Three Poems of Physicality (Sidewinding Theories)

After my posting of yesterday I came across this article in New Scientist (which is a science magazine I respect and have followed since my stay in Cambridgeshire in 64.
It is titled Knowing the Mind of God. Synchronously the blog I follow, the reference frame has an opinion on this article titled Seven Theories of Everything

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/seven-theories-of-everything.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+(Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18612-knowing-the-mind-of-god-seven-theories-of-everything.html

From a point of unified physics I certainly do not find any of these approaches crackpot nor anti-science.

Let us think in terms of arithmetical logic- in the integer view 1 has no successor. Zero said to have nothing that precedes it for zero and negative numbers. All these fundamental theorems as of Calculus, and algebra, and arithmetic are not fundamental enough. We cannot just take the insight of derivative dimensions
and treat it as a linear thing only, say four space to three space to two space to bits of lines slicing up in a world where we question higher dimensions- for in those natural dimension we have the idea of prime things in such division.

169 - 121 = 48 and 169 - 137 = 32 Beyond the unity of Eddington's fundamental idea, "old add one" has something to say to us after all. We should also regard the idea of nine dimensions as if we but see three of them co-extensive at a time. Also the questions of what is entropy as a matter of statistics, and given a matrix which of say sixteen is active as a subcell or frame (0101) is also logical quasically.

We cannot therefore simply say for example that in the holographic principle that in four space the inverse cube law applies in our world of limited natural dimensional understanding as the only law. If we have in this universe the inverse square law and it is an expanding universe are things modified when the universe approaches a flatness- does that law diminish? The quasic view turns the idea of the inverse square on its head looking deep into the direction of the microcosm but in the end the generator of space, in chaotic quantum flux or not, is a pixel of unity conceptually.



Sidewinder Speculations on Existing Scenarios 03-04-10

* Fundamental strings are not necessarily trappeed in a (multi-)brane world- but the unity of the multi-braneworld (the unique reference frame centered or not statistically, after4 all endpoints of strings also are n-brane pixels) The brane itself is expanded, exists, and supported by its composition of strings -at least to the 137 square root derivative.

* The statistical theorem part above (also a proof we can represent the scene other than teleologically and mechanistically) should be applied universally, not just uniquely centered (for the result is a finite layered brane multiverse of a rather geocentricity analogous in conception that is a general part but not the complete picture including source arrow of time motion) It folloows that in matters of extra-dimensional scales the idea of compacted dimensions of absolute value synchronicity only, can be but a first approximation or is an idea totally flawed.

* The quasic binary inverse square directed geometry does not necessarily describe the relative dimensions of fields.




Taming the Creative (A Personal Note)

I offer the picture below as a bibliography of books reread (for the most part) of recent books influencing these later postings. Forgive it for the art's sake my dubious science minded readers that I add an I-ching casting of yesterday which more or less said what I have often felt- that such contemplation detracts from companionship. I added the cares consciousness chosen- the creative and the taming of the great and the taming of the small.

I have felt lately an urgency to write these ideas down. Feelings and thoughts I could let pass and the cosmology as something that has priority over my time and other interests, but something I also feel wasteful given the wisdom of our day. Yet it is reassuring to know just where, long ago, I made core assumptions and considered them and they are at least of the quality (perhaps clear simplicity) of work done by others. But is my personal path and awakening unique? That question has proven part of the enquiry and story.

I cannot say the original and developing reasons I was drawn to this path and work remain the same although the work survives in motion. Was it destiny? Social suggestion because of competitive needs of war and our state? The God or gods? All these reasons are in the cauldron. While I resent my shabby treatment for schooling as a veteran I understand our schools are in a great degree fiction, artificial expectations. While my presence on the internet was doing something to take no revenge on the idiots who destroyed my family and a great deal of my poetry and personal records - I did find a level beyond those poems at the last hour that in themselves are worth the saving and doing. Our state ignores me at last in its narcotic sleep.

I have nothing and nothing given when asked for to which I supposedly had rights which one does not have to be disabled to have as a service man (I am not disabled) I have no future and no help with say the business and so on from the veterans administrations- which is OK save my status as a veteran interfered with civilian projects. I am almost off the grid talking to empty space and I wonder without such obstacles and hardships and ongoing injury would the depth of my ideas been lesser.
* * *


[Next Day - I thought I would post more of the reference books from an earlier time while engaged with the philosophychatforum. But the list is not exhaustive, Penrose and Wilbur and Whitehead are not there in particular, nor books by Conway and about and by Coxeter]