral vectors generating a dual torus field are the base vectors of a 3D fractal structure I had discovered many years ago and concluded to be the foundation geometry of creation at all scales (to view this unique fractal model at its 64  tetrahedron  iteration, go to 
www.theresonanceproject.org/graphics/3d.htm). You could  imagine the  same dual torus bubble and cubeoctahedron occurring at all 
scales, driven by the torque forces of spacetime as the density increases towards the microscopic scale of the atom, and
 along the way, spinning everything into existence.  
 
 In a work-in-progress, we are writing a balance equation between the gravitational torque forces of spacetime and the electromagnetic 
repulsive forces.  In this view, then,  the Universe seems to be spinning in perpetual motion in a frictionless environment only due to the exchange between the torque of spacetime and the electromagnetic entropy, where  the  torque  overcomes  the  shearing  friction. 
the Universe seems to be spinning in perpetual motion in a frictionless environment only due to the exchange between the torque 
of spacetime and the electromagnetic entropy, where  the  torque  overcomes  the  shearing  friction viscosity of the
Universes plasma dynamics to generate billions of years of rotation in a seemingly frictionless manner at all 
scales.This brings us to a deeper view of black hole dynamics where the black holes are no longer only absorbing 
material/information, but radiating this information back out in the form of electromagnetic radiation, and 
the feedback between the two generates the topology  of  the dual torus structure of the Haramein-Rauscher solution 
driven by spacetime. Now the black hole is no longer  black  since  its  exterior  event  horizon radiates
,  which  is  what  I  have  been  calling  the  white  hole  portion.    Here  the  black hole/white hole are concentric
to each other, where the black hole is inside and the white hole is concentrically structured outside and 
activates the plasma dynamics and Coriolis forces of the ergosphere of the black hole, which I coined the black
-white whole. Dr. Stephen Hawking, who for nearly thirty years insisted that black holes could not radiate information, 
in a recent announcement has now made a complete 180 degree turn in his views (much to his credit), predicting that black 
holes may be able to radiate information.  This has been a fundamental contingency of this unification view for almost 
twenty  years,  and  I  am  excited  to  see  these  views  now  being  embraced  by  others.Interestingly, 
I arrived to these conclusions long before confirming these relationships with standard mathematics. 
 I did so by using pure logic, a keen observation of nature and geometric extrapolations,some resulting  from  in
-depth studies of ancient symbols and esoteric  schools  of thought, such  as  the  Pythagorian  schools and  ancient  Hebraic  and 
Egyptian texts. In many respects, I unknowingly followed a similar path of investigation as Sir Isaac Newton
, who had spent a significant part of his adult life deeply immersed in the study of ancient texts and monuments before 
arriving at his fundamental laws of nature.  But I am getting ahead of myself this is all for a future article, on the
 seemingly ancient profound understandings of the geometry of nature to what that  means  in our technological modern era.

"No more value than a piece of shit" seems we're all former shit molecules..
It's all how you value the shit and that's why MOQ still works but it's
 Idea of an evolution of "ultimate betterness" is not so absolute it seems.
-X