Amplification and Acceleration

Amplification and Acceleration

A second night of a dream after a long spell of normal dreaming- related perhaps to the weather as an April snow is expected tomorrow so the dream recurs attracting my attention. For awhile the cells and grid of the quasic concept appeared to me much like an integrated circuit of sorts or a radio. But some of the components in it were not simply of one function but like a sunflower a combination or spiral yet not just the result of accidental proximity and pressures of the seeds, these could have different directions at a point and the depth and span in expanding and contractions could have a Fibonacci ratio, at least in finite space.

The result of this, and how we exclude or add some points in a matrix, like when we declare for technical reasons concerning things to exclude in combination like 8 and not 9 gluons where colors are in some combination. That such a point is the issue between the grounding singularity or complex of a quasic cell to some grid measure and interpretation of dimensions and related diagonals to which the distinguishing of partial or global differentials relate to our approach- that as in advanced circuit design the idea of small changes leads to the circuits of amplification by the relevance of complex number space.

The singularity complex of the poster I cleared from spam, apparently not an individual but a group of people, most certainly then could not claim to have found the cosmic background acceleration two years before the observation. But this raises profound questions as to what our complex notation as either the useful log models and super or sub scripts or the simple addition to said imaginary numbers would indicate interpretations of such background acceleration from some view. Why when some geometry or singularities can be solved to zero do we just add on like Einstein did for the cosmic constant without the more general idea of how our notations may be chosen with an inherent bias toward pre-set results?

For can we say that from the depths that this applies more than say that for every finite group there is a corresponding infinite group it does so for clearly discrete geometrical structures. This is the confusion of what is the continuous and the finite grounding of things- for would such complex grounding arise in a discrete setting? I might conclude that the two algebra books telling me different things about if the 4th root of minus 16 is possible were both right- but from a continuous or discrete view depending on how we allow that included by + notation to the way we represent the algebra of complex numbers. It may just divide our notions and leave it there in a less general context.

A crystal radio works without amplification or loops and the power supply, or in general the hetero-dyne concept when resistance laws are those of coils and capacitors of induction. Even here we tend to design components primarily from an electrostatic or magnetic view- as so we design parts within a range of values knowing it is an approximate law for all practical purposes.

Again, this is very simple perhaps, like the simple numbers in the illustration (of which I am a little intrigued as to how Ramsey colorized his integers in a system if I ever encounter that data) Who knows, all of this on some advanced level beyond even the competent aspiration of engineers who can work without knowing the algebra or complex numbers is already concepts in the literature? But some is new to me and I bet I am seeing some differences that have relevance on the foundational level to which we would be advised in the new physics to see the old thru such lens again- and recent blog papers certainly seem to have parallel notions as foundational as my recreational math dreams. I imagine that what this alternative view amounts to is the fact that I did not listen when some said we can never picture any equation, back when the researches of even solid geometry were not taught as in days of old and before Coxeter and his boxes of mirrors.

Yet is it not clear to me how we might interpret energy from all this quasi-finite method. The weights in string theory were a problem, perhaps not even to be solved by probabilities. Kea today has an interesting post concerning the lengths of the braids and so on- But have we not found the proximity of musical tones in a quasic like space the measure and classification of music, a problem up there with the classification of knots? Such pure quasic distance does not have to be in moving or non- Euclidean spaces for its grounding and can seem a circuit of sorts, a viable and dynamic flatland that somehow evoke the directions of the source (of light) and the coherence of topological structures flattened or expanded in a more general concept of dimension that does not just depend on the more fixed concept of counting or declaring as vectors just what would be say some vertex and its number of spokes nor what may be less certain in the series and parallel of them as a whole.

But as far as simple integers 101 I did not get around to the analogs in higher spaces to which the general numbers might be there to visualize from number theory formulas. The theorist should have such reality checks but does not always need such a grounding where the notions of a theory exceed and trump engineering intelligibly.

Of course, even the quasic view seems embedded in a higher concept of an omnium background with all its paradoxes (yet the cosmos is still with those paradoxes of notions)- even while this seems to evoke what my readers have indulged me with for things of a more philosophic and metaphysical nature.

* * *