GENERAL STEREONOMETRY

GENERAL STEREONOMETRY

L. Edgar Otto 02-10-12

Considering the universe as quasi-finite, when we look at the general sky for patterns we could consider evidence for finite polytopal models that are geometrically still in the running for the idea of the finitude of a model of the universe.

This will seem trivial as a way to view things or too synthetic for it not to be mere properties of mathematics or physics principles. Such structures and relations are ways we orient ourselves in the world and Penrose suggests that twistor theory orientation is the general mechanism of gravity. Ideal objects as material objects aleign to this concept of directionality. Gravity as such reacts to the mass positionally in what seems the usual case in a general space to which we may add or modify principles toward some imagined universal center.

This center can be in time also, and there may be a center or some levels that so contain such a center. From one respect each of us has a center, as from the view of each galaxy assuming a proper time as if the absolute aether after all (Einstein we could use the old term within newer theories of spacetime and matter). Does this correspond to some higher actual center, the earth is said to be as we reason out or think we see things like an axis of the universe- or I have heard some theoreticians speculate such a center exists 65 or so million years away.

Perhaps it is not so much a mystical theory along the lines of Kepler's centering of the shells of polyhedra, but with at least 4-space considerations to get the idea this said in evolving historical terms that at the still mysterious extinctions that long ago may be connected as if major states of the universe within geological time have shifted almost abruptly including evolving atoms. I would relate this to Saturn's rings but that is falsified in that such rings lately are thought to remain stable from some origin that is not clear as to when.

Of course many interesting views of this cosmic background have been presented, some not as deep a theory in the details as say the measure of anisotropy of light or for that matter on the subatomic scale evidence in the wobble of muons for parallel universes just as some think they see rings, which of course would be evidence also including the influences from previous states that still connect to this one.

Some of these philosophic ideas and vague but useful general principles become a little clearer when we take the quasic view as principles of a third and new physics. The mystery becomes a sensing of what seems trivial (after all it is rare we are aware of the invisible air we breathe). Our thinking itself evolves to understand such changes of states to which a rigid game to its programming has yet to ultimate beat our brain and mind design finite or progressively quasi-finite.

In such a case some principles that have a certain reality and utility for explanations cannot merely be a matter of mechanism as rigid logic, nor can chaos or randomness be the accessible god behind the machines. There is more to the universe than mathematical and physical descriptions as the certainty of some characterized ground where the quasi-finite is ambiguous where such general species of reason and laws are applied to a non-necessary but paradoxical universe.

Hence we have the concept and problems with say monopoles. But what is such a pole but some intersection of greater spaces where somewhere in that space we are the center where all directions meet as if we contain such a real or virtual singularity. The ideal point at infinity in perspective needs not be the only one in a composite drawing.

So, we simply suggest that the actual universal background taken as at least spherical harmonics can be in its components of whatever nature or origin- even that of dark matter of which we say we can model from the densities of the cosmic background, or the ratio of H and He so as to determine the universe's age, say from the "Big Bang"- that we apply the simple and abstractly independent idea of group theory. That is on all the multiverse of perspectives and planes and dimensions shadowed down as what we see on the surface or on multiple three space shells of surfaces as a "general stereonometry"- we rotate it for example as the dihedral group. If we do this we may see the concept of orthogons as embedded in a quasi-finite hierarchy with the usual number of shadows in shadow dimensions for the various inter-dimensional motions, rests, and abstract centering by which it is not clear we have not imposed the pattern of geometry imagined on the universe, not the algebra of it all upon the working, not foundational laws. It is of interest, even when evaluating statistical data that we take the general quadrapole structures in account.

In three space, moreover, groups around the sphere as the usual representation when infinite as in Noether's sense of action and so on, or for the idea of holograms of infinite poles, we can in a tangible universe see or impose on such centers, and spherically so for we are outside the background as if we can assume a nucleus is in fact spherical, that what is trivial and ambiguous can ground the physical fact of structure, or for that matter the action of the vacuum and its relatively proper space structures. In this sense we do not rest on the idea that any sort of nilpotence or conservation laws need be anything but a little less rigid as quasi-symmetry and of course as all is abstract but in a sense over time becomes concrete as structure, the quasi-super symmetric. Thus that world as a tension or coincidence of things invisible as also quasi-asymmetric.

* * * * *