This model not only divided the magic cube into 4 integrated magic square, 2D grids of 16, it also incorporated the strange number 918 which has morphing association with its partners: 189, 891 and 981 through mathematic manipulation called integration.
All of this was leading to a single electron having 918 parts or 918 photons. Doubling these we have the 1836 Mev of the electron/proton ratio, which was assuming that one electron required a partner electron. However, an electron may require a partner called a positron. No matter what the partner is called, the electron cannot exist by itself.
Adding Douglass White's information, he seems to dismiss 919 (my 918) as implausible, pertaining to his "mass ratio between epo (epo = electronpositron pair) and neutron". However, he raises 918 by a factor of 10 which he develops into 9180 electronpositron pairs, saying, "such an entity would have 0 charge: it would be neutral".
So we still have to explore a hypothetical 918 photons per electron, indicating 1/2 of the 1836 Mev electronproton ratio. Then we will examine White's 919 as a poor choice for the "eponeutron mass ratio" and then there is White's power of 10.........9180 electronpositron pairs.
Building his theory from string and superstring theory, vibrating in 10 dimensions, he multiplies:
"136 vibrational modes two at a time one for electron, one for positron (as in the epo. epo = electronpositron pair) this would give 136 x 135, or 18,360 different ways for a lepton, joined as an epo, to vibrate in 10 dimensions. (This is Sirag's computation, but he lacked the idea of electronpositron pairs. He ordered them two at a time ". . .e.g., one for proton, one for electron. . .") Thus a combination of 9180 electronpositron pairs would be a very stable arrangement, filling all of the possible vibrational modes in ten dimensions."
I noticed that with an overlay of Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 :
Level 1: 
1 
63 
62 
4 
Level 2: 
48 
18 
19 
45 

60 
6 
7 
57 

21 
43 
42 
24 

56 
10 
11 
53 

25 
39 
38 
28 

13 
51 
50 
16 

36 
30 
31 
33 










Level 3: 
32 
34 
35 
29 
Level 4: 
49 
15 
14 
52 

37 
27 
26 
40 

12 
54 
55 
9 

41 
23 
22 
44 

8 
58 
59 
5 

20 
46 
47 
17 

61 
3 
2 
64 
"The 981 Picture In Three Parts:
"387+459+135 = 981"
So the conclusion he arrived at was:
TETRAHEDRAL PYRAMID = 198
27 + 171 = 198 = COMMUNICATION DEVICE
14.34375 ^7 power = 918 (the number of photons per electron),
14.34375 ^8 power = 1836 (the atomic weight of the proton).

f0 
f1 
f2 
f3 
f4 
f5 
f6 
f7 
f8 
f9 
f10 
f11 
f12 
f13 
f14 
f15 
Level 4: 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
Level 3: 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
1 
Level 2: 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
1 
1 
Level 1: 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
Addenda: Function: [(f_{n})(p,q)]: F_{a}(f_{i},f_{j}) > f_{b} f_{a}(f_{b},f_{j}) > f_{c} f_{a}(f_{c},f_{j}) > .fn... outputs are fed as inputs into succeeding functions, until the original function is repeated. Jeremy Horne PhD

