What Are the Possible Connections Between Magnetic Monopoles and Acupoints?

[jake jot]

I don't know if it's called the archetypes. But I need the molecules to have other functions besides its atomic configuration. For example, the trees or other compound being more than the molecules and have higher functions. What is a better word than Archetypes?

 

[mjc123]

Emergent properties?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

 

[jake jot]

Emergent properties?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Emergent properties still depend on atomic configuration. My theme is this.

During the Big Bang,the constants of nature were not random or due to formula but chosen. I wasn't focusing on any supreme being or programming. My story will be agnostic of it. It's just that the constants of nature were not random. This means the concept of trees or water or carbon already occurring before the atoms and molecules were assembled. So what is other word for this already preexisting concept of tree? is it not Archetypes? what is the correct term for it?

 

[DaveC426913]

not random. This means the concept of trees or water or carbon already occurring before the atoms and molecules were assembled.

I think, to answer your question, you'll have to specify where this "concept" resides.

By current definition, a concept requires in a mind to conceive of it, so...

 

[jake jot]

I think, to answer your question, you'll have to specify where this "concept" resides.

By current definition, a concept requires in a mind to conceive of it, so...

The concept resides in... no, not a mind because my story won't involve any supreme being, so the concept need to reside in very complex higher dimensional stuff, that will be agnostic in my book. I just want something to explain certain phenomena and build stories around it.

The certain phenomena is.

Some unknown field composed of sentient substance.

The field can stay in water. When you add salt, it can dissolve. Plastic can block it. Shape of objects can affect the field.

The reason I need to tie it up to archetypes or other terms is because it is not directly the atomic configuration that caused them. For example. Water composed of H20 have the hydrogen bond forming and reforming many times a second. There is no way to store any added field in it. So it has to be beyond atomic configuration, so I wonder if archetypes is the right word. When you add salt, the field can become fragmented. Atomic wise. The water just have the sodium chloride molecules separate with H20 forming bond. So it's not the salt dissolving any H20 bond or field. Using archetypes. the field in the water got broken by the salt added. Now why plastic block the field. Perhaps the archetypes of plastic can do it or something to do with wavefunction?

I am still working out the idea in my book. The science fiction part will involve the physics community, those who want to suppress it at all cost, and those who want to promote it. So the ending of the book can either be "a very dark dark future for humanity when third world war ravages civilization and disease, strife, hatred abound". or a "A golden age that extends through centuries".

I really need to write the book. So help me with the right terms to use. Should I use archetypes? What other words can you suggest to convey the idea of concept before atomic assembly? If the concept exists, it has phenomenal consequences. Yes. It has via the sentient substance that can be affected by water, salt, plastic, metal and others.

 

[BillTre]

Your idea does sound somewhat like an archetype, as used to be used in biology (not so much now).
It was used as something like a body plan (physically ill-defined) for a group of animals, in development and in evolution (it was something ancient determining how things grow/evolve).
In some cases its used as an abstract pattern, which the body plans of those groups tend to assume.
It is not a functionally well defined concept (mechanisms and causal chains of effect underlying how it works are not discussed).
It seems to me to have been used as a kind of hand waving to bridge over processes and intellectual gaps (like development or genetics, involving many microscopic cellular and molecular mechanisms) which could not at the time be explained.
Now things are different, mechanisms determining development are better understood and the concept is rarely used.

WRT molecules, they are made of atoms and will assemble in a variety of ways limited by the rules of molecular physics.
The molecules are a higher level of organization for the atoms.
The different ways these molecules might assemble at still higher organizational levels (like membranes, or polymeric things like proteins or amino acids, multi-molecular assemblies), allows a lot potential variety (a huge multi-dimensional space of different possible combinations).
This seems to be the level you are talking about.
You seem to want the way the molecules assemble, at larger scale higher organizational levels, to be determined by this archetype influence.
Its not clear how some disembodied psychic force could change how these molecules work beyond to develop these emergent properties.

This sounds like emergent properties (as mentioned by @mjc123 ) of the molecules in large numbers.
Emergent properties could do the same thing.

The emergence of certain properties (determined in part by the molecules physics and that of their surroundings) in large numbers of molecules is not surprising.
The self-assembly of two layer lipid membranes into micells and vesicles from solution in water of lipids with a charge on one end, is a good example.

But since its a story, if you need the psychic force for the story, you could find some way to subtly influence how the physical forces drive molecules to come together, with your psychic force.
Maybe the physics force can set up some vibration which would favor (via some kind of resonance with molecular bonds) certain molecular assemblies.
This would be more like riding the emergent properties by directing the precis manner in which they are manifested.

Your reasoning that trees and other specific organisms were established as these archetypes before atoms were made, makes no sense to me. Your could not have a tree if the atoms and molecules did not have the right properties needed to make those trees.
If the molecular physics was not yet determined, to have a tree concept you would have to have similar concepts for each possible different physical configuration of universe.
Not all potential universes would be able to make trees.

 

[jake jot]

Your idea does sound somewhat like an archetype, as used to be used in biology (not so much now).
It was used as something like a body plan (physically ill-defined) for a group of animals, in development and in evolution (it was something ancient determining how things grow/evolve).
In some cases its used as an abstract pattern, which the body plans of those groups tend to assume.
It is not a functionally well defined concept (mechanisms and causal chains of effect underlying how it works are not discussed).
It seems to me to have been used as a kind of hand waving to bridge over processes and intellectual gaps (like development or genetics, involving many microscopic cellular and molecular mechanisms) which could not at the time be explained.
Now things are different, mechanisms determining development are better understood and the concept is rarely used.

WRT molecules, they are made of atoms and will assemble in a variety of ways limited by the rules of molecular physics.
The molecules are a higher level of organization for the atoms.
The different ways these molecules might assemble at still higher organizational levels (like membranes, or polymeric things like proteins or amino acids, multi-molecular assemblies), allows a lot potential variety (a huge multi-dimensional space of different possible combinations).
This seems to be the level you are talking about.
You seem to want the way the molecules assemble, at larger scale higher organizational levels, to be determined by this archetype influence.
Its not clear how some disembodied psychic force could change how these molecules work beyond to develop these emergent properties.

This sounds like emergent properties (as mentioned by @mjc123 ) of the molecules in large numbers.
Emergent properties could do the same thing.

The emergence of certain properties (determined in part by the molecules physics and that of their surroundings) in large numbers of molecules is not surprising.
The self-assembly of two layer lipid membranes into micells and vesicles from solution in water of lipids with a charge on one end, is a good example.

But since its a story, if you need the psychic force for the story, you could find some way to subtly influence how the physical forces drive molecules to come together, with your psychic force.
Maybe the physics force can set up some vibration which would favor (via some kind of resonance with molecular bonds) certain molecular assemblies.
This would be more like riding the emergent properties by directing the precis manner in which they are manifested.

The sentient substance (what you call psychic force) can only affect the nervous system. It can't affect molecules directly. I'd give a lot of details about Raman spectroscopy in my book and story which I have many laboratory hands on experiences. I'll share that the molecular polarization of the electron cloud can't be affected by the sentient substance. But nervous system is made of molecules, so I'm still figuring out the mechanism how it can affect the nervous system and not the molecules. Does it make sense the brain has archetypes which can affect the archetypes of nervous system and matter. Some kind of bi-directional influence but has filter or limit? Any other ideas? By the way. AC Motors can affect the sentient substance adversely but not dc motors. I'm still pondering if it's the frequency or rotating AC magnetic fields.

My book will mention the sentient substance can be controlled by the brain. However it is lorentz invariance.. meaning it's really nonlocal. Although one can leave thought forms in a room and somebody else sensitive can read it. This is so common it's almost boring compared to Black Hole, Big Bang, Superstrings and other fantastic stuff of physics.

Your reasoning that trees and other specific organisms were established as these archetypes before atoms were made, makes no sense to me. Your could not have a tree if the atoms and molecules did not have the right properties needed to make those trees.
If the molecular physics was not yet determined, to have a tree concept you would have to have similar concepts for each possible different physical configuration of universe.
Not all potential universes would be able to make trees.

