Thursday, December 13, 2012

Shadow Stereonometry (Hidden Intelligible Spacetime Structures)

Shadow Stereonometry
(Hidden Intelligible Spacetime Structures)

L. Edgar Otto    12 December, 2012

"A theory when we promote a hidden system view, science awards to bolster the prestige dogmas of interpretation, shadows and social engineering, the seller of such ideas goes beyond the advertizing that holds the buyer to be beware.  The value of theory can seem or be too true to be a good thing."

The Pe Sla

* * * * *

In orthogons, for example cubes, these can be imagined as broken down into two faces with the rest of the subcell structure between them.  Alternatively, a square face may be imagined extended in the natural dimension to another square face to generate the intelligible count of the subcells (the points, edges, faces, volumes and so on...) of the structure of the next highest dimension.

Because these are orthogons the total count of the next dimension is (2+1)^d+1 .  It turns out that what remains in the next dimension not considered as real (the absolute values here considered as the negations and compliments are concrete as if material and the higher dimension as if a field (the simple analogy of the chess board to which the pieces are the particles), that these shadow subcell structures constitute a third of the real value of the higher dimensional subshell structure.

This I will call The Orthogonal Principle.  Just as we define such orthogonality as linear directions and operations in complex space, the principle applies to hidden field structures in a more general but linear way.

The Simplex Principle (triangular structures and analogs) in the count of objects for a totality of a power (1+1)^d , exceeds the number of subcells as if one may be considered at either end of the symmetric count as a shadow or null object.  What the orthogonal principle does is shift such structures as if in the shift between dimensions the 3^n case also gives null shadow objects in relation to the intelligible power but linear field count of orthogons (and the symmetric idea of balanced projections of the anti-orthogons.

We imagine three objects, two of the lower dimension and one a shadow between them.  This shadow is like a fluid in concept that enables the unfolding of higher structures... or the shadow can be a concrete particle and the rest of the three the boundaries that enable the objects to condense or merge.  This aspect of fluid structure also enables the intelligible enumeration of the apparently nonlinear possibilities of orthogon unfolding into lower dimensions. As a general view we explain the problem of our choice of view of what is a triple of charges or fractional charges a the foundation on that level of physical description, as in quarks.

In terms of quasic planes or other such vaguely dimensioned structures with preserved properties as topology such as the black brane hypothesis akin to black holes, such a physics cannot be said or proven to exceed the rather classical and  Euclidean foundation as a complete totality in description of the universe, as well the non-Euclidean dynamics be shown to clearly contain at least mathematically the depth and span of everything.  In any case it is known by deeper philosophers that Zeno's argument on the arrow in flight as solved by the calculus is still more an assertion than the solution to that riddle.

Is it not remarkable some simple numbers that appear in Pascal's triangles seem to be the integer and finite numbers that are said a mystery at bottom yet come up in many places at then end of vast computations in physics formulas.  This is of course algebraic and geometrical in representations.  As a general rule what seems a sense of symmetry to which our intelligence and imagination addresses is also the formulas of intrinsic asymmetry even within an intelligible counting.  It is not necessarily the case that these ghost particles, even tacyon-like, as shadows will behave intelligibly with or independent of our model of the counting and labeling of objects.

Early at the foundations we observe the logical extension of a two player game, and of course the extension into binary powers.  Parity is a great example of what we are not clear of as expressed in higher dimensions or in what sense these information of abstract motion is gained or lost if free to do so in different representations.  (This I will explore more and address in the Odo256D3 and Odo256D2 forms of the chess games, of which as well of successive number of moves of a given piece, I used as an antidote to the convincing NOVA program on the Big Bang and history of the telescope with the antidote of the Nova Program on Stonehenge as research on ancient engineering archeology.  While some presentation may be convincing in areas we do not know where we do we can treat as a given the soundness if we are in the know from the same or similar views already.

But what is really striking about that program is the imagined model of why Stonehenge was build, what the stone age mind could be thinking as well as the how of moving things. It ends with the old system of the core shift of fixed dead things, the ancestry and origins fixed in stone with the slow but sure change from stone to metal (and individual wealth and burial outside the massive solstice times of ritual collective monuments- how odd to me such effort by such a people, farmers from the east.  Other migrating tribes such as the Ojibwa here in Wisconsin have recalled such (ice age presumably) migrations in their great shell symbol that speaks of their ocean front foundations.  Man as a fluid concept as his technology evolves eventually spawns new generations independent from the homeland to make new lands of their own. 

We migrate as much a build.  But how much within us for whatever reason persists before history or as a cosmic given which when simplified shows our great but possibly to become an ancient civilization that far from stone age thinking?

Can we escape the totality so to explain it within or outside itself our ancient concepts of the Platonic Sphere in the process of geometrical dynamics with (presumably) Heraclitus cones or light cones?  Must our earth remain on the whole flat, at least at the foundations of the space and time we stand upon?  Is it possible, as a speculative idea that at times was in the back of my sense of a place or a material object that in fact these material things, stones, did speak as nature to early humans as if their technology had to make stone things to access the immaterial regions that only could be instruments of stone things while in the shadows was a new awakening of the science and technology with a wider age of wisdom as higher mysteries then to be solved?

* * * * * * *

No comments:

Post a Comment