f0 
f1 
f2 
f3 
f4 
f5 
f6 
f7 
f8 
f9 
f10 
f11 
f12 
f13 
f14 
f15 
Level 4: 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
Level 3: 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
1 
Level 2: 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
1 
1 
Level 1: 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
Binary 
Center 
Linear 
Concentric 
Movement 
Movement 
Concentric 
Linear 
Center 
Binary 
0 
(P1^{2}) 
1 
2 
SC 
SG 
2 
33 
(33) 
1 
1 
(2) 
2 
1 
BB 
BF 
1 
34 
(34) 
0 
1 
(3) 
3 
8 
TC 
TG 
8 
35 
(P35) 
0 
1 
(4) 
4 
7 
DB 
DF 
7 
36 
(C36) 
0 
1 
(P5) 
5 
6 
DD 
DH 
6 
37 
(P37) 
1 
1 
(C6) 
6 
5 
DA 
DE 
5 
38 
(38) 
1 
0 
(P7) 
7 
4 
DD 
DH 
4 
39 
(39) 
0 
1 
(8) 
8 
3 
DA 
DE 
3 
40 
(40) 
1 
0 
(9) 
9 
3 
SB 
SF 
3 
41 
(P41) 
0 
1 
(10) 
10 
4 
UC 
UG 
4 
42 
(C42) 
1 
0 
(P11) 
11 
5 
UB 
UF 
5 
43 
(P43) 
0 
0 
(C12) 
12 
6 
UC 
UG 
6 
44 
(44) 
0 
0 
(P13) 
13 
7 
UA 
UE 
7 
45 
(45) 
1 
0 
(14) 
14 
8 
TD 
TH 
8 
46 
(46) 
1 
0 
(15) 
15 
1 
BA 
BE 
1 
47 
(P47) 
1 
1 
(16) 
16 
2 
UD 
UH 
2 
48 
(C48) 
0 
1 
(P17) 
17 
2 
SE 
SA 
2 
49 
(P49) 
0 
0 
(C18) 
18 
1 
BH 
BD 
1 
50 
(50) 
0 
1 
(P19) 
19 
8 
TE 
TA 
8 
51 
(51) 
1 
1 
(20) 
20 
7 
DH 
DD 
7 
52 
(52) 
0 
0 
(21) 
21 
6 
DF 
DB 
6 
53 
(P53) 
1 
0 
(22) 
22 
5 
DG 
DC 
5 
54 
(C54) 
0 
0 
(P23) 
23 
4 
DF 
DB 
4 
55 
(P55) 
0 
1 
(C24) 
24 
3 
DG 
DC 
3 
56 
(56) 
0 
0 
(P25) 
25 
3 
SH 
SD 
3 
57 
(57) 
1 
1 
(26) 
26 
4 
UA 
UE 
4 
58 
(58) 
1 
1 
(27) 
27 
5 
UH 
UD 
5 
59 
(P59) 
1 
1 
(28) 
28 
6 
UE 
UA 
6 
60 
(C60) 
0 
0 
(P29) 
29 
7 
UG 
UC 
7 
61 
(P61) 
1 
0 
(C30) 
30 
8 
TF 
TB 
8 
62 
(62) 
0 
1 
(P31) 
31 
1 
BG 
BC 
1 
63 
(63) 
1 
0 
(32) 
32 
2 
UF 
UB 
2 
64 
(64) 
1 
Binary 
Center 
Linear 
Concentric 
Movement 
Movement 
Concentric 
Linear 
Center 
Binary 
0 
(P1^{2}) 
1 
2 
SC 
UB 
2 
64 
(64) 
1 
1 
(2) 
2 
1 
BB 
BC 
1 
63 
(63) 
1 
1 
(3) 
3 
8 
TC 
TB 
8 
62 
(62) 
0 
1 
(4) 
4 
7 
DB 
UC 
7 
61 
(P61) 
1 
1 
(P5) 
5 
6 
DD 
UA 
6 
60 
(C60) 
0 
1 
(C6) 
6 
5 
DA 
UD 
5 
59 
(P59) 
1 
0 
(P7) 
7 
4 
DD 
UE 
4 
58 
(58) 
1 
1 
(8) 
8 
3 
DA 
SD 
3 
57 
(57) 
1 
0 
(9) 
9 
3 
SB 
DC 
3 
56 
(56) 
0 
1 
(10) 
10 
4 
UC 
DB 
4 
55 
(P55) 
0 
0 
(P11) 
11 
5 
UB 
DC 
5 
54 
(C54) 
0 
0 
(C12) 
12 
6 
UC 
DB 
6 
53 
(P53) 
1 
0 
(P13) 
13 
7 
UA 
DD 
7 
52 
(52) 
0 
0 
(14) 
14 
8 
TD 
TA 
8 
51 
(51) 
1 
0 
(15) 
15 
1 
BA 
BD 
1 
50 
(50) 
0 
1 
(16) 
16 
2 
UD 
SA 
2 
49 
(P49) 
0 
1 
(P17) 
17 
2 
SE 
UH 
2 
48 
(C48) 
0 
0 
(C18) 
18 
1 
BH 
BE 
1 
47 
(P47) 
1 
1 
(P19) 
19 
8 
TE 
TH 
8 
46 
(46) 
1 
1 
(20) 
20 
7 
DH 
UE 
7 
45 
(45) 
1 
0 
(21) 
21 
6 
DF 
UG 
6 
44 
(44) 
0 
0 
(22) 
22 
5 
DG 
UF 
5 
43 
(P43) 
0 
0 
(P23) 
23 
4 
DF 
UG 
4 
42 
(C42) 
1 
1 
(C24) 
24 
3 
DG 
SF 
3 
41 
(P41) 
0 
0 
(P25) 
25 
3 
SH 
DE 
3 
40 
(40) 
1 
1 
(26) 
26 
4 
UA 
DH 
4 
39 
(39) 
0 
1 
(27) 
27 
5 
UH 
DE 
5 
38 
(38) 
1 
1 
(28) 
28 
6 
UE 
DH 
6 
37 
(P37) 
1 
0 
(P29) 
29 
7 
UG 
DF 
7 
36 
(C36) 
0 
0 
(C30) 
30 
8 
TF 
TG 
8 
35 
(P35) 
0 
1 
(P31) 
31 
1 
BG 
BF 
1 
34 
(34) 
0 
0 
(32) 
32 
2 
UF 
SG 
2 
33 
(33) 
1 
918  840 = 78 = numerologic reduction 9 : 3 : 6
9 + 1 + 8 = 18 = 1 + 8 = 9,
8 + 4 + 0 = 12 = 1 + 2 = 3,
7 + 8 = 15 = 1 + 5 = 6 =
9 : 3 : 6
840 = Half coil helix of superstring.
78 = Enfolded (7+5) polygonal sides.
840 x 2 = 1680 UPA turns of each coil x10.
168 = root edge yods of 6x6 enfolded polygons.
Now, let's switch to Ray Tomes ratios, numerologically reduced:
12 : 24 : 34560
3 : 6 : 9
Mirrored, assuming 9's are the limit:
99  12 = 87
99  24 = 75
99999  34560 = 65439
87 : 75 : 65439
6 : 3 : 9
Let's go back and pick up:
918  840 = 78 = numerologic reduction 9 : 3 : 6
9 + 1 + 8 = 18 = 1 + 8 = 9,
8 + 4 + 0 = 12 = 1 + 2 = 3,
7 + 8 = 15 = 1 + 5 = 6 =
9 : 3 : 6
Let's arrange this like the Ray Tomes ratios, numerologically reduced:
78 : 840 : 918
7 + 8 = 15 = 1 + 5 = 6,
8 + 4 + 0 = 12 = 1 + 2 = 3,
9 + 1 + 8 = 18 = 1 + 8 = 9
6 : 3 : 9
Mirrored, assuming 9's are the limit:
99  78 = 21
999  840 = 159
999  918 = 81
21 : 159 : 81
2 + 1 = 3,
1 + 5 + 9 = 15 = 1 + 5 = 6,
8 + 1 = 9
3 : 6 : 9
Neutrosynthesis