 

[jake jot]

Your idea does sound somewhat like an archetype, as used to be used in biology (not so much now).
It was used as something like a body plan (physically ill-defined) for a group of animals, in development and in evolution (it was something ancient determining how things grow/evolve).
In some cases its used as an abstract pattern, which the body plans of those groups tend to assume.
It is not a functionally well defined concept (mechanisms and causal chains of effect underlying how it works are not discussed).
It seems to me to have been used as a kind of hand waving to bridge over processes and intellectual gaps (like development or genetics, involving many microscopic cellular and molecular mechanisms) which could not at the time be explained.
Now things are different, mechanisms determining development are better understood and the concept is rarely used.

If the title of my book will be "Archetypes Equations". It's kinda awkward, Isn't it. So I'm thinking of a better word.

The analogy is just like Maxwell Equations revolutionized the world creating the industrial revolutions and changed our everyday life. The Archetypes (or whatever) Equations will revolutionize the world too solving the hard problem of neuroscience, particle physics and creating revolutions in almost all other fields of science.

Going to the story data of my book.

Here's another observation.

A natural crystal can amplify some aspects of the sentient substance. I don't know if it is because of the number of states available to the electrons that can do that (the energy band).

A plastic or polymer can block the conscious energy (or sentient substance, or whatever term I will eventually use that is original and accurate). Why? Does a plastic has few electron states?

But water can store it. Do water have many states available to the electrons, or can other particles like hydrogen substitute for the states?

I have to include all these in the book. The devil is in the details as they say.

If electrons have other functions it means our quantum mechanics and our access to probabilities are only one aspect. This means quantum theory is incomplete and the above is additional aspect of it. I still don't know how to write it to relate it to the measurement problem.

I really need to write the book so I can think about it more. The fiction part is a group of physicists stopping at many cost the Achetypes Equations, because it will kill materialism which they worship. I also need a ghost writer who has excellent comment of english. Should the ghost writer be in my city or can he be half a world away for example?

I don't know if i'll make it available to Kindle only or hard copies too.

WRT molecules, they are made of atoms and will assemble in a variety of ways limited by the rules of molecular physics.
The molecules are a higher level of organization for the atoms.
The different ways these molecules might assemble at still higher organizational levels (like membranes, or polymeric things like proteins or amino acids, multi-molecular assemblies), allows a lot potential variety (a huge multi-dimensional space of different possible combinations).
This seems to be the level you are talking about.
You seem to want the way the molecules assemble, at larger scale higher organizational levels, to be determined by this archetype influence.
Its not clear how some disembodied psychic force could change how these molecules work beyond to develop these emergent properties.

This sounds like emergent properties (as mentioned by @mjc123 ) of the molecules in large numbers.
Emergent properties could do the same thing.

The emergence of certain properties (determined in part by the molecules physics and that of their surroundings) in large numbers of molecules is not surprising.
The self-assembly of two layer lipid membranes into micells and vesicles from solution in water of lipids with a charge on one end, is a good example.

But since its a story, if you need the psychic force for the story, you could find some way to subtly influence how the physical forces drive molecules to come together, with your psychic force.
Maybe the physics force can set up some vibration which would favor (via some kind of resonance with molecular bonds) certain molecular assemblies.
This would be more like riding the emergent properties by directing the precis manner in which they are manifested.

Your reasoning that trees and other specific organisms were established as these archetypes before atoms were made, makes no sense to me. Your could not have a tree if the atoms and molecules did not have the right properties needed to make those trees.
If the molecular physics was not yet determined, to have a tree concept you would have to have similar concepts for each possible different physical configuration of universe.
Not all potential universes would be able to make trees.

 

[jake jot]

If the title of my book will be "Archetypes Equations". It's kinda awkward, Isn't it. So I'm thinking of a better word.

The analogy is just like Maxwell Equations revolutionized the world creating the industrial revolutions and changed our everyday life. The Archetypes (or whatever) Equations will revolutionize the world too solving the hard problem of neuroscience, particle physics and creating revolutions in almost all other fields of science.

Going to the story data of my book.

Here's another observation.

A natural crystal can amplify some aspects of the sentient substance. I don't know if it is because of the number of states available to the electrons that can do that (the energy band).

A plastic or polymer can block the conscious energy (or sentient substance, or whatever term I will eventually use that is original and accurate). Why? Does a plastic has few electron states?

But water can store it. Do water have many states available to the electrons, or can other particles like hydrogen substitute for the states?

I have to include all these in the book. The devil is in the details as they say.

If electrons have other functions it means our quantum mechanics and our access to probabilities are only one aspect. This means quantum theory is incomplete and the above is additional aspect of it. I still don't know how to write it to relate it to the measurement problem.

I really need to write the book so I can think about it more. The fiction part is a group of physicists stopping at many cost the Achetypes Equations, because it will kill materialism which they worship. I also need a ghost writer who has excellent comment of english. Should the ghost writer be in my city or can he be half a world away for example?

I don't know if i'll make it available to Kindle only or hard copies too.

My immediate concern now is. If it can affect the molecules. How do you avoid decoherence? Or bypass thermal bath which makes it behave same as classical. If it can only affect large quantum states like energy band, how can it do the larger scale higher organizational levels trick?

What is the most promising approach? Without figuring this out. My sci fi book will have empty contents. So the mechanism of interaction is the most important of all.

 

[jake jot]

My immediate concern now is. If it can affect the molecules. How do you avoid decoherence? Or bypass thermal bath which makes it behave same as classical. If it can only affect large quantum states like energy band, how can it do the larger scale higher organizational levels trick?

What is the most promising approach? Without figuring this out. My sci fi book will have empty contents. So the mechanism of interaction is the most important of all.

The thread is about Archetypes of Molecules so let me go back to archetypes.

But first, the common question is how come it can't be detected in particle physics experiments.

The answer is because it is a collective effective. I mean, it's like matter has two sides to it, the objective side and meaning. So a single particle can't exhibit meaning, but a whole organism can. And the meaning sides have effects. For example, my meaning side or mind talks to your meaning side, your mind. And it affects our nervous system and influence our thought and what we will type here.

Does this makes sense? Please refute the idea.

Whatever remains no matter how unusual is the mechanism of interaction.

Also is a real meaning side of objective matter the same as archetypes? Bohm simply calls it the implicate order. But I don't want to use it such because my book is not about Bohmian Mechanics.

 

[jake jot]

Your idea does sound somewhat like an archetype, as used to be used in biology (not so much now).
It was used as something like a body plan (physically ill-defined) for a group of animals, in development and in evolution (it was something ancient determining how things grow/evolve).
In some cases its used as an abstract pattern, which the body plans of those groups tend to assume.
It is not a functionally well defined concept (mechanisms and causal chains of effect underlying how it works are not discussed).
It seems to me to have been used as a kind of hand waving to bridge over processes and intellectual gaps (like development or genetics, involving many microscopic cellular and molecular mechanisms) which could not at the time be explained.
Now things are different, mechanisms determining development are better understood and the concept is rarely used.

WRT molecules, they are made of atoms and will assemble in a variety of ways limited by the rules of molecular physics.
The molecules are a higher level of organization for the atoms.
The different ways these molecules might assemble at still higher organizational levels (like membranes, or polymeric things like proteins or amino acids, multi-molecular assemblies), allows a lot potential variety (a huge multi-dimensional space of different possible combinations).
This seems to be the level you are talking about.
You seem to want the way the molecules assemble, at larger scale higher organizational levels, to be determined by this archetype influence.
Its not clear how some disembodied psychic force could change how these molecules work beyond to develop these emergent properties.

Pondering on your words, I think you are right eventually there must be influence over the molecules, be it archetypes or whatever. But it is very difficult if not impossible to base it on quantum coherence. In fact, there is less variety if chemical combinations would be based on quantum coherence.

So I guess one must not try to look for quantum coherence in the interaction. Instead one must force to invent some kind of new hamiltonian that can affect the molecules. If you hit the molecules with your hands, it can be affected. So one must introduce another stuff that can affect the molecules by this manner too in terms of a field.

Should it be dark matter, subtle matter that is not related to dark matter, other forces of nature?

I want it to explain the following.

Before a child is even born, some field is attaching to his body, that looks like this.

The field will grow slowly and eventually become part of his/her qualia or subjective experiences that is related to the mind. Note you don't suddenly have qualia in a few days. It takes them because it takes time for the field to grow and blossom.

It is also this that a person can be possessed by entities that evolved not on the physical plane but on other so called planes (I don't know the exact name in physics). Possession is now so common that psychiatrists write books describing them such as Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption - Kindle edition by Peck, M. Scott. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

This qualia field can't be just based on quantum coherence in the molecules, isn't it? It needs some kind of new hamiltonian that can directly influence the molecules.

