Mem are the areas where we set experience too. The intellect(math) is the schematic of thought production. Emotions set conscious awareness into experience.

If we live in the area of our dreams(subconsious), impressions of waking experience, we are pawns of the emotive life. This cannot be changed.

Only in our everyday waking consiousness can we look at the emotive sates we have assigned experience and in that waking state formed ideals to combat previous emotives states assigned in experience. When awareness is moved into the emotive states(subsconcious)you can see what experience has formed and left in impression in your very own subconscious, and in that very state you can see what future events can be detrmined in outcome(probabilitic detrminations) if the consequnces of life are continued in the patterns you have formed and set in experience.

In the subconsious world, the move to the understanding of the intellect, the very lines we give experience, its schematic structures lie underneath the subconscious. Awareness must be involved in understanding that the intellect is part of the expression.

Now under the intellect is the source, and the superconsiousness. Energy is move through this point and expands outward through the intellect, through the subconcious, and into waking life How would you know what this is the trail?

Look inside the dream world for the messengers of the superconsciousness and these are the figures of highest spiritual sgnificance we give to beings, that such identities become the source of such information in those dream periods.

In order for me to understand this layering, I needed to understand the construction of the mandalas. In the subconsious I was given a experience, under this experience was the lines that described the medicine wheel, and in such coordination, the move towards the center and source was the electricity and the energy, that moves outward from that center.

The subconsious is the understanding of the magnetic field and retention of memory.

This is all I can do for now.

Sol

Posted by sol on July 18, 2003 at 18:28:09:

In Reply to: Re: The Strings Length(circle) posted by DickT on July 18, 2003 at 13:06:23:

Dickt,

Euclid's Element, Book 1 Postulate 1

From these to the fifth, are all inclusive and in the fifth, the higher dimensional perspective begins

What's in String's length? The cylinder is a string? The string a point. A point a circle?

R is a measure of the Circle. The energy winding of the string is the cylinder in expression. Every string a flat brane, the brane the world sheet. The string is energy in movement. The string moves, twists and turns depending on the number of wraps. Kaluza Klien Tower is specific here.

Make sense?:)Sorry for diversion, when we speak of the historical there are so many involved.

Sol
Posted by sol on July 09, 2003 at 23:05:54:

ISAACSON: The virtue of tolerance, which I think is the most important virtue we need in the 21st century. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration, he had a great line, "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable." And Franklin crossed out "sacred and undeniable" and put, "We hold these truths to be self evident." [Franklin] said we need to be a very tolerant nation in which our rights are based on reason, not based on religion, and I think in this century, we have to be tolerant of all religions and all tribes, and that was the thing that Benjamin Franklin taught us.

It is not to hard to figure out what I have been saying all along. Like U(1) the constitutional inception had to recognize some basic human rights[John Napier and the development of the algorithm], and I have applied this thinking as a value understood in U(1)

The systemic apporach here is inception of society orgaizational principle and from first principles and I have moved this consideration to the internet development.

This principle must precede Microsoft and Linux Os.

Sol
Posted by sol on July 19, 2003 at 10:41:28:

In Reply to: Self Evident Truths posted by sol on July 19, 2003 at 09:54:58:

Self Evident Truth

What is reason?

For Benjamin Franlkin, he substitued the words Jefferson wrote, and in place, religious of freedoms, he wrote self evident truths.

Now if no one understands what that means, the historical link has been supplied in previous post.

Now in looking at the link today, we had been given 5 postulates by Euclid which are very detrimental to what is understood today about the realism of consistancy in terms of science, that this "reason" is based on sound logic.

Now any certainty in regard to philospohical endeavors, and a general consensus by any group(countries in their constitutions), raises the issue of this logic from a process of unfoldment. In this case I spoke of Constutitonal reformation, as a beginning point of Euclid's postulates. First Principles.

In terