page 3
http://threesology.org
|
Some readers may consider the philosophic topic of time travel with or without an underlying "three" orientation a type of thought that is irrelevant because it does not generate any income, unless converted into some form which can be sold to a public willing to spend money on it. Indeed, those whose interest has a primary concern for making money may in fact be scouring the internet for ideas to be used in a book, lecture or script. If a person such as myself without a public reputation has an original idea which comes to be used by someone who is publicly known, you may well believe that it is they who had come up with the very idea... though its superficial trappings are altered in an attempt to conceal an exact resemblance thereof. While the concept of "in the public domain" is interpreted by some to mean that they can freely, without obligation, use another's ideas... those of us interested in one or another topic can readily discern whether a person has an in depth knowledge or not of a given subject... such as the "threes phenomena". And though some readers may come to discard any interest in numerological patterning as an exercise in numerology, it must be noted that there are those who do recognize given number patterns within their respective field of interest, but have not been exposed to the same basic pattern(s) underlying or governing a particular formula and existing in other genres of concept formation.
Let us take for example, as a starting point and continuation of the previous page, the usage of biological constructs as an attempted modeling of time... in the present topic of time travel. Where we noticed a difference in the types of structure for animal, plant and bacterial cells, the inclusion of viruses was mentioned as another example to be considered for the branch of a "time tree". Interestingly enough, when we survey biology, there is an interest in identifying patterns (such as the octet rule, triplet code, amino acid pairing, bi-lipid, etc...), which can be translated into a number scheme if one does not like the presence of "word numbers" or prefixes (such as single, double, triple, binary, octet, dimer, pairing, mono, multi, di, tri, quadri-... etc.) While, the presence of various patterns can be seen in the following excerpt about viruses and pointed out by the author, the content of the article does not include whether or not the author are familiar with the multitude of other similarly-shaped patterns in other subject areas, or that there is a recurrence of a limitation in the types of patterns being used... suggesting an imposed (environmental?) limitation that may be changing in response to deteriorations— in that which is imposing the limitation.
The design of the article, like those designed by those writing in so many other subject areas, is constrained to keep within the boundaries of the respective topic and not display the view of someone 'colorfully' thinking philosophically "outside-the-lines". To do so, one may be cited as engaging in "off topic" behavior... particularly by those who typically focus on one topic at a time and do not engage in multi-topic generation of material as part of an intellectual ensemble of consideration for assembling a larger perspective involving what may at first appear to be divergent (unrelated) materials, but are inclusive if the appropriate filing system is used in the construction of an ongoing blueprint of an underlying scaffolding and not simply the usage of traditional scaffolding for drawing a blueprint. It is completely understandable, but it must be understood that I am not similarly constrained in my discussions, because research, just like experimentation and inventing, often get inspiration or insights by way of "distractions" sometimes referred to as serendipity... and involves the old notion that ideas are sometimes generated while someone (who is mentally prepared to make divergent connections of seemingly unrelated material) is in a bathtub (like the supposed "Heure-ka!" [Eureka!] exclamation of Archimedes), or while wistfully viewing the passing scenes from inside a public bus, or in a semi-comatose (museful) state while sitting at a breakfast table. As for myself, it occurs each time I scare myself while seeing my reflection in a mirror and scream out loud. I do this because I often forget what I look like and am scared by the stranger looking at me. HA!
All humor aside, we can see the usage of a "divergent thinking" taking place in the behavior of viruses, if we keep in mind that viruses are parasitic... with a specificity for being a generalist in that they attach themselves to different types of hosts... or like an omnivore with a diet suited to different terrains which makes it highly adaptable). The community of viruses make a living by "thinking" divergently or using diversification in their scavenging efforts. Like a predatory banking system out to make money, it doesn't care where or who or by what means is acquired... just like the treatment of Native Americans by the government in its greed to control more territory or resource by way of colonialism or/and imperialism. Governments are parasites that provide the illusion of being a host in order to get other parasites to join it in its efforts to expand its domain... with instructions and messages that often disadvantage the public... and yet claim that the people are the government... as but one of many of its tactics to undermine their Will to rebel.
Because viruses pose the potential of being weaponized, governments invest in research not only to create their own weapons but to find possible cures for infection or inoculation against possible diseases. This also entails the usage of insect, amphibian, plant, animal and human host experimentation that can either take place in isolation with one or two people, or in larger groups isolated from large metropolitan areas. Delayed government intervention might well be linked to decisions based on letting a disease or disaster take its course to "see what happens", and thus constitutes what may be described as interfering with the Time-line (in a Time Travel sense). The upcoming excerpt on Viruses should be read as if one were reading about a type of time, and/or time travel, and/or time traveler... that is written in an alien language for which no Rosetta stone (or Behistun Rock formation or Galle stone tablet) is readily available. (All three are described near the bottom on: Novum Organum Threesiarum page 18). Whereas Time Travel enthusiasts already think differently than non-Time Travel enthusiasts, the idea of thinking more differently in seeking out a model for a larger genre of Time Travel thinking should not be too difficult an idea to accept.
And while we may consider that time for different species is relevant to the duration of their life, what if there life span is due to the "perception" of time by their respective physiology, like the "messages" given to plants and animals by environmental events like seasons and solar/lunar exposure events, moist/dry events, etc...? This is brought to mind because infectious diseases "take their own good time" to become active in given hosts. What if we could alter the perception of "time" not only in viruses, but all life forms? For example, does an extended form of hibernation mean that an animal "time sleeps" and awakens in another time period... like a space traveler put into a cryogenic sleep in order to survive vast distances of space requiring many typical human life spans? Is the design of space craft with a given speed capability due to the type of time perception humans have, and if we alter it, so too can we thus create faster vessels to coincide with differences in time perception... since so many technologies and manufactured goods are designed in accordance with standards of time usage and frequently use time as a means to indicate value? (That something lasts a long time, that something goes away fast, that you can do more in a shorter period of time in order to give you more time to do something else, that time equals money and/or power, etc...)
Virus Classification On the basis of shared properties viruses are grouped at different hierarchical levels of order, family, subfamily, genus and species. More than 30,000 different virus isolates are known today and grouped in more than 3,600 species, in 164 genera and 71 families. Viral morphology provides the basis for grouping viruses into families. A virus family may consist of members that replicate only in vertebrates, only in invertebrates, only in plants, or only in bacteria. Certain families contain viruses that replicate in more than one of these hosts. (There are 21 families and genera of medical importance.) Besides physical properties, several factors pertaining to the mode of replication play a role in classification: the configuration of the nucleic acid (ss or ds [single stranded or double stranded], linear or circular), whether the genome consists of one molecule of nucleic acid or is segmented, and whether the strand of ss RNA is sense or antisense. Also considered in classification is the site of viral capsid assembly and, in enveloped viruses, the site of nucleocapsid envelopment. Viruses are small obligate intracellular parasites, which by definition contain either a RNA or DNA genome surrounded by a protective, virus-coded protein coat. Viruses may be viewed as mobile genetic elements, most probably of cellular origin and characterized by a long co-evolution of virus and host. For propagation viruses depend on specialized host cells supplying the complex metabolic and biosynthetic machinery of eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells. A complete virus particle is called a virion. The main function of the virion is to deliver its DNA or RNA genome into the host cell so that the genome can be expressed (transcribed and translated) by the host cell. The viral genome, often with associated basic proteins, is packaged inside a symmetric protein capsid. The nucleic acid-associated protein, called nucleoprotein, together with the genome, forms the nucleocapsid. In enveloped viruses, the nucleocapsid is surrounded by a lipid bilayer derived from the modified host cell membrane and studded with an outer layer of virus envelope glycoproteins. Aside from physical data, genome structure and mode of replication are criteria applied in the classification and nomenclature of viruses, including the chemical composition and configuration of the nucleic acid, whether the genome is monopartite or multipartite. The genomic RNA strand of single-stranded RNA viruses is called sense (positive sense, plus sense) in orientation if it can serve as mRNA, and antisense (negative sense, minus sense) if a complementary strand synthesized by a viral RNA transcriptase serves as mRNA. Also considered in viral classification is the site of capsid assembly and, in enveloped viruses, the site of envelopment. Chemical and Morphologic Properties of Animal Virus Families Relevant to Human Disease. Some virus families have an additional covering, called the envelope, which is usually derived in part from modified host cell membranes. Viral envelopes consist of a lipid bilayer that closely surrounds a shell of virus-encoded membrane-associated proteins. The exterior of the bilayer is studded with virus-coded, glycosylated (trans-) membrane proteins. Therefore, enveloped viruses often exhibit a fringe of glycoprotein spikes or knobs, also called peplomers. In viruses that acquire their envelope by budding through the plasma or another intracellular cell membrane, the lipid composition of the viral envelope closely reflects that of the