Particle physics that focus on the particles in isolation can't detect this field because it doesn't appear in isolated particles.

So in the book, it is utmost important to develope technology or scanners that can see the qualia field. The importance is because many criminals or drug users are partially possessed, so many crimes were done with influence from these. Now imagine a leader that is partially possessed. In fact Hitler was partially possessed resulting in the extermination of millions. We sure don't want a future with another like him, do we. Therefore in my book the new cutting edge physics need to come for the future of the human race.

I wonder if I should tell the ghost writer how to write each page, or he writes them himself by just giving him ideas? I don't mind if the ghost writer would become co-writer too. When almost 8 billion lives are on the line. You don't really have to just think of yourself anymore.

This sounds like emergent properties (as mentioned by @mjc123 ) of the molecules in large numbers.
Emergent properties could do the same thing.

The emergence of certain properties (determined in part by the molecules physics and that of their surroundings) in large numbers of molecules is not surprising.
The self-assembly of two layer lipid membranes into micells and vesicles from solution in water of lipids with a charge on one end, is a good example.

But since its a story, if you need the psychic force for the story, you could find some way to subtly influence how the physical forces drive molecules to come together, with your psychic force.
Maybe the physics force can set up some vibration which would favor (via some kind of resonance with molecular bonds) certain molecular assemblies.
This would be more like riding the emergent properties by directing the precis manner in which they are manifested.

Your reasoning that trees and other specific organisms were established as these archetypes before atoms were made, makes no sense to me. Your could not have a tree if the atoms and molecules did not have the right properties needed to make those trees.
If the molecular physics was not yet determined, to have a tree concept you would have to have similar concepts for each possible different physical configuration of universe.
Not all potential universes would be able to make trees.

 

[DaveC426913]

For the record, jake, there is no need to include the entirety of a post in quoting someone. Ideally, one only quotes the line or two to which one is responding.

 

[jake jot]

For the record, jake, there is no need to include the entirety of a post in quoting someone. Ideally, one only quotes the line or two to which one is responding.

Ok. Who are biochemistry experts here?

The nonphysical field can't be anchored to every molecules in the body. It has to anchor only to specific points. What are good candidates in the human body for these. Some characteristics of specific molecules in the body. Oh. The acupoints are one good candidate. I read before how it vary to the other tissues in the body. Any experts can share so my book will be more precise. Stupid ideas like Tenet is out of the picture.

 

[DaveC426913]

The acupoints are one good candidate. I read before how it vary to the other tissues in the body. Any experts can share so my book will be more precise. Stupid ideas like Tenet is out of the picture.

I'm not sure what 'Tenet' means when referring to biology (Best I could find was 'the 3 tenets of cell biology', or the 2020 film 'Tenet'), but you classify it as a "stupid idea". Presumably it is some flavour of pseudoscience?

But that follows immediately from you raising "Acupoints" as an ostensible contender. Except Acupoints are also pseudoscience.

And while we're at it, surely you acknowledge that the very premise of the story is - not merely pseudoscience - but straight up fantasy.

Is it possible you're being penny-wise pound-foolish here? In the sense that the overarching premise is granted to be fantasy, but the details of it need to be held to some higher standard of plausibility?

 

[jake jot]

I'm not sure what 'Tenet' means when referring to biology (Best I could find was 'the 3 tenets of cell biology', or the 2020 film 'Tenet'), but you classify it as a "stupid idea". Presumably it is some flavour of pseudoscience?

But that follows immediately from you raising "Acupoints" as an ostensible contender. Except Acupoints are also pseudoscience.

And while we're at it, surely you acknowledge that the very premise of the story is - not merely pseudoscience - but straight up fantasy.

Is it possible you're being penny-wise pound-foolish here? In the sense that the overarching premise is granted to be fantasy, but the details of it need to be held to some higher standard of plausibility?

Writing a science fiction about is it to force me to study physics, chemistry, biology in details. Because in high school, i slept through them.

So let's say the nonphysical body can lock into certain molecules in the body related to the nervous system. What would make it lock to the body particularly. Here archetypes are useful again. Because it's keying to your signature, and molecular signature is not good words, so maybe archetype signature?

Ultimately, what matters is the data and proof in anything in science, so I agree with you that the devils are in the details. Or it's just pure fantasy. No problem with done.