We might say that the Dirac equation, by having only four roots, predicts that everything else, including the neutron, must be made of electrons and positrons. How many epos (epo = electronpositron pair) make a neutron? The question is far from trivial. The answer can not be 919, the mass ratio between epo and neutron. There would be 919 x 2 like charges packed into a tiny space. The binding energy would have to be 80 or 90%, to hold such an aggregation together, even if it were mostly "charge condensed." So 919 epos would mass, at most, about 370 electron masses. We might keep in mind the Pauli exclusion principle, which regulates how many electrons may occupy a given shell in an atom by the possible number of different vibrational modes (different quantum numbers).
We have seen earlier that for reasons of symmetry the universe must have ten dimensions, six of them (the negative energy realm of the BEC) in "imaginary" directions with respect to our four (Dirac, 1963; Sirag, 1977b, 2000). How many different ways can an electron or positron vibrate in ten dimensions? We might answer that by an analogy with the periodic table.
Each electron shell contains the number of electrons that can vibrate in different ways. (The electron's quantum numbers.) At present, the periodic table consists of 100 elements in eight complete shells (if you count the rare earth elements) with 16 or so elements in an incomplete ninth shell. (Element 118 was claimed to have been synthesized at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 1999, but they have recently retracted that claim [Gorman, 2001].)
The Lambdoma Mandalas, 16 x 16, found at the bottom of the page, at Barbara Hero's website has interesting patterns similar to the Galaxy Pattern called the Periodic Table as Concentric Rings of 16 of the following site: Periodic Table
The Periodic Table as Concentric Rings of 16, having 10 levels, also seem to be connected to the 10D Theory of the following site called 10 Dimensional Torque and Consciousness: Virtual Chaos
(Note: The Periodic Table shows 10 vertical levels wherein elements are placed. These levels are to be evaluated as to why there are 10 corresponding to 10d Theory. Also, the red elements shown in the Concentric Rings Theory are the monoatomic elements, superconducting, in this linear sequence: Co, Rh, Ir, Pt, Pd, Ni, Cu, Ag, Au and Hg......This pattern matches the pattern of growth of the Concentric Rings Theory. Who can foresee the benefits of a superconducting, levitating, monoatomic metal?
Since the Lamdoma, Galaxy Pattern, and the above 10D Torus shape represent spherical systems, here is the site of the
Periodic Table of Elements in circular format By Sean D. Birkel.
Completing that shell would give 118 elements, and a tenth complete shell would add another 18, for a total of 136. So if elements were stable to atomic number 136, element 136 would be a noble gas with 136 electrons in 10 complete shells. This means that there are 136 different ways for electrons to vibrate in 10 shells. Each of these shells amounts to an additional degree of freedom for the vibrating electron. If we substitute 10 degrees of freedom, or dimensions, for these 10 shells, it seems inescapable that there again would be 136 different ways for electrons to vibrate in 10 dimensions.
These numbers figure prominently in one of the possible designs for a neutron made of electronpositron pairs. This model was largely suggested by SaulPaul Sirag (1977a) as a "combinatorial" model of the proton. He, however, considered it mere numberjuggling. The last time I talked to him, he was no longer interested in it, so I "pirate it" without scruple. With a few minor additions and changes, it turns out to be a plausible model of the neutron.
. . . From Eddington's group theoretical point of view, creatures to whom spacetime has four dimensions will find algebraic structures having 10 elements and 136 elements playing a very fundamental role. Eddington attempted, unsuccessfully, to derive the protonelectron mass ratio from the two numbers 10 and 136, together with the number of unity, 1. . . Eddington's 1, 10, and 136 are members of a wellknown mathematical series that goes 1, 10, 45, 136, 325. . .etc. . .The next number in that series is 666. (Sirag, 1977b).
Eddington's series is (n 2 )(n 2 + 1)/2, n = 1, 2, 3, etc. As Sirag points out, this group theoretical point of view accords with Dirac's above statement that four dimensional symmetry requires ten dimensions of curvature, or degrees of freedom, in General Relativity (Dirac, 1963).
