Flangelic Foci (N-Flocus Arqs Physics)

Flangelic Foci (N-Flocus Arqs Physics)
L. Edgar Otto July 2, 2011

This post is in the area of General Stereonometry of Quasic (especially Arquasic) and Omnium Physics as view very simply as space continua.

One consequence of this view is that concern in the back of my mind on what it means (facing the blank page or evidence of creation and what we are in the universe with purpose or not, and what we can and will become) is the idea or sociological notion based on quasi-discrete geometry and principles of a better understanding of our existing and mechanism and communication with others:

*Pseudo-intelligible systems in structured creative vacuum memory reflects the intelligible universe at core. beliefs aid our inter quasonic communication with others, including that which may be false or revised beliefs and memories as if the need born of evolved survival- for a cloud or fog of lies.

For the physical part of this post consider the photos of my friend but imagine it in three space (before some of you complain at the abstraction of higher dimensions as this seems a case of simple drawing of at least perspective geometry) we see moreover the rich structure of the field or gauge to which this idea of foci seems to be the idea of quarks for example, dimensionally differentiated or distinct at the 2 to 1 of three ratio- moreover some acknowledge the mass of the quason system or say of a proton as the motion of quarks in it- those who see the mass as such a motion imagine the field or gauge as only accessible by more abstract treatment of say matrices- and some imagine the field itself as the physicality and that which it contains, such as by string theory, a more abstract treatment. Interestingly I can see how some of our theoreticians agree in principle in some views while in general their disagreements are on a much lower level.

Yet I thought today, a related news item would be our shared synchronous topic- yet all eyes were on the string conference. But this is the general idea is it not, to what extent may we consider the proper scale of say Planck's constant, that is like the stars in deep point focus in my friends photo (even if in some cases this may be just an experimental effect of defective lens or myths of view) are their levels of this nil dimensional object (relatively so). Or are their sheets and layers, branes of a sort connected or disembodied within a quason or another symmetry system? In any case the underlying but simple metaphysical view should be sorted out.

*1 Does a singularity or singularity complex, ng v ngx, "know" if it is in a general quasic (or arquasic and combinations if any) space?

*2 Can this be approximated by various forms of coordinate?

*3 If from some view the general space is a sort of continuum then are there predicable and measurable "Omnic differences (such as the notion of centering, density including of heat and radiation pressure, focus, or potential mass in motion?

*4 A flocus (flanglelated focus) may be generally equivalent to an "iota particle, uranoid or uroid in between or the singularity ng or singularity ngx complexes idea.

*5 A flocus in general is a point a dimension higher to the quason dimension ground, the observed parton or particle or Pitkanen type structure for such a particle.

*6 There exists in a creative object (such as one might find in a BH, black hole) a general point, a neutrally flangulated focus (from foci where on one dimensional level down from the flocus we have these as pairs in elliptical systems and projective ones- in fact, the sheet invariance of TGD focus the n body problem as a general stereonometry of brane and the like topologies) where one such point orients and distinguishes the continuous whole between n such objects.

*7 The higher dimensional (or internal more complex dimensions) yet nil point level of intelligibility of "warped or not views of structures" is thus a way to orient two objects that appear indistinguishable if there contiguous touching so as to prove that they must have more than as solid or continuous structure or they could not orient (as one person to an other) the direction of such interactions. The higher deeper floci determine the effects of the field, not that simply on its grounded or condensed level- it also makes the symmetry breaking, not the idea of such M? fields itself as a principle that makes string like theory complete.

*8 A Flocus may extend outside the object in some spherical cases and if the dark object has an "atmosphere" the diffuse flocus field of light may pass around it to become visible- much like in some of Wrights solution to light in buildings.

*9 The Flocus where it is intelligibly part of the structure of the whole (quason) may carry momenta and momenta complexes whose fractal FX subspace are at least the creative same dimension, unified and measurable) in the subspace-subset structure. There in effect nil and infinite degrees "omnically" of "actions at a distance" but the observation can be diffuse as if a cloud, quantumly.

*10 The concept of oscillation or vibration, especially of space, of such floci is a secondary phenomena or is equivalent to an absolute or positive vacuum as filled or as a field... "the no fairy field" idea, and beautifully related ideas like the physicality of zigs and zags in the depths of Penrose's physics, is the primitive part of reality that simply says there is a deeper level than wave like oscillation.

