Saturday, May 19, 2012
Shadow Quasic Branes
L. Edgar Otto 19 May, 2012
The idea of actual separations of the unit cells (pixel regions) of the quasic plane is a distinction that is not needed upon further generalization as far as real or illusion counting goes. It can be replaced by the actual and shadow products in a four way sense of multiplication. (my epsilon-delta idea)
In this sense the Otto-Conway matrix is a mathematical phenomenon not depended only on centering of cells that are in shells that relate to a difference in adjacent natural dimensions (Riemann's Insight) but us ubiquous over general space. These brane like properties should be considered when we use them for cosmological modeling for in a sense they transcend our current concepts of scale distinction and opaque or dark matter as a rigid principle of some boundary.
By these products of the peripheral dimension (or those in some form of it contained in the area dimension being more of an indefinite region (as in expansion or contraction or the containment of such structures by other structures with similar dynamics) I mean the binary patterns of zero and unity. Integers as a division of the peripheral boundary do not distinguish such divisions where they add up in the shadow space for the unit count as transcendental kaleidoscopes or the imagined cardinal points of a complex plane. But these abstract dynamics may combine interger or some abstract prime values, but not necessarily, as say the relative idea of products of such information stereonometry.
A structured object can move through something we imagine as if a wormhole or wave guide, being these obey the laws of this general shadow quasic space. The distinguishing of illusion or non illusion is not strict as to what we discern or not as physicality for a persistence picture cannot soundly be chosen as a statement in perception as to it being science- in that sense physical laws should obey the views of logic that at least heeds the excluded middle on some flat grounding.
Mathematically, some of the required proofs are difficult or elusive because the aspects involved of the deeper grounding and generalizations do not consider the proper relations possible between the algebra and geometry of dimensions or of what scope or level of physics the laws can persist dynamically as real or illusions of mirrors and shadows. Science as probability really does not solve these foundational issues other than encompassing that to which it is probable to conclude from observation. In organic experiments we need a mass of people, with the idea that the greater numbers benefit from the risk, objectively, such that we may conclude in the animal test subjects a measure of the likelihood some treatment is most likely a cure in any one specific case. We are also blind in our use of theory. We have no guarantees or insurance or need for it other than it sustains our world view where we hedge the gamble and chances.
* * * * *