Cosingularities (Quasic Wormholes)

 

Cosingularities  (Quasic Wormholes)

L. Edgar Otto     20 September, 2012

Again I present to you a picture, ultimately simple, of complicated abstract generalized space.  This is a ground behind many of our perceptions to which we gaze and ponder the structure of the universe and imagine that part of what we see as a totality or things contained in what seems a closed or dynamic system of totalities.

In the fixing of these images to which we erect theories on what we keep at a metaphysical distance to some level of focus or being, then to confuse this level of grounding with the totality the insight appeals to a reduced grounding as if to start with only the surface of physical phenomena from there to erect dynamics of interactions within the system or between systems of these generalized interacting dimensions. 

Clearly, the stance of this as a discipline we call physics where nature is our understanding can appeal to the idea of particle and field as to what is a fixed or moveable frame of reference and more importantly a quasic connecting of these ideas of depths and spans of space as a unification f these ideas, the intelligible but irrational mathematical space of singularities where absolute or indeterminate that can work together somewhere between freedom and determinism of the potential differences that as foundational can be said to guide or contain atomic or this multiplicity varied again to make an entity as if a distinguished physical object in such a quasic nonnecessary grounded multibrane and string dynamics.

In the illustration I represent a torus form of 64 squares with the nodes as if a chessboard to which we presume the game is played on a surface as if that of a wormhole with many layers.  Of course this idea itself can be expanded to the many natural n-dimensions and those who try to make a higher reach of such a totality system are at least intellectually aware of the frontiers of such leaps in our understanding of space and time and material structure who work on the level of the known before blindly following deeper levels of theory into vague further generalizations.  But what is the point of asserting there is something not known by anomalies presented to us when there is no contribution of what grounds these anomalies or if we assert that such systems suggest there is no grounding?

Having filled the possibilities of drawing, of the condensing or physical construction of things as conforms to how nature sees higher dimensions, we can resort to an animation or series of pictures in the philosophic sense, in the idea of a production line sense of time played in a higher space as if a series of the lesser dimensional board. So here the cliche "time is the fourth dimension" is really part of a scientific as well as it a philosophical observation or assertion- it is where for now the concepts creatively meet.  We can have such co-singularity grounded spaces so extended in a nonnecessarily directed linear order as the same picture but one that amounts to quasic wormholes inside of wormholes. 

In a deeper sense our grounding of vision and the experience of being in the world is our relation to one such brane or quasic plane of the here and now even if it may extend into microtones without end or limit reached or upward to the macrotones in the same manner and that at the heart of any quasic area center such a singularity complex globally only the center implied where at the node the situation is absolute although this too as a nothingness can be imagined to extend beyond our present and personal centered brane in our being.

As this can make a chess game that is a little more playable than some of the more abstract higher dimensional models and it contain all possibilities of abstract quasic motion functions unto two space or three space with a series of such boards to find all the nodes and cells, here 5 cubed nodes and 4 cubed cells drawn in the depth of the golden proportion for each slice in the philosophic time direction to explore cubed space of equally found abstract and complete possible functions, these reduced systems in systems open up whole realms of what we mean by individuals and similarities in general quasic space.

In a sense then the deeper definition of what is a field such as gravity or what is mass in a more general way than relating such concepts imagined as opened or closed strings or not (can a string not loop or be fixed on some node of a wormhole?) that it is obvious we need a higher generalization of the wider new maths and physics as the old idea of the various backgrounds of how matter and gravity relate (that of Leibinz, Mach, Newton, and Einstein) cannot be as simple as we have developed in theory and now more as a fact than a feeling suspect is the case?

While the algebra can be varied to describe the same sort of physical theories the better description of phenomena does not  depend on the similarity or differences of such a power of an algebra for in that systems vary it is also true that from some perspective all such geometries and algebras are intelligibly the same.  Such is the centering of our personal perceptions and the grounding or background of our experience of sentience, for thought is at least on this level we describe close to the model of the mind as that riding yet grounding on the mathematics of our human awakening to what is now realized as higher levels of a genome.

* * * * *

* * * * * * * *

note to Pitkanen Sept.20,2 2012 : from his post on Planck Hierarchy.

Matti,

I have looked lately at a few of the bloggers I follow whom seem to have ideas that on the face of it appears as a theory of everything if we dare view such claims from some view of deeper foundations- well, we all seem to come closer and how we react to science news to incorporate some discovery after the fact shows a lot toward how sound our theories are.

This is quite a golden age for cosmic speculations.  I try to understand more these systems in their alien languages or algebras.  So my post today is a little more down to earth in the space structures- and closer I think to understanding your particular views on say the idea of wormholes. 

I think it addresses the issue you raise here today rather well on this hierarchy of things like the Planck constant etc... Of course it is a convention for to answer fractality's statement we could stick to non quantum views just as well to derive things like the orbits of electrons- it seems to have wiggle room as a matter of taste or perception... and yes you are among us seeking unification which as statistics can be viewed as some sort of averaging to achieve- but let us not get too rigid.

So do we understand the concepts or have to adjust to our quite isolated and separated but similar perspectives if indeed we can show if some view such as a unified physics is possible- or dare to think so really.

All the talk about Nobel Prizes when there is a forest of them, I mean I would be hard pressed to award it in the usual way and to whom- we just have gone to a new phase of understanding.

Also, Ulla has a most interest link on double lines of magnetic forces on her facebook page- another area recently published that if I can better understand it seems to talk about things you and I and others saw long ago.

Keep the faith while we still live and survive at least, your light like some sentient being to see a single photon assures some star from billions of years ago now exists... the world and I have noted your contribution.

L. Edgar Otto  The PeSla