particular host membrane. The outer capsid and the envelope proteins of viruses are glycosylated and important in determining the host range and antigenic composition of the virion. In addition to virus-specified envelope proteins, budding viruses carry also certain host cell proteins as integral constituents of the viral envelope. Virus envelopes can be considered an additional protective coat. Larger viruses often have a complex architecture consisting of both helical and isometric symmetries confined to different structural components. Small viruses, e.g., hepatitis B virus or the members of the picornavirus or parvovirus family, are orders of magnitude more resistant than are the larger complex viruses, e.g. members of the herpes or retrovirus families. Helical Symmetry In the replication of viruses with helical symmetry, identical protein subunits (protomers) self-assemble into a helical array surrounding the nucleic acid, which follows a similar spiral path. Such nucleocapsids form rigid, highly elongated rods or flexible filaments; in either case, details of the capsid structure are often discernible by electron microscopy. In addition to classification as flexible or rigid and as naked or enveloped, helical nucleocapsids are characterized by length, width, pitch of the helix, and number of protomers per helical turn. The most extensively studied helical virus is tobacco mosaic virus. Many important structural features of this plant virus have been detected by x-ray diffraction studies. The helical structure of the rigid tobacco mosaic virus rod: Individual 17,400-Da protein subunits (protomers) assemble in a helix with an axial repeat of 6.9 nm (49 subunits per three turns). Icosahedral Symmetry An icosahedron is a polyhedron having 20 equilateral triangular faces and 12 vertices. Lines through opposite vertices define axes of fivefold rotational symmetry: all structural features of the polyhedron repeat five times within each 360° of rotation about any of the fivefold axes. Lines through the centers of opposite triangular faces form axes of threefold rotational symmetry; twofold rotational symmetry axes are formed by lines through midpoints of opposite edges. An icosaheron (polyhedral or spherical) with fivefold, threefold, and twofold axes of rotational symmetry is defined as having 532 symmetry (read as 5,3,2). Viruses were first found to have 532 symmetry by x-ray diffraction studies and subsequently by electron microscopy with negative-staining techniques. In most icosahedral viruses, the protomers, i.e. the structural polypeptide chains, are arranged in oligomeric clusters called capsomeres, which are readily delineated by negative staining electron microscopy and form the closed capsid shell. The arrangement of capsomeres into an icosahedral shell permits the classification of such viruses by capsomere number and pattern. This requires the identification of the nearest pair of vertex capsomeres (called penton: those through which the fivefold symmetry axes pass) and the distribution of capsomeres between them. Virus Core Structure Except in helical nucleocapsids, little is known about the packaging or organization of the viral genome within the core. Small virions are simple nucleocapsids containing 1 to 2 protein species. The larger viruses contain in a core the nucleic acid genome complexed with basic protein(s) and protected by a single- or double layered capsid (consisting of more than one species of protein) or by an envelope. RNA Virus Genomes RNA viruses, comprising 70% of all viruses, vary remarkably in genome structure. Because of the error rate of the enzymes involved in RNA replication, these viruses usually show much higher mutation rates than do the DNA viruses. Mutation rates of 10-4 lead to the continuous generation of virus variants which show great adaptability to new hosts. The viral RNA may be single-stranded (ss) or double-stranded (ds), and the genome may occupy a single RNA segment or be distributed on two or more separate segments (segmented genomes). In addition, the RNA strand of a single-stranded genome may be either a sense strand (plus strand), which can function as messenger RNA (mRNA), or an antisense strand (minus strand), which is complementary to the sense strand and cannot function as mRNA protein translation. Sense viral RNA alone can replicate if injected into cells, since it can function as mRNA and initiate translation of virus-encoded proteins. Antisense RNA, on the other hand, has no translational function and cannot per se produce viral components. Source: Structure and Classification of Viruses by Hans R. Gelderblom |
While I cannot as yet convey all the (connected, random, vague) images which come to mind while reading the above comments about viruses in terms of a time travel orientation, let me also add that the generalities of basic structure are being surveyed outside the realm of viruses. While some may be reading the content as it is in terms of language that is intended as its own vernacular ("talking about viruses"), my mind is translating the words into geometric and numerical patterns that are being compared with previous threesological content. The intended illustration for an audience interested specifically in information about viruses may likewise make comparisons within their respective field of interest, whatever that may be. And if they should come upon the present usage of the information in relation to Time, Time Travel, and Time Traveler considerations, the information may provide a useful digression for them to create alternative perspectives which may further their own insights into their respective work. It is like offering them a sand box or playground or garage full of "stuff" in which to tinker with so that their imagination may be enlarged to create associations or disassociate old or present ideas into new configurations. Thus, while Time Travel enthusiasts are using "their" information for a given interest, they may see the usage as an affront, an amusement, as being silly, as being creative, as a useful tool or perhaps something to "fidget" with as a momentary distraction like doodling, whittling, whistling, humming, twiddling one's thumbs, day dreaming, etc...
