Physicality of Intrinsic Linearity in
L. Edgar Otto 10 October, 2013
In the maximal bonding of carbon, linearly, between atoms with 2+2 or 3+1 bonds, we should pose the question: In what respects can it relate to superconductivity?
This I imagine intimately relates to the issues of artificial magnetism induced in graphene that considers the Bose condensates by virtue of holes in broken congruence field overlapping flat orthogonal structures that depends on the local (quasic) proximity of isotopes in the Bell assumptions of non-locality, thus thermodynamic symmetries.
In the principles of symmetry breaking, or conservation in the widest field of identities at a given dimension, our models should be compared as to the grounding of matter with these more general principles of stereometry in mind.
In disconnects between with bridges between the generations and fundamental forces, we may have even higher exclusions such as magnetism where the combinations of generational hierarchies inter-relate across the given physical dimensions of standard forces. But in matters of gravity or monopoles as ultimate these higher force considerations my analogously be ultimate exclusions to which we cannot explain by magnetism the evaporation of black holes even if that the last mechanism left to model.
This so mirrored implies at an entity of singularity or a sea of singularities, that which is superdetermined so looped and measured intelligibly as part of the teleology, dark matter and energy ideas, if substance in theory as well as physicality, as an analogy of the Fermi and Bose distinction at a higher level, are reasonably explained.
If this is not close or the Omnium as a theory of everything in the spirit of partial models half seen or half-hearted in our quest... what more can it be?
* * * * *
art adapted from recent Hubble data on Pluto... note a small circle at the top of a larger circle is one of the symbols for this planetary object. Generational spinning taken literally with 8 logical possibilities.
* * *
New terminology to consider in the hierarchy of Philosophic Continua (Omnia):
Leo, am I wrong to reach so far into simplicity as well as a distant wider vision... it seems at the foundations we do dance between the simple geometry and the simple arithmetic of things. We share in your model that in between sate I call quasi-finite and you imagine the raspberry principles of unity and multiplicity of universe?