Sunday, September 18, 2011
Quasic Field Condensing & Hierarchical Mass
Quasic Field Condensing & Hierarchical Mass L. Edgar Otto Sept. 18, 2011
We can take a view of the world as if matter is an illusion. We can take a view of the world as if the abstract motion, or any motion is an illusion. Physics today seems to be a development within the emphasis of views like this. If we only find the existence of a concrete or tangible entity, the duplication or dispersion over a general field (once a certain threshold is reached informationally via quantanglement notions) We can say that there are only real solutions to any computational problem as the other possibilities only exist as illusions. Such non-existent's depend, metaphysically, on the concrete existences for their being and perhaps physicality. Thus the need for NP hard solutions may be too narrow a question or one that is intimate to the metaphysical structure of a general universe.
In a sense then, the hierarchical problem of computation of masses, the generational differences, (note the reasons why the third generation is hard to see beyond the standard theory- the quasic information view and condensing flangelation as an influence of four space and beyond explain this.) If quasic motion can seem and illusion as distance in the first place, that is a distance between quasic singularity entities so to the substance or illusion of inertial entities in the various interpretations of what is a continuum- that directionality and reaction depends upon.
We cannot simply draw a three dimensional object from four space and treat it as acting as if it is a surface barrier thus a solid object if we could do it. This is true to some extent but the bulk of such ideas of non-linearity depends on the physicality of some point-linear objects. The debate, even in the biochemistry of life cannot be simply the holographic surface of molecules or the fractal contents- a scientific theory will have to balance both concepts.
What of the bananas, Gore, and peanut butter sandwiches? Bananas have a mold now that may destroy most of the crop, peanuts due to the bad weather will cost 30% more in the USA by next November. Our soy bean crops are small compared to China and Latin America while we debate, knowing full well enough science of plant inheritance especially on the epi-genome, that the weeds can become immune to the herbicide that we will use to the last effectiveness apparently. Yet it is not quite as bad as we could imagine to fix things- save maybe politically. I am not sure that Gore, interviewed by the BBC yesterday understands the issue of the Tipping Points involved that makes my peanut butter and banana sandwiches unlikely. That tipping point in the second half of his book, the angles and the grain of sand on the sand pile. What is different for climate theory as either way on one hand we see the carbon tax in Australia a matter of debate but the claims of Gore the oil and coal companies with political donations buy the power to work not just pseudo science from both ends of the spectrum but disinformation. Of course this descent to some downward doom as far as parties go now seems a four way chaos of positions. Someone should have warned us about the Military, Industrial, Pharmaceutical Complex.
Back to what seems science, or at least good science fiction:
Kea, after a time of no posting, has a relevant article today on these issues quoting the ideas of Tony Smith (of which he seems to take my position but more from the continuous point of view, say Lie Groups and so on). I like her assessment that she understands that Smith's system points toward an underlying informational system, that is she does speak the language of notions of what is the quasic resolution of today's anomalies of physics. Furthermore, evidence of this is her pointing toward the ideas of Rio Frio where in a world where factious fields are not the correct path for higher physics, super-symmetry there but not that sort of Higgs, Kea pleads for this case of a deeper role for the Black Hole concepts- which of course points toward the language of quasics as the creative field ( a sort of super-steady state of Hoyle's such field ) in which case of course the issues of the speed of light may be seen to be paradoxically timeless or change- as all such formulas of the exponential notations in matrices to begin to explain things like superconductivity- here the reasons for the notion cosmic strings if they exist would be superconductive- or why such phenomena are found in some organic carbon states.
But the bigger issue then is one of the nature of distance and quasic space itself. What is the deep concept of a "wormhole" really? Can Ulla's idea of the mouths of wormholes as she understands them make sense? Perhaps, if we somehow regard the wave as at least physicality by default- that lightning does not diffuse through the ground but even there in subspace takes certain directionality of paths. Yet is this idea needed for the concrete physicality or is it in a sense the existent's illusion mentioned above- this is like asking if aliens are real and universally seen in that UFO literature.
For one thing it seems that the charges inside an atom directly or at a distance can influence the charges outside an atom (an iota is like a crazy gluon that does not have resonances in deeper space but is in a sense and absolute irreducible state.)
We can imagine, from the primitive quasic abstract motion function of "punch" and "slice" as in all 4D concepts that object A can jump to place B, as well as be considered vanished or in both states (places). Or we can say it can take a time or there is a path between A or B instantaneous or not. In a sense we make 4D jumps around 3D places. So we can have a mirror notion of 3 things taken 4 at a time as far as the inversions of dimensions go and the grounding choice of probabilities. But this is in richer space a four way dialectic- that is there are four ways to consider what plane or sphere is the imaginary one relative to each other.
But the quasic condensing of the shadow higher space fields we establish that objects or entities can have nuclei. These general differences do seem to have solved the hierarchy problem so related to the generations- but as much as I have counted things or discounted some notions of vague mixing of phase vectors, I am still not clear that all can be reduced to mass in rest or motion as if it only is a sort of colorless quasi-discrete arithmetic- even when we are cognitive of its simplicity and scope and yes of what is its grounding of physicality, as far as the measure of mass goes- perhaps, not so with this sort of topological understanding and measure of charge.
* * *
Note to Kea et al - you now may wonder at the obvious simplicity of it all if I have anything to say worth learning the language and notation- I wonder this myself sometimes and ask if any of us actually have original contributions in depth- I also wonder about the question of who discovered what in relation to what historical development seen as a private issue and yes one of political funding the sciences. For insofar as the article today on Kea's blog linking to the same synchronous theme, what is the 90's but yesterday compared to my first application of a ten year theory to the genome in 1974? Who knows if any of it came before me, or like words some near meanings in the struggle our tribal issues and idioms?
But know this, being born earlier in more favorable times for enquiry (in this age it seems in the USA and Europe schooling is a costly and wasteful economic undertaking) is not always an advantage- individually, socially, and emotionally. For you were spared the last few decades of the way they did the string and quark theories which around 1980 was really beginning to piss me off- especially being excluded directly from the academic world. I have lived long enough to see these new students and researchers find their expectations crumble or become fanciful to the world- or politically undermined by the facts of science their political expectations.
* * *
Of course the radical part of quasic distance is that all surfaces are connected together from one view- that or that all such surfaces remain absolutely apart.
* * *
Sometimes we see patterns in things and here I find one rather humorous in reference to Lubos's article:
Oddly before the hurricanes I dreamed of the state of Massachusetts being flat with only one large artificial industrial plant and that it would be vulnerable to flooding and that the debate between republican centrist and deniers on the climate change would shift from the man from Massachusetts.
:-) Hope such humor is taken well- lately I have been aware some of my jokes are a little too hard on the overly sensitive in this postmodern culture and political entrenchment of party lines of people in the coffee shop- but it is hard to understand their negative response if they do not tell me what in particular has peeved them off- so, I write it off to no sense of humor. Hey, it is said that Einstein was a master punner.
* * *