The usage of numbers and number words coupled to the wording of "positive and negative senses" provides an easy basis for developing an equation that need not be tide to conventional forms of mathematics... but the analogy is useful in creating a bridge upon which to cross into a realm where other considerations may be wrought in the language of different genres such as music, art, literature, language, and multiple exercises involving anatomy, biology, astronomy, physics, cooking, sports-play architectures, etc...
While such digressions may seem stupid to some readers unable to think in contextual ways which are out-of-context which are commonly referred to as divergent thinking, the contrast with convergent thinking brings to mind an actual event which occurred to me involving friends playing cards many decades ago. At the time, I think we were playing rummy whose rules were dictated by the person dealing the cards. They were enabled to choose how many cards were to be dealt out and which cards represented what value, such as being "wild" (used as a substitution) and how many points were to be attributed, such as the Queen of spades being worth 40 points. While most of the people playing regularly played together and permitted the usage of the "dealer's choice" method, on one occasion we had another friend join in who did not typically play with us... but who was a respected member of our group of friends. Because each player in turn set the rules of the game, which were rather easily to follow, the frequent alterations did little to cause problems. We simply altered our thinking accordingly. However, after a few changes in dealership, this other friend got visibly upset because he was unable to make the required mental adjustment from one player's (very simple) rules to the next. He threw down his cards complaining that we were not playing the game "the right way", according to the rules established by the manufacturer. He had trouble remembering which different cards were wild and how much their value intended because his mind-set was particularly rigid. All of us were astonished that he got so upset and that this long-time (occasional get-together friend) had difficulty with what appeared to the rest of us as something quite simple. In hindsight, and monitoring his life over many years, it is clear that this mental trait forced him to stay at one job his entire life, while the rest of us were pretty flexible in that we could easily make adjustments according to whatever circumstances prevailed.
The point to be made is that I have encountered those who claim they are a time travel enthusiast, only to find that they are... so long as time travel is discussed in a very constrained manner... like others with their respective interests... such as a cook who follows a recipe book to the letter and will not permit themselves to make deviations in terms of experimentation, unless it is to experiment with another person's recipe that is written down. While they think of themselves as being creative, and may even claim they are a creative thinker because, in their mind, cooking is an act of creativity, they actually have a very rigid mind-set about what creativity means. They use the word "creativity" (or perhaps even originality and genius), but their usage of the words is highly constrained to represent what they are capable of engaging in. While all of us have our own definitions of such words, and what may be used to illustrate such, they are most frequently used to describe mediocrity, or commonplace functionality that one may refer to with the notion of "functional fixedness"... in that the function of a "thing" (such as a hammer, saw or other tool... including ideas) is used for a singular, dual purpose only... even if they have a multi-tool in their hand (such as the Swiss knife ensemble). Hence, one can have lots of ideas and make lots of connections with different subjects, but may not be able to make truly creative, innovative or original connections (and/or separations) because the same sort(s) of comparative analysis is being used. Having a multi-tool such as a Swiss knife may make one feel they are made more capable, but in reality, they only use one or two of the tools or simply never use the knife at all because it is used as a "just in case" implement that acts more like a museum piece than a routinely reached for means of increasing one's ability to approach a situation (problem, consideration, event) in an alternative way(s).
Some people can be given a Swiss knife of ideas to be used alternatively for different occasions, but not all of them will even open the knife up. They like to have the knife and tell (show) others that they are in possession of the knife, but never actually use it, and conform their life choices according to a regime which does not require them to use the knife other than a show piece. Like an individual I met years ago in my teenage years. He could memorize the then accepted ideas and parts regarding the building of a high performance Volkswagen engine... because he was an avid reader of performance magazines, but he had never even built an engine himself. He wasn't even a shade tree mechanic which most of us tinkerers were in those days... that is those who dived into taking engine parts (and frequently put them back together again with parts left over), as compared to those who merely talked to us as we did the actual work. Very often there are those who stand around another person doing the actual work, though they may on occasion hand a tool, pick up a dropped tool, or hold something in place... but would quickly leave if too much (of an equal work load) was asked of them.
And no, I have not forgotten that I was discussing viruses in terms of time, time travel and time travelers.