Of course I'm truly happens if we are only mere flesh and blood and nothing more. No problems about android and robots among us.

(by the way, I'm referring to Tenet the movie)

 

[jake jot]

Writing a science fiction about is it to force me to study physics, chemistry, biology in details. Because in high school, i slept through them.

So let's say the nonphysical body can lock into certain molecules in the body related to the nervous system. What would make it lock to the body particularly. Here archetypes are useful again. Because it's keying to your signature, and molecular signature is not good words, so maybe archetype signature?

Ultimately, what matters is the data and proof in anything in science, so I agree with you that the devils are in the details. Or it's just pure fantasy. No problem with done.

Of course I'm truly happens if we are only mere flesh and blood and nothing more. No problems about android and robots among us.

(by the way, I'm referring to Tenet the movie)

To continue with the above. In my book (I'm seriously about writing it. It's not all a gimmick). What happens if you strip away the nonphysical body from a person. My book will mention that the person nervous system becomes automaton, or unconscious, and although you may be able to recover memories from your brain, but you don't have qualia or subjective experience. All your unconscious processes will still function but you are not a person anymore. Any observation that can refute this? Perhaps there is still leftover subjective experience but only 20%?

About acupoints and pseudoscience, the following is a peer reviewed source about it. (in the spirit of the rule here that only peer reviewed high quality references can be made)

Acupuncture points can be identified as cutaneous neurogenic inflammatory spots | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

What is so consistent is if your nonphysical body is faulty or has dirty field, there is pain in the tissues corresponding to that field. I can't find any exception to this. So could the nonphysical body (the russian called it bioplasmic field) really be interfacing to the acupoints which has neurogenic properties.. meaning it connects to your nervous system and brain?

Don't worry, i won't mention about the acu points again aside from this message, because there are others to cover like how to model the nonphysical body in particle physics, if you guys will be allowed to give me advice on the world building in the book.

If you know of a book like it, let me read the contents so I know what kind of style to write it.

 

[jake jot]

The following is not personal speculations (unallowed here). I am just deciding whether to include it in my book. It's about magnetic monopoles. Ok this is the last issue we will discuss and I won't mention anything else. I read:

Scientists Hunt for A Seeming Paradox: A Magnet With Only One Pole | Discover Magazine

"With all the circumstantial theoretical evidence for monopoles, one of the foremost string theorists in the world, Joseph Polchinski of the University of California, Santa Barbara, commented in 2002 that their existence is “one of the safest bets that one can make about physics not yet seen.” Sixteen years later, before he died in February 2018, he still stood by that statement. “Whenever you go to a fully unified theory of physics,” he said, “you always find that magnetic monopoles come along.”

In the scientific paper on acupoints published in Nature I shared in last message. It was written:

"Acupoints are frequently described as having electrically distinct properties, including high electrical conductance and potential, low impedance and resistance, and increased capacitance8,9. The physiological mechanisms underlying these electrical properties in acupoints have not been elucidated. "In biology, the charge-transporting activity of the Na+,K+-ATPase depends on its surrounding electric field. I'd write in my book that the monopoles comprising the sentient substance (known also by etheric body by medieval occultists and countless other names) were able to induce electric field that cause those characteristics or behavior at the acupoints. And it can't induce electric field in other objects because something in the molecules of living things that can bind it and release the monopoles action (except for spiritually developed people where it can expand and register (see below).

Now in a separate thread where I mentioned it:

The Enduring Mystery Of Detecting The Universe's Only Magnetic Monopole (forbes.com)

That event in 1982 happened on Valentine's Day. So I'd mention in my book that in that lovers day. Two spiritually advanced lovers made love and their field expanded so much it reached the magnetic monopole detector and make it registered. And the reason the scientists didn't detect it again was they wouldn't try this, yes, one of few ideas they haven't tried.

I'd like to know the following. In the magnetic monopole detectors at LHC and the underground cosmic monopole detectors. Are their instances when humans touched the detector right in the magnetic loops or whatever? I just want to know, and again this is not personal speculations (not allowed here) but book contents. I don't know the distinction anymore between personal speculations and book ideas so I'd not further mention anything in this thread except these questions about Monopoles. So kindly discuss with me one last time. Thank you.