Monday, June 13, 2011

Null Dimensional Physical Stereonomics

Null Dimensional Physical Stereonomics

Ulla, Ulla,

Both Pitkanen's and Kea's theories are above your head in its philosophic depths as I suppose it is above most of their detractors here. Some of it has a lot in common as when we find deep connections surprising in the math and numbers. Lubos and the string model can also be seen as a tenable and viable position but in a different area. I see no reason you should say the greatly advanced Peter Rowland's is wrong but if you cannot understand his genetics mine is hopeless for you. Not that we all do not do important specialized work- as you say to include consciousness as part of the theory of everything.

Here is a trick question really, for you and Pitkanen: How do you get around the fact that your general theory violates the third law of thermodynamics?

The PeSla

* * *

"Oh-My-God particle

On the evening of October 15, 1991, an ultra-high energy cosmic particle was observed over Salt Lake City, Utah. Dubbed the "Oh-My-God particle" (a play on the nickname "God particle" for the Higgs boson), it was estimated to have an energy of approximately 3 × 1020 electronvolts, equivalent to about 50 joules—in other words, it was a subatomic particle with macroscopic kinetic energy, comparable to that of a fastball, or to the mass-energy of a microbe. It was most likely a proton travelling with almost the speed of light (in the case that it was a proton its speed was approximately (1 - 4.9 × 10-24)c – after traveling one light year the particle would be only 46 nanometres behind a photon that left at the same time) and its observation was a shock to astrophysicists."

This will come to be seen as quite relevant to the theme in relation to a higher concept of symmetry and its breaking in the work of our more advanced theoreticians here.

* * *

Questions I Asked Myself that Lead to Looking up Things in Rowlands

*If neutrinos oscillate between generations what could be the nature of an intrinsic or an internal mechanism?

*While in one state how long does it persist in that state?

*If there are stereonomic or positional encodings do these discretely triplicate (n-ality) by intelligible n-hedra models?

*As such within a generational compass is there a general self looping?

*Could such self-looping be expressed into the span globally and to what limits or extent is it a closed and intelligibly stable systems (do sub-components and processes vanish randomly even if rarely?)

* * *

*With respect to its fundamental flow and fundamental arrow, Time as an absolute in concept is like a universal positional code to which some non-necessary relationships observe it in discrete space.

*Symmetrically (thus thermodynamically) such a flow also may be triplicated.

*Such assertions as fundamental thermodynamics arises from Rowlands metaphysical statement (essentially the primacy of the weak force involved)and amounts to an explanation or definition if not the Formal Cause then the disconnects and coherences as say in his idea of momenta and charge for example.

*Zed Point Energy is a concept in relation to the idea of minimum vacuum states or levels that violates the third law of thermodynamics, Ultimately, although zero is never reached, it is in that respect never negative. (Note this Ulla- perhaps a paradox to be resolved here).

*The shift of domination strengths of gravity and electromagnetic balances is mirrored as the shift of such dominance between the weak and strong force dimensions or scales.

*Triality in a sense is natural difference domination's between the fifth and six opaque and mirrored neutral flows and forces expressed up to 9 dimensions.

Finding Rowlands Big Book at this Point to Read his Physics Foundations:

*Rowlands has the insight at the foundations to see that the factored quasic sequences, my alpha and beta of the grid, are also distinctions that apply to complex space unities in that natural ordering (squared and Cartesian) for elucidationg momenta and objects exchanged in switches with vacua and where in three space structurally earlier Diracian ideas so apply. (But is not his one admitted metaphysical principle, muon and not muon or all other things that is not muon, akin to my Fundamental Theorem if the quasic (more fractal like) interior code as well that is things change or do not, things are dipoles or they are not...

*Rowlands vision is very clear and intelligible on such space and in its defense where it establishes principles assumed for explanation. I wonder why his formulation is not more quoted or realized in the literature (his origin of mixing phases is a credible and underlying and original explanation of generation mixing) But to base it all on given metaphysics of fermions alone is still questionable as part of the still bigger picture (Ulla, one must be able to see a picture before one can see the big picture- that or the equivalent expertise in the algebra).

[taking a break now, returning later to complete this posting.]