The underlying patterns found in viruses is a recurring theme found in other subject areas, though each have their own arrangements, according to those who are doing the interpretation of the material at hand. Is time, and hence... time travel, in a similar conformation, albeit in its own respective organization? Does the basic patterns of viruses, bacteria, animal and/or plant cells offer us an insight into the basic structure of time, just as we might say that the terms "past, present, future" are akin to "electrons, neutrons, protons" (respectively?), which were later found to have sub-atomic matter? Such an idea leads us to consider that the terms "seconds, minutes, hours" are other superficial considerations of Time. Needless to say is that such terms as past, present, future and seconds, minutes, hours and days, weeks years and decades, centuries, eons, etc... are entirely insufficient for discussing Time, Time Travel, and Time Travelers.
Let us not forget that the origin of the word "atom" was meant to convey indivisibility and that it took almost two thousand years before the idea of the atom developed into a progressive science. Hence, discussions of time, time travel, and time travelers at this present stage may be just as simplistic and naive as were the earliest notions of the atom, but we have to start somewhere. A bit of history about the atom may be of use to some readers: (Please make note of the fact that the ancient philosophers used the "four" element pattern, though other numerical values have been used by others elsewhere, but that their is a recurring "threeness" and "twoness" or "three-to-oneness" used by physicists... despite the discussions involving multiple dimensions.)
The divisible atom The physical study of subatomic particles became possible only during the 20th century, with the development of increasingly sophisticated apparatuses to probe matter at scales of 10-15 metre and less (that is, at distances comparable to the diameter of the proton or neutron). Yet the basic philosophy of the subject now known as particle physics dates to at least 500 BC, when the Greek philosopher Leucippus and his pupil Democritus put forward the notion that matter consists of invisibly small, indivisible particles, which they called atoms. For more than 2,000 years the idea of atoms lay largely neglected, while the opposing view that matter consists of four elements—earth, fire, air, and water—held sway. But by the beginning of the 19th century, the atomic theory of matter had returned to favour, strengthened in particular by the work of John Dalton, an English chemist whose studies suggested that each chemical element consists of its own unique kind of atom. As such, Dalton's atoms are still the atoms of modern physics. By the close of the century, however, the first indications began to emerge that atoms are not indivisible, as Leucippus and Democritus had imagined, but that they instead contain smaller particles. In 1896 the French physicist Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity, and in the following year J.J. Thomson, a professor of physics at the University of Cambridge in England, demonstrated the existence of tiny particles much smaller in mass than hydrogen, the lightest atom. Thomson had discovered the first subatomic particle, the electron. Six years later Ernest Rutherford and Frederick Soddy, working at McGill University in Montreal, found that radioactivity occurs when atoms of one type transmute into those of another kind. The idea of atoms as immutable, indivisible objects had become untenable. The basic structure of the atom became apparent in 1911, when Rutherford showed that most of the mass of an atom lies concentrated at its centre, in a tiny nucleus. Rutherford postulated that the atom resembled a miniature solar system, with light, negatively charged electrons orbiting the dense, positively charged nucleus, just as the planets orbit the Sun. The Danish theorist Niels Bohr refined this model in 1913 by incorporating the new ideas of quantization that had been developed by the German physicist Max Planck at the turn of the century. Planck had theorized that electromagnetic radiation, such as light, occurs in discrete bundles, or "quanta," of energy now known as photons. Bohr postulated that electrons circled the nucleus in orbits of fixed size and energy and that an electron could jump from one orbit to another only by emitting or absorbing specific quanta of energy. By thus incorporating quantization into his theory of the atom, Bohr introduced one of the basic elements of modern particle physics and prompted wider acceptance of quantization to explain atomic and subatomic phenomena. Source: "subatomic particle." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013. |
However, even though the correlation between the history of the atom and time, time travel, timer traveler(s) may be an accept plausibility to some readers, it should not be interpreted to mean that the correlation has an actual factuality. While we may speculate and provide what appear to be reasonable rationales for our consideration, we can also play the part of a skeptic or devil's advocate so that we don't get in a position of believing everything we or another may say on the topic without question or verifiability. Testability of theory is needed. The factuality of belief must be weighed against testability... which may not be truly or fully possible until some future time and place (and perhaps by someone working on what to them might be described an unrelated project.)
So, let us ask, does time, time travel and time traveler(s) have to follow the model presented to us by the present models of physics and/or genetics/physiology/anatomy/biology? If models are constructs of the human mind from perceptions related to physical abilities constrained by environmental circumstances/pressures (or lack thereof), how are we to create an accurate picture of anything if we are subjected to make "rationalized adjustments" in response to an incrementally deteriorating planetary model of the Sun, Earth and Moon complex?
Page initially created: Sunday, 17th-June-2018... 05:19 AM
Initial Posting: Monday, 18th-June-2018... 11:32 AM
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com