Sunday, May 29, 2011
Stereomnium (Beyond Stereonometry)
Stereomnium Beyond Stereonometry (A New or Deeper Metaphysical Foundation for the Objective Physicality of Physics than the Esoteric ones Already Offered)
* * *
Sacred Geometry and Arithmetic Prelude:
I find it noteworthy that I reconsidered volumes involving spheres and values of e and pi and phi and their powers but did not find enough to post- and yet I found the following comment. I thought to do this exploration because of a comment Dave137 left on Kea's blog and a memory in my slide rule days of some interesting volumes but alas I will have to search some very old notes on it.
The following I saw today from Gary Croft and it was put into awaiting for moderation as that is a surprise it has happened. I re-post his comment here as it related to my comments on twin primes that used his ideas as an example where things relate to some of the ideas of Ulam and spirals and their place in TGD. I post it here for reference and to think about it in more depth for what is going on I feel is not as obvious and intuitive as we might imagine, especially if we think of these things in what is well none about this ratio in terms of binary numbers. I will comment there eventually.
Fibo(13)/Fibo(11) = 2.617977528089887640449438202247 ...
Fibo(19)/Fibo(17) = 2.618033813400125234815278647464 ...
Fibo(31)/Fibo(29) = 2.618033988748203621343798191078 ...
Fibo(43)/Fibo(41) = 2.618033988749894831892914017992 ...
Fibo(49)/Fibo(47) = 2.618033988749894848153928976786 ...
Fibo(61)/Fibo(59) = 2.618033988749894848204586345776 ... from Croft...
* * *
Part of the general problem of those I encounter who debate and offer alternatives to some stereonomic concept of physics, especially the quantum theory, is the mere assertion of the existence or not of abstract motion unless perhaps it is assumed.
The following considerations tend to focus and explain this cognitive paradox of the foundations of such givens and reasoning.
Discrete Holofraction and Depth Bouyancy
*Although this idea is vague, I imagine a total volume when the inversions at an informational coordinate vibrates, the difference in the volumes make fine adjustments, seen linear or non-linear, to integral values. In which case the singularity (or singularity complex) has to consider the classical areas and volumes in space computations.
*The various volumes may be considered together as if one distinct volume inside another. Now, the question is what dimensional relativity (Newtonian) of scale has a measurable influence on the minimum dimensional calculations.
*Since we appeal to simple fluid models I offer one for my first quasar like multi-candle pouring machine composed of cans over so many cans with holes. The top bucket was filled with wax and the bottom one with 343 beer cans open at both ends (for leakage was as big a problem with a small hole) and a layer of water to have a base for a candle to start. Needless to say, the accuracy of the holes had a certain level of uncertainty which caused the candles not to be uniform in height and even overflow. What is the radiation from inside a black body through a small holo that involves the square root of two? It what with this unexpected accident where our averaged out projects seemed to work fine that we took a day off and went back to pencil and paper and found some practical uses of some of the ideas of algebra and buoyancy. Eventually the idea of a pipe equal to infinite holes had to be approved but fortunately other principles in the depth of the volumes worked very accurately such that we could pour a layer drop at a time. In the raw metaphysical consideration here, in at least three space...as different volumes are considered in the abstract there seems an equivalence regardless of if the secondary space is one or many from the higher unified view.
*It was clear that the uncertainty can indeed determine some bounds as the example of a cue ball radius compared to the other pool balls is the source of uncertainty as well when the wavelength exceeds the geometry of the definition of an object. But the constraints that all may explode or converge to some unity or function of that unity such as phi, also constrain the fuzziness of the surfaces for quasi rational adjustments as we substantially vary the absolute volumes and area ratios.
* We now offer the idea (complex number fields aside) of the Dynamic Fractals over the Hologramic Fields (hence the use of the term Holofractor beyond its candle making plumbing machinery). At this point the concepts may apply to some of our other new and cherished ideas of physics and what is the physicality. We should compute things over a general difference in the plane and sphereical space regarding more than two substances of area and volume with in itself is the area compared to volume. We can imagine for example that the shadow or alternate substance or force could be identified with Dark Matter, Matter itself, or gravity or even a hierachy of unitary values such as Planck's and Light. In short there can be a doubly dynamic fractal.
*We now see that linearly things can go thru a point or more importantly through space in general assuming abstract motions as if one direction thru the space. This is to say that from a physics view this part of substance distinction in a general space is really going in all directions in the higher space to which in the physicality of perception, the idea of gravity as twistor orientation, or of the need or not for a collapse into classical from quantum or relativistic space makes sense as to the origin of such notions.
*This is essentially the difference in not only the ideas of potentials and kinetic energies, or of the grounding of action and reaction but that difference of holograms and fractals where existentially the alph2 - the alph1 transfinite's are equivalent to these sliding staff over three and two space dimensions.
*These can be a directional variability where holofraction in sub-cell space is equivalent to the "equivalence principle" of GR. Clearly we see another way that in some cases spinning frame of this nature is taken along with the spin.
*In general, this symmetric differences conveys the sphere to plane model as action reaction, buoyancy depth as energy of information content in the shift where 4 to 8 bits convey over non-locality the infinite set of orientations of all numbers on the Riemann sphere, which is all numbers so transmitted.
*Stereonometry in a sense trumps physical physicality in these models. At this level the omni-omnium is the omnium and such a multiplicity in the philosophic continua may not exist for purposes of general physical descriptions.
*There are neutral or ideal-like coordinate information flows possible that are not inversions or directional.
*These ideas can be applied to explain asymptotic freedom in QCD but we should explain the concept in general of freedom in the first place.
*Pseudo-sociology can trump reason. But will such reasoning once understood advance civilization one iota after all in our quest? Sociology in some place is the ally in reductionist view if human wisdom rather than the antagonist to science.
*Some formulas are to be taken metaphorically or descriptively (not what we expect as literally as if our sense of hard counting or 1 to 1 matching) when we expect functions or numerical values- such as mass, that is the formula including the formula generator of the quantum bra-ket notations, are limited in the scope of its physics background or dynamics in a context.
* The unitary direction can be conceived as equivalent to a monopole (simply hold in ones had comfortably a small object like the blue ball in the accompanying illustration which weighs much and compare it to the dipole of magnets. The imagine the depth of such things as if in a general condensed surface or fluid. And these poles can roughly be identified with our idea of natural dimensions as pole and n-pole complexes, discrete and positive, transfinite alph2 to alph1 as the idea of a natural continuum. The npx can moreover be thought of as say a three space lattice.
*These linked ideas and considerations are perhaps raised, and even raised as global anomalies in new physics and old physics, beyond the obvious of ideas of our mathematics and definitions of dimension, with the notions of what is dark matter and energy and how can the physics so deal with it.
* * *
A Philosophy of the Somap
*There exists a discrete landscape of entities that, composed of sub-parts, each ensemble represents and abstract location.
*An exchange of two parts represents a "travel", an abstract distance between such coordinate states.
*In the collection, which can have mirror states within these transrformations, in natural dimensions as if the states are arranged on a surface with reference to a higher central state, each coordinate minimally and uniformly on one one travel exists of an exchange of three sub-parts.
*This is a statement for a unique point on a sphere of plane as a center of holographic direction by triality.
*Within a quasi-crystalline arrangement of point and line regions, while certain regions may be forced into a position its internal and intelligible parts may rearrange independently and with no effect upon the structure of the whole.
*In a holofractal landscape parallel configurations of such internal shapes may actually form external connections or develop in mass as if they do so.
*The significant count or dimension (J. Conway) is 240 with respect to the twistors or orientation in 8 dimensions.
*The super abstract distances may represent a constant background of force and variable signs for it of cosmic density and directionality.
Here I am making some conclusions from Conways Somap and Penrose Tilings for examples of these ordinary and familiar topological or metaphysical explorations.
Let those who see a connection of the soma cube that came up in Hein's attendance at a quantum lecture decide just how much these considerations relate to quantum and other such theories as unique to this example. But the sense of a deeper metaphysics behind this came first in a series of things I now see as related or equivalent including this issue of the state and modes of our perceptions and cognitions (and as Pitkanen points out Boolean notions)before the idea that the that the perhaps coincidence of such artifacts in my memory chose this example.
* * *
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110527162509.htm interesting in the wider viewing and proposed experiments to test our groundings assumptions and intuitions in such ordinary concepts of physics- perhaps we should explore the relation to the magnetic switch by a heat cue too a little more- in any case this sort of imagining the wider geometry does seem to fit with the above considerations- but then did not the spin of simple electrons always do so when we try to arrange a more centered and coherent theory of atoms? But one does not have to explain the underlying mystery of such electron spins on an atomic subshell to take advantage of the observed and reliable physical effects.
* * *
A comment to Ulla's post today on Lubos (how brave of you to attempt it, I mean Einstein did get the prize for quantum stuff yes? Perhaps certain reference frames are in a sense absolute- I admit worship of Einstein myself but I also had a picture right beside his of Newton.
If we observe Lubos do we change him?
If we try to view him from a certain reference frame does that change what we see of him?
If we pass by Lubos at the velocity of light in some sense is he rotated so we only see the other side of the object from where he was?
If Lubos is entangled with us and beyond the line of sight do we remain entangled with him?
As I posted, a little annoyed with Lubos position in a comment to him- taking the high road really- a quote from Einstein that Politics is temporary but an equation is forever..."
* * *
Here was a comment to Ulla's blog today regarding Lubos and so on and another one to her reply- please to to http://zone-reflex.blogspot.com/ and scoll to the Copenhagen interpretation as the direct page link does not seem to work to see her replies (interesting ones at that)
I recall reading a book around 1966, Thirty Years that Shook Physics.
It said that after 1930 or so there really was not much progress made, that the theoreticians were stuck. I suppose more subatomic research and the string theory looked like a great breakthrough for awhile.
But do we not still come up against the logic of all this, the same OLD logic in new applications?
If God is the ultimate observer, and not a subjective being, and the laws of physics very wide with lesser subjects in them or not, Could God make the ultimate multiverse of Lubosi disappear?
This gets a little fuzzy as we approach the surface of some gravitational object and try to divine its hologram and so in self analysis find the light shifting and dimming to ourselves or others- which is truth?
In the Revelations it states that "at the end times we hath no need of candles for God supplies the light, and the mystery (secret) of God will be finished."
Where does the candlelight ultimate vanish as it goes out into the expanse of time and space? How many light years is that?
Hmmmm- sorry I got the quotes and the comment on them (en)tangled up. But oddly my replies above seem to fit.
One point- the biological view, as a philosophy or even counter to some religions, some think a lesser philosophy, came way before the quantum discoveries.
* * *