Several of the string and superstring theories also require a space of ten dimensions (Sirag, 2000), and as we saw, an electron can vibrate in 136 different ways in ten dimensions. If we order these 136 vibrational modes two at a time one for electron, one for positron (as in the epo) this would give 136 x 135, or 18,360 different ways for a lepton, joined as an epo, to vibrate in 10 dimensions. (This is Sirag's computation, but he lacked the idea of electronpositron pairs. He ordered them two at a time ". . .e.g., one for proton, one for electron. . .")
Thus a combination of 9180 electronpositron pairs would be a very stable arrangement, filling all of the possible vibrational modes in ten dimensions. We might imagine them arrayed in a 10 dimensional vortex or "hypersphere."
9180 = 918 x 10.
(Note that this arrangement would come about in the negative energy BEC. As is well known, the only way that a BEC can rotate is in a vortex.) Moreover, Krisch (1987) has shown that colliding protons act like little vortices, shoving each other around preferentially in their spin directions. What would be the mass of such an aggregation? Well, in quantum theory, one measures the energy, or mass, by taking the temporal sine attribute of the Y wave. Since time is only one of the 10 dimensions, this would give the aggregation a mass of 18360/10, or 1836 electronmasses. Since it is composed of 9180 electronpositron pairs, such an entity would have 0 charge: it would be neutral.
..."measures the energy, or mass.....taking the temporal sine attribute of the Y wave. Since time is only one of the 10 dimensions, this would give the aggregation a mass of 18360/10, or 1836 electronmasses".
All symmetries are conserved in this arrangement, with exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. There is no reason why such an entity might not be produced, and expelled from the BEC (thrust into "our reality") whenever the random fluctuations of the BEC produced a positive energy of 1836 electronmasses, and spin energy in all ten dimensions. (The suggestion is that it would be produced in a vorticular "storm" in the BEC, which would have spin energy in all ten dimensions.) Moreover, since it has only 10% positive energy and 90% negative or "binding" energy, such an entity would be stable despite packing 9180 charges of like polarity into a very small hyperspace. This is the Sirag model of the nucleon, slightly modified. Note that in our BEC of unlimited density, there is already an electron and a positron in exactly the positions required for this synthesis (nothing needs to move), so only the positive energy and the spin is required to produce a neutron.
Moreover, some 90% of the epos that make up the "Sirag model" have 0 spin, being pure onedimensional vibrations in imaginary directions. The remaining 10% share "real" angular momentum, mostly canceling, which must, overall, amount to spin 1/2. But as this is a "real" spin, there is nothing to say that a "real" extended neutron with the large "real" mass of some eye is not "really" spinning with a "real" angular momentum of 1/2. In order to obey FermiDirac statistics, it must have this halfinteger angular momentum, but it is not necessary to assign that spin to an individual electron or epo constituent when it can simply be a property of the extended neutron itself.Further On, White Finds 918, Again. The Strong Nuclear Force
However, the prime merit of this model has to be its representation of the strong nuclear force. Here we need to note a strange coincidence: the mass of the proton, in electronmasses, is roughly the same as the strength of the proton's strong force, in electronforces. (Mass of proton: 1836 electron masses. Strength of the electromagnetic force: the "fine structure constant" a = e^2 /hc = 1/137; strength of strong force: g^2 /hc = ~15. Ratio: ~15 x 137, somewhere around 2000 [Shankar, 1994].)Thus the ratios of the masses and of the forces are roughly the same, "around 2000." This is a major clue to the nature of the "strong force." Gravitation and the Coulomb force both have simple inverse square "shapes" that operate over long distances.Theoretically, at least, they never drop to zero. However, the shape of the strong force between nucleons is radically different and very peculiar. Up to a distance of around a fermi (10 15 m.), it is very strongly repulsive, keeping the nucleons apart. Then, for