I still see a deeper level (or higher one) where we not only in a monoverse even with triality, distinctions like fermions behaving point-like (presumably by expression externally of its surface structure)- But as with the braid theorists intelligible internal interactions with the vacuum. Now, as far as the foundations of foundations that also mirrors physical processes in the two physics, Rowlands is as complete a theory as can be - and is far ahead of the pack. His Casimir ideas are unifying of many approaches by the disciplines and strays not too far from a defense of the Standard Theory, the idea suggesting the Higgs and its role for example. His view and a mirror of it if possible as an addition from the merger of both views in a QUASIC model nevertheless where it grounds physics as metaphysics, that metaphysics even as a questionable otherness of disembodiment should benefit from dynamic stereonometry notions to have reasonable certainty as physicality.

BTW Ulla, if Lubos leaned toward a modified gravity would not a reference frame of sorts involve a looping at some remote path or conserved calculus boundary? I have not seen evidence he "hates" loop theories (in this fundamental and mathematical sense). Or somehow, just perhaps, the neutrality of string centered gravity and its analogs to leaking via loop strings could be the fundamental case (even without perhaps disembodies (metaphysical-ized in the pejorative sense) p-brane ideas.

The interpretation of power or Clifford-like dimensions justifies the "partial" intelligibility of log and exponential notations... Furthermore, a fundamental theory of quasic boundary interior calculus globally averaging around conservation by loops back and forth from it from 4 to three space formulations which amounts to a product or squaring of all quasic double dialectical dipoles and perhaps an addition of a unity. Pitkanen and Kea reach towards this unification, dynamically to explain wider gravity-like concepts.

The quasic exterior calculus explains biological integration and differentiation in general, Rowlands combines two sets of quaterions just as surely as we can combine two sets of the epsilion-delta Cartesian ordering over the quasic plane, a squaring, and he goes further to suggest a mapping of this to the CPT issues of conservation.
So is system is mirrored as pure quasic systems as both systems can be defined in the Holographic or Fractal views of quasic coordinates and distances.

In the Clifford-like dimensions I note that both Kea and Pitkanen involve the number 7 and its multiples. This applied to the factors or holographic and Cartesian and or polar grid systems more than to the implied quasic mirror coordinates. Thus we have the Diracian 32 x 32 systems of 1024 elements multiplied by 4 in the squaring or the virality, this is 2^14th. thus we imagine 384 x 128 or x 512 as relevant to the parameters of particle physics. This comes also from the multiplication of the numbers involved by triality and by quaternity yet may loop back in its subparticle structures as fractal partitions to division by 24 and 48 of three space again. To this we keep in mind what is a factor of ten, or perhaps 2^11 x 4! of the view of the dimensions as 11. In this realm we begin to see a deeper and higher foundation for symmetry breaking. (of course Rowlands insight is to see the complex numbers in the holographic factoring of the quasic plane, again a 2n and not 4n or greater formalism for such complex algebras are not needed save in the bigger picture.

* * *

Quasi-subjective Stances

*Some theoreticians set us systems that intelligibly work because nature and reason resonate with their vision.

*Some theoreticians make systems from visions that struggle for clarity in discovering adjustments to adapt and come closer to the facts of nature.

Sid Rowlands intuit and work out his fundamental system and in doing so, to the extent it intelligible, was he aware of it?

*A fractal can have a relatively larger boundary upon finer points of inspection for computing distance measure- is this not equally true of a plane and sphere? Is it not in a sense untrue by inversion for the hyperbolic case?

The Creator as Theoretician

So, in a sense the various TOE theories presented in that they are squared or referred upon themselves in a sense is a prime condition for consciousness and its levels and of a system of Theories of everything in levels of comprehension.

Do we speak with authority or do the theories so stand alone to speak?

The continuum seeks what is shown greater in extent as the power continuum so we do seek a transcendence of sorts... in earlier times this transcending background was thought of theologically, as God in the many forms we imagined Him.

But the logical conclusion, evidently, of these unifying and simplifying theories seems to show that some entity as if a God is at least as conscious and self aware as we are, yet there is more to such an ultimate being than we see and perhaps our self awareness is not more but temporary and finite, that is our consciousness is not necessarily as dynamic and deep as God's which can seem to transcend the multiverse. God as such, as physical and of the world is still not of the world for his subjectivity is greater than the universe so created and designed objectively to which some want to equate the universe as equivalent to Him and what we in our hearts imagine or know of our own vanishing we so impose as a vision on Him.

But as far as things to do, say even in Heaven, what need would a God have for a theoretical physicist?

* * *

In the continuum of life, if I may use Rowland's reasoning as a model or analog but I speak for none of our theoreticians or who has originality or first of a concept where they point out or just assume similarity to that of others, We, as if so much the lesser creators are as much a condensate (such as the quarks in some ways) as the fermions and thus emergent properties. Thus we may be reducible to the nothingness as opposed to that which may be greater than what we vaguely see as eternal as we go thru the entropy engaged and building in complexity our organic structures everlasting against the concepts of general entropy and so on.

Of course we can see it all, the Casimir forces as if just quantum clouds in the radical uncertainty independent from notions and ideas otherworldly and for this world some almost irreducible certainty. But the formula stands with out c and h and the all important 480 that divides it all in this era and level of physics after all. Yet, from these dynamics there may be exceptions and exceptional futures for the prospects of humankind, and that justifies the work of theory. Moreover, for out time where we now have to face it, it is a good time for geometry, and a good time to try to make a living in the study of foundations. We have to do this really before the world makes sense and interacted with safely that we become good engineers. Otherwise, like species before us we return to the dust with the hint of dreams that the earth is alive and we do not vanish into the collective of each other when we should be in higher flight of poetic and philosophic diversity.

* * *

One further comment to Ulla today: With apologies if I, have offended anyone here and hopes my attempt as meaningful dialog on this blog has not failed totally. But then I am long past the grid and the game of fearing a minimum existence and being a nobody.


OK, perhaps intuitively you dismiss something you have not read- not to lie but not offer the truth is a good policy, keeping quite so as to appear a philosopher, and I speaking the fool.

p-adics is one of many approaches that asks philosophically why 2 and 2 is 4 and it applies to any such theory of various forms provided our enquiry is not so rigid. But it is not necessary in a world that makes more sense where there are no necessary realities.

Are you asking me why it works? Why the world is intelligible? There is no conflict I see between the area Kea and Pitkanen is applied, if anything a convergence to possible higher ideas and they should be acknowledged.

One theory is not verified at the expense of another- nor does propaganda make the truth- yes we should see something new in our own theories light and point it out- but the constant spamming of ones work like TGD reeks of Goerbels principles- not the lie big enough so to be believed, but the story told over and over again that it overwhelms us and our thinking.

But I did not mean to have a conflict with you save perhaps to allow no condescending speaking as if to children. I would like a forum perhaps that presented at least once these alternative physics for consideration and response- how to design such a thing beyond the arbitrary and explosive cross linking of dialog and comments.

But I love you little Finland, the second most connection of readers to this blog (USA the first) and feel a connection again to the rumbles in Christchurch, may no one get hurt.

The PeSla

* * *


  1. Well, I see.

    You continue discussing something I have not read, and have no intention to read either, not now.

    I think this will lead nowhere, so thanks for me. I will continue sending you links if you want to. I gladly discuss elsewhere, not here. Ulla.


    You made your comment early on. My reading and correspondence with Rowlands has been a theme used throughout this blog in many places long before exchanging comments with the recent bloggers. This is not a post about you when I discuss his views- I also note at first he rejected by the on-line publications only to have a book on the Scientific American book club.

    I do not need links of which I can find better myself nor what intention seems to be in the agenda behind sending them without explanation. Nor that any idea as truly original and independent of the literature- well, it starts with us somewhere in isolation so we are the essential link in some cases.

    The biology links have relevance when I post them. Where is elsewhere- in a place where one can control a public debate? There is no such place of privacy really.

    All is farmville. All is sound bites that does not recognize handwriting script or typing beyond two fingers. All is apps in the cloud and adverts now and ring tones.

    Sorry I did not reply to personal questions you asked, not sorry I ignored comments aside on the personal aspects of others. And sorry the language is such a barrier.

    Historically, all new media makes promises but never seems to come thru.

    I will be here somewhat to answer questions of those who for whatever reason have an interest and for the first few refugees from the chat and science-philosophy forums who will remain close and personal friends in real life and who contributed here. Thanks.

    The PeSla

  3. I really hate doing this, but insinuations without explanations is enough. I don't go that way, sorry.

    I am well aware that I am an everlasting student in this life. I thought you could give me some knowledge, but apparently not. You can discuss Rowland as much as you like, but I have no idea, so there is no point talking of him with me.

    Funny, that bloggers and discussion forums usually contain humans with awareness only of own ideas, and unwillingness to learn. They are like missionaries. But I admit the learning process can be long.

    So long, my friend. No hard feelings. It is just time to quit. Maybe I will turn up here again some day :)