Where Social Gravity Meets God for Sure Gravity

Where Social Gravity Meets God for Sure Gravity

L. Edgar Otto    June 25, 2013


Leibniz and Mach, Newton and Einstein core backgrounds or what Martin Gardner called "phanerons" for physics... I read comments and debates between the string and loop theorists who seem confused in what is written or how it is expressed in the models themselves. Now I too have made such comments but how does anyone determine what in the debates are works of fact or fiction? It may help that to really understand my view that what I have written is not connected to any source other than myself in the development independently. Yet only I would know this- unless perhaps I foresee the future or the data leaks from other minds or somewhere. In the virtual world as with earlier forms of marketing or propaganda the bigger the lie the more it is believed or the more it is shouted to us with loud speakers little lies are believed- but what are Lies?
Social Gravity is much harder than physics, if God-like then physics is dead and the physicists have killed it all claiming the other in the open mad men.


* * *

to carlmott5520 and others on the viXra comment thread  Why I Like String Theory

when we convert a structural space  (stereonometry in my terms) into a structural time and do not separate the operations at a singularity into the real and imaginary parts to render the mathematics an algebra of addition logic closure rather than of the multiplicative variety including exponentiation, we tend to see the abstract structure embodied in the patterns of arithmetic and its corresponding geometries.  

Statistical methods will tend to correspond especially when chance or necessity in details over a system may be interchanged partially where we discern choices of sets as if non-linear thus a fuzzy hidden physicality.

In the charts on the links thru Steven we see a trial of 1190... does anything exist beyond the group count of 1152 and beyond some boundary as integers must it diverge in such lattices of 24 self dual objects?  Is the zero here not a little distant from a grounding zero as in the complex plane... in this sense in the inverse one half of the real value is complete for a universe but suggests there is more at singularity for a multi Riemann set of things that maps as a multiverse.

In the totality hinted at in this view, before big bangs  or scales or symmetrical balance beginning at binary  T or time shows up as the skewing of the bell curves, a higher expression of what we think of as time and on the balance favor toward the positive direction as matter...yet we might also say such a universe may be cyclic as existing successively or randomly in span of totalities.


Meanwhile, the string idea and its landscape can have a vast range of representations and ways to develop lesser dimensional theories for them almost as daunting to enumerate or we may assume intuitively these are parts of one view with hierarchies of such philosophic paradoxes.  Such replete wisdom in a sense, such as compactification ideas or what is possible in four space Riemann manifolds despite this complexity does not escape the range of such mathematics although I understand that multiply reentry of structures suggests to some in the depths and span of such spaces an outside influence as if to explain certain things as if from an outside universe in time in succession or from the higher general time as absolute aether.

* * * *