no apparent good reason, it changes abruptly to very strongly attractive, then drops off very rapidly, so that at a distance of around three fermi's it becomes immeasurable. This peculiar shape has never been successfully modeled by any theory. Note how current theory, in which the fudge is an accepted scientific procedure, "solves" this problem. Since current theory can't model this observed force, it simply ignores it, and instead invents (fudges) an unobserved (fifth!) force carried by eight "gluons" (designed to be unobservable) between eighteen or thirtysix "quarks" (also designed to be unobservable) inside the nucleon. It then "suggests" that this fudged gluon force in some unspecified way "leaks out" of the nucleon to make up the peculiar shape of the measured strong force. However, our "epo model" of the nucleon models this very peculiar shape simply and intuitively. Because of the uncertainty principle, the nucleon, with its measured diameter of around 1.9 fermi's, can not be a perfect sphere, but must be a pulsating spheroid.However, the epos that make it up have "asymptotic freedom"Ñthey vibrate individually, and each lepton is free to form a relationship with any available antiparticle. This means that, as two nucleons approach each other, at a distance of about three fermi's, electron positron pairs will begin to form, not just within the nucleons, but between them. (Pairs of "internucleon" epos would have to form at the same time, keeping the total number of paired charges in each nucleon at 9180.) This would cause a strong, shortrange attraction between the nucleons as more and more pairs formed. This would increase to a maximum at around 1.5 fermi's, after which it would rapidly turn into a strong repulsion (since the individual epos have to maintain their average 1.87 fermi separation), keeping the nucleons a stable distance from each other.Moreover, a maximum of 918 such "internucleon" pairs could form, the number vibrating in the direction joining the two nucleons, onetenth of the total. This would give the interaction the strength of 1836e, and exactly explain the strength of the strong force, "about 2000 times as strong as the Coulomb force" (Shankar, 1994).Now, what is the chance that a completely wrong model of the nucleon would exactly match both the strength and the very peculiar shape of this most individual of forces? After fifty or so years of effort, the huge physics establishment admittedly has failed utterly to provide a model that comes close to matching that peculiar shape of the nuclear force. Yet Dirac's equation provides a model that fits like lock and key.Conclusions
What do you make of 918 photons per electron or 918 "internucleon pairs" both being 1/10th of the 9180 charges of Sirac? What does the strange equation mean when we divide 918 by the infamous demonic number 666, the end of Sirac's series, which just happens to also represent 53 cycles of musical 5ths, giving us a fractal of the finestructure number 137? Why does 918 photons or 918 internucleon pairs, when divided by the, seemingly unrelated, number of kua of the famous IChing, number 64, and after multiplying the resulting factor by the 7th and 8th power, gives both 918 and 1836, again, both being the number of photons per electron, 918, or "internucleon pairs", 918, and the electronproton mass ratio, 1836?
When two "nucleons approach each other, at a distance of about three fermi's, electron positron pairs will begin to form, not just within the nucleons, but between them, causing a strong, shortrange attraction between the nucleons as more and more pairs formed. This would increase to a maximum at around 1.5 fermi's, after which it would rapidly turn into a strong repulsion (since the individual epos have to maintain their average 1.87 fermi separation), keeping the nucleons a stable distance from each other."
Is it dawning on you that at the centers of these electronpositron pairs exist doublecenter ellipses, where the strong force oscillates a strong attraction and a strong repulsion, both at the same time, in two Anu vortexes?
Strange, but intuitive, goingson. Perhaps we will never understand how to deal with these "coincidences" as long as we don't catch on that there is a SuperScience here, of BEC space, that crosses all borders. Impossible Correspondence Index © Copyright. Robert Grace. 2004