*11 By trivial or default dimensionality a flocus "knows" what quasic, arquasic, or omnic background of space it is in and functions with.

* * *

*12 These FX like ideas (and Matti the general idea of extending these complex fractals to many dimensions is useful as a stepping stone to higher TGD, quasic, and Brane theory relations) also explain the origin of the idea of mixing values and generations of particles on some level of mathematical methods to physics for of say three bodies they are automatically beyond the 0th thermodynamic law in the sense that the encountered or evolving paths in a sense loop (would this contribute to the general idea of something inertial like mass or gravity in such math models?)

*13 But because of the idea of representational inversion in the quasi-discrete or even just the discrete world we can imagine the invariants of a hyperbolic model of some fields as such inversions or even projective oscillations between what we might decide is within or what is without a quason creative object where it interacts with possible paths passing thru it.

*14 In particular we observe from the start the alpha, beta and gamma in the products of radiation. In a remote analogy here we can imagine strong, electroweak and gravitational influences (of which the h bar and h does indeed affect the gramma particles which exist actually at the subatomic level) thus gamma bursts and the point like stars not resolved but to deeper and perhaps echoing focus unlike we expect of the classical diameter range of planets.

*15 In the hyperbolic invariant model moreover we can convert coherent rays into an exact focus model of things passing thru the bundle, but the spherical case in a little blurred and out of focus.

*16 In a sense there is an ordinal or natural code reading of these variable fields and focus of the QM and GR worlds together which acts like lenses, including hidden or higher dimensional ones. But the TGD and quasic generalization can determine the uniqueness and asymmetry of the code and the structure (bilateral for qs) that results for the observed familiar physicality case.

*17 We should note that when such objects touch with foci, these being quasi-independent in the multivese-manyworlds and parallel universes, these can form shells of floci or exchange them as a form a bonding, that is also the zeroth observation above, a sociology- which sometimes as in chips teaching the content of chips in a computer must negate in a mirror an image or theory such that they can become in sync again. (still, it is better to examine and question the theory than the character of our theoreticians!)

*18 I would be remiss if I did not point out on all levels the relation of all this to the idea of the Casimir forces as rays and floci and so on as we decide what sort of energy might come from gravity to matter or say from dark matter concepts themselves in the overall balance and integrations unity of this what seems an improbable miracle of a universe.

* * *

Perhaps as a metaphor I suggest this picture- probably coming from all the playing with and solving and designing cube puzzles and finding some insights for such positive spaces along the way/ Consider the Soma cube- which has 6 pieces of four cubes for 24 all total- and a seventh piece of three cubes. This makes 27 in a rather rigid accounting. But sometimes I felt the three could be in a sense doubled, certainly the three could have a lineal form as part of the 27. This is simple stereonometry and perhaps not the quantum stuff in the lecture of the puzzle's inventor (and the solution number is quite interesting also).

Now, if we imagine these three as the center of things and the rest as if a field- then the triality of it all suggests, crudely, a proton which has three quarks in its center. So, the important thing here is that these three when mapped as an Aquasic plane flanged structure are not the same dimensionally. Two are in space and one a higher space (but such relations between dimensions as far as abstract motions and phases etc can be rather fluid). In the mythology of my Olney series of poems the set of cards including the major arcana involve two jokers and the grand joker for the subcells of the 4D cube.

In my note today posted on Pitkanen's blog- I addressing a commenter rather than the post itself- I certainly agreeing in general on the bottleneck of the idea of compactification theory and so on as I have posted before and this week- or for that matter the insistence by the commenter on the three-ness of space as the central dimension (not to take up the idea at this conference where there is disappointing evidence for SUSY and the LHC mentioned but still there with hope for- and of course we have these things all along only our wider symmetry generalization seems to actually have several theoretical systems of underpinning including mathematics which apparently the M theory and other string like ones are not (some point out) a theory itself, Matti, you mention that great sentimental Russian author and it was in one of his novels I first encountered the idea that we think in the West of a Trinity of religion because it reflects the idea of the three dimensionality of our familiar space. We further imagine quaternity of the whole, one of many as in Jung, and in my mythological poems it went to the fifth of the Godhead, SphereDream and eventually although such poems did not survive in my storage and the fraud of the owner of the place- it went to the mirrors of things, and the 8 of things in the Godhead... all metaphors that eventually did focus again on the math of it all.

* * *