Sunday, October 2, 2011

Stereonommetry Precedes Metaphysics

Stereonometry Precedes Metaphysics L. Edgar Otto October 2, 2011

*Quasicity comes before that followed by to predicate essence and existence... In a sense intelligible structures have equal reality to notions or physicality as a grounding reality. In this sense we look even deeper than some of the notions of physics, such as the iotas, the fields, strings, and so on- even the next level of information as if particles such as neutrinos as existent's.

*Considering the notion of greater than Omega Infinity (such as with Cantor) such if it exists is transitive throughout all scales of the cosmos as if a reference frame- thus the paradox of the grounding and conservation of energy in the remote initial and end conditions of the universe can apply on the local levels of space and time.

*Kea's hypothesis- The depth of insights, a subtle difference and attainment I find in Kea's statement that in a sense the role of neutrinos in these new physics stands in for the Higgs idea (if that captures the idea and forgive me if there are others involved) yet it is implied in my notes of the graph where I used the square symbol as Higgs-like in the 5th level of the Conway Matrix- but did not make this leap of obvious speculation.

*After the apparent earthquake of new data there seems certainly a run to rebuild again long standing structures. For now there are so many cardboard cathedrals until things can be on more certain theoretical grounding again. Some of the cardboard ideas are just general and at least superficially intelligible such as Pitkanens and similar notions in others such as Martin's assertion the "dark energy" converts into matter. Leo also promotes on this level the creation as a series of black hole like objects that leads to star production for example. These ideas have their place (after all we can read several formulations in one clear sequence of information in the "Philosophy Code") and perhaps can be better worked out in detail. Hoyle's creation field for new matter (protons) arising in space for a steady state depended on regions of relative emptiness and barely perceptible gravity- thus this idea is not as complex as these various current speculations and is certainly not worked out in view of physics since 1969.

I did not notice or think it significant the observation of the commenter "26" that the sum of 1 1 2 3 5 8 is 20 and the product 240, a one to 12 ratio. Yet it certainly can be trying to tell us something- like about broken symmetry in the standard notion of it. So the chart above is an example of structures, where in this case the five tetrahedra become the eight cubes of these unfolded polytopes.

We can in general assume some law of structure or numbers on some level will work out as if it describes or actually does find a concrete physical effect.

The application of these geometric structures, seen literally, or abstractly rigidly in relation to our notion of dimensions can be modified by a deeper grounding than even of the string, or point or iota idea... for that matter any abstract motion or intelligible mapping of the cosmos, or assumption of something like inertia and flows. Thus, we can image the cosmos as a single multi-brane in a quasic array where each of its units or cells for abstract relative motion between them are also some sort of branes or multi-branes (Qs-branes).

We note that in this sense the holographic principle may not hold between structures or dimensions so certainly we cannot say that some property exists in the volume and not the surface or diagonal of some descriptive matrix that such notions are illusions, time, etc that violate the application of the underlying default information in an intelligible cosmos. There does not have to be a necessary connection in specific cases. But the idea of orthogons or anorthogons or even simplexes is algebraically obscure as to the count and reading of how they apply to structures. These paradoxes of infinite extent and ideal points at infinity can give some credence to common sense notions taken from the familiar world such as asking if there is a wall to the universe- or say a spin or direction, or an axis, or a center and so on as part of the structure which we imagine can only be outside of space and time.

So on the fundamental level the walls of the Qs-brane have less abstract motion possibilities than the cells in the center (as if such boundaries were only quasi-torus in form if at all. In any case the properties between these boundaries of no certain distance, such as the information of color, do not necessarily vanish as in the usual way to integrate regions and vectors and entropy etc... But on what does some item react to or push against or spin as some invariant velocity presumably if it does not so relate absolutely and rigidly to inertia as a principle? I can be thought of as the abstract motion pushing against these non-necessarily torus quasic cell walls and the resistance and history of their substructures and other abstract ideas of what a structured singularity and vacuum may be. Or we can again ask what is the source of light problem or any source and sink.

In some ways many of our cherished notions- such as what energy ultimately means that we can define it - or perhaps a new notion and terms should be understood of it.
An entity does not know as a singularity complex what dimension it is in but an interpretation of structure (even as abstract theory) will intelligibly indicate the possibilities. The duplication of a ground is not necessarily a perfect mirror or copy of some sub ground, nor the covering of symptoms necessarily the cure for some problem in the sub-surfaces or depth of a design structure system. Dimensionless constants can cut thru the hierarchical scales via discrete analogs based on the holographic- fractal principles.

Just as we can imagine a charge difference over say the ground and atmosphere of the earth, so too this difference universally can persist as if a change of some invariant value (perhaps c?) otherwise how would a concept of minimum distance or duration if scaled at no differences in Planck values be intelligible as a fact in the overall cosmos- for such action differences would be meaningless as strings only if the are not tachyonic (in my sense of the application of the idea as teleoms or teleoscoping informational iota point string entities in the deep gauge field context).

If we can have an axis to the universe and it said things spin around it- have some not shown that from this view dark matter ideas may be eliminated- and yet from the Casimir like considerations on the micro level can these forces not have several descriptions that do not seem to be the same one that apply to what is obviously a shared reality of all the information observable in such a philosophic encoding? Are some of us so narrow we but fight for our styles here? Or perhaps too wide in view that all things necessarily connected to all things in effect connect to and explain nothing deeply at all?

* * *

No comments:

Post a Comment