Monday, July 19, 2010
Compactification + flangelation = compflangelation which is a rather German looking word but for now I use this word to combine two concepts which were already combined geometrically before it bifurcated into the relativistic and quantum views of things. In general my Greek and Latin crosses from a purely secular viewpoint symbolizes the enfolding and the unfolding of certain geometric shapes. A reference frame inside another one as Einstein pointed out in his first book without citations as it was an original approach is a different situation from some frame at rest. Such further generalizations of a scientific paradigm makes progress in dealing with new interpretations and definitions of the terminology, a modification scientifically as with the general flow of philosophy of some idea, in this case mass, especially rest mass. At the point of a priori unity of these sciences- somewhere without the general or special relativity distinction, somewhere between Dirac and Einstein statistics is the conceptual flatland. To the extent it involves vacua it is still the frontier as metaphysics.
One can imagine a space in relation to changes over infinity with respect to finite measure and an emphasis on counting that the space, from a Greek centered or Latin extended language (Novaglossa) inwardly as expanding forever or shrinking forever as a theory that in retrospect can come from first principles in an intelligible world and one that is no better than the power of our existing mathematics- for example that nature speaks in differential equations is a concept today a little too narrow- so the theoretician is only as good as his creative mathematics and language and symbol system of some logical design.
BTW the video from linford, the Phyziks guy! on the octopus predicting the soccer game winners (something he says he cannot imagine a system where this is a mechanism of the possible- and thus assumes anyone who took that seriously- and I doubt anyone did as well it not a worthy topic if popularization is intended to advance the cause of science- tells me at once there is a lack of creative imagination needed for deeper science as well his belief in the probability only of things tells me why. Is that the sort of science, a political polemic really, that our universities are producing these days? I do not buy his so called division of labour nor that in the end the science from theory is there to serve the production and better life of the general population. This is some sort of priestly economics that probably affects a generation with false expectations who have not done their homework for Phd's the old fashioned way, original and fundamental additions hopefully toward a new open area of research for the greater addition to knowledge.
If one is to demean those outside the web of rationed results for rationed funding off hand then one is simply brainwashed politically and in the end, despite the reaction and backlash against the fundamentalists, it will retard science.
I note on the reference frame blogspot com that both results, at least experimentally of the rumors and news on the bottom quark and so on do not pan out- and yet within the theory as stated and in the language close to current meanings and theory, as theory I see no reason these ideas cannot be a possible situation, especially the idea of intrinsic asymmetry in particle nature. Of course in my language it is not enough to assume vaguely there are infinitely filled vacua and that exceptions illy defined for chiral effects define the mass. It is a beautiful idea as it stands but it leaves the speculation way to open, and the left also seems to be anti-science- to think little of say the discovery of some new particle. But such progress is made at the cost leaving only the moral spirit as right of the old theory where the paradigm is similar to the new - a social thing really, a political thing, that is a messy way to establish scientific accrued realities.
So, linford, what after all is an historical reality or even a causation in any of the theories- for if we base it on probabilities as the only way to decide things and not on the foundations why not the great coincidences of infinity where the cycles of intelligible things of the universe corresponds in its dice to the prediction in the now of some future state. Yes, the experimenter, as if the octopus had some sort of cue or extra-sensory perception can influence the outcome of the experiment and the octopus is a rather advance nervous system for a mollusk. In fact having eight arms one might think his thermodynamic synchronicity and quantum watched pot does not boil co-intelligibility to the general states of the universe is the limit to what the octopus can do with his octonian number of limbs- this radial creature does not have the advantage of the crustacean's ten fold string theory view.
My speculative notions today give me at least new directions to investigate.
Ultimately there is no difference between a centered finite frame and a moving one in extended relative space (although we may crudely distinguish them as fermion and bosons and so on). Thus on some level the clear distinction (say of dragging the frame or space by spinning or influence by an influencing structures and particles in a nonlinear manner- clearly the swastika and Shield of David are ancient moving and fixed signs that can be derived from the same cube symmetries) what is the need for a focused or centered assumption of general vacuum zero point or otherwise compflangelated mass, that it has a definite orientation, probability of existing, or finite value seems to me the key issues of what we are trying to understand in today's physics. The mass as levels of structures as in an atom which follows the magic numbers (in high school I read they were not explained) as a frequency classical or not as that does not matter in applied theory- close then to the idea of magic squares in the counting- 2 6 10 14 and so on represent deeper levels also of compact and flanged (we as nature see the outline, shadow or rim of some geometric object and may count them more than once linearly if they intersect.)
Note a typo in an earlier post 153 370 371 407 for the cubes of digits equal to the number itself. Such and a hundred other numerological coincidences occur to me too messy yet to make a definite statement formally but: since we see a third of the nine dimensions and 50 is thus tripled as well the three center points of some discrete set of (regulus space restrained like treatment of points or even lines in a controlled triplality) we find 153 and so on. That a centered structure like a three dimensional game of Solitaire needs be empty, full or equal to 1 or two suggest to me on some structural level that 135 136 137 138 do relate to the coherent real and virtual abstract points, fixed or moving and in whatever direction as a nucleus of such a cross polytope in motion to modify such numbers.
I note further that these + and +- 's can be used as a notion themselves but in structures and in powers of things. I note also that the color encoded orthogons as modification of translations, rotations and beyond of symmetries of groups may be used as operators between certain sets of space structures.
* * * Later this evening from New Scientist:
Matter, virtual or concrete, as I have suggested here, seems very similar to the just of this article as do things like twistor theory. Now, most assuredly some sort of new physics is in the offering even with this sort emphasis. In what sense however are we to call gravity emergent and not just the physical results of the organization of space, overt or concrete? Is this an atempt to resolve the symmetries of entropy (thermodynamics?) if so it is a very bold attempt- after all with big bang problems and the ratio of styles of atoms or their production why assume the structure of inflation theory to apply to real concrete particles- yes the false vacuum can do work but in what sense is this different animal, gravity independent and as if a limitless source of sustaining motion (dominos falling)
more on this perhaps later and pay attention to my take on such organization of space and matter and what the holographic, fractal, and chaos spaces are as I modify the concepts of them and apply it to, among other things, our organic cosmos.
* * *
July 20, after sleeping on it the medallion arrangements of stars were not as difficult to draw with five fold symmetry as I attempted yesterday... the global metric of the decagon derived from the five points of a star in various ways then that inverted vertical. But I do miss the old photo program lost in the netscape-microsoft wars where I could set the angles of shapes not just in the four fold symmetry. But the drawing as such where the tilt of the stars balance out globally across the plane simplifies the local logic of things- the global view a surprise to most of us when it seems like the generations and dimensions of the same sort of particle cannot be distinguished in the vagueness of our reach for dreams.