Thursday, December 13, 2012
The Everlasting Quasifinite Universe
The Everlasting Quasifinite Universe
L. Edgar Otto 12 December, 2012
“We are our own shadows. Do not be enamored of the shadow that you cast.”
“If fire from the sky is magical, so much more so is the fire from within the earth, the science fair, and god in the volcano.”
“Love, like vectors, between or one way to our mirrored lovers as the same description, is not necessarily the case. For how we react to our mirrors may or may not keep our loops and bonding where in the universe we find the Absolute foundations.”
The Pe Sla (From the a forthcoming topic considered for a theme for posting.) 12-13-12
After these long evolving concepts and posting on Google's blogspot-
I welcome the idea of circles of interests in the communities as a new feature of Google +, and I think that is the best of projects and people in these designs and innovations - so I welcome the interest from the community of philosophy here which is always hopeful when such communities are established at the creation, on the ground floor.
- I feel somewhat humbled tonight, having watched Nova on the development of the telescope. It was a convincing presentation which raises deep questions as to the future of science and its alternative views. I simply do not buy the concepts of the big bang and have not since its discovery at a time when I said as much to Hoyle, the steady statesman.
So, I am out of ideas again, or I have to make clearer the model of the totality, the Omnium, in a more general way in that it seems to influence what is concrete within it. I am not sure that even these out of the mainstream stances toward mathematics at the foundation is up to the task any time soon. Or that is all there is. I notice on the science magazines yesterday some cleaver theoreticians decided to imagine planes or black branes as that which can structure space- this of course a sort of many sheeted theory like Pitkanen's or my quasic branes (with a little more mathematical structure than these new theoreticians) as we have stated as the obvious all along.
The issue of dark energy and matter came up. These are very inadequate terms and ambiguous for it is a substance not to be analyzed in the usual way we do relating energy and matter- or as the Nova show carefully pointed out we do not know what it is, nor what gravity is that it may be a radically different view of the laws of physics a hundred years from now. Does a theory so convincing and well presented as all texts (of which we can really put anything into one) always reach the frontier where the implications are unclear and we leave the book with speculation?
I would make a dark substance device but it seems, assuming there is no mystical relation where such things are sometimes claimed to be done in the magic of our consciousness, the circuits and parts, the detectors and so on would have to be made out of that substance itself. How we all still cling to the solid ground as we gaze into the beyond, touch the bottom before we learn to swim, and not knowing how to fall victim to the change undertow of rip tides.
I do not know what this new unclear vision will develop toward. I know it is a lot like my fantasy of Olney in his travels but such descriptions as of Far Rock-a-bye the great city did not have cosmic relevance as a model at the time. I fact it is as if for the universe we need some classical radius as we do to describe some formulas for an electron. Yet is this not just the usual model of the Platonic sphere of Parmenides, only on a higher generalization? Can we describe even in thought alone such new geometries as hidden it seems from our experiment and experience as we seem convinced now the standard model tells us about super symmetry?
What are the colliders but telescopes, time machines, and microscopes, in a sense, as well the telescopes looking outward themselves? We may just have to face the paradoxes after all of origins or no origins of what is before or after them, and some deeper sense of time in a science of serious tachyons- but that world is most inadequate and not made of the required substance even of thought of all the new theories of everything on which to stand and build. I mean what we see of the much vaster world in the past close to the big bang beginning may not exist now as something to measure for it crosses certain states of new horizons into greater complexity. But already some have said that this illusion of an accelerating expansion of the universe as in our time may show things actually are reversed or even that the universe is not expanding after all.
* * * * *
Somewhere in the night my graphics returned again to my core of mathematical recreations... to consider new thoughts where they begin, with my contemplation of higher dimensional chess boards. It awaked me again from my cabin fever of the first big but recurring winter and I found I had put down new ideas after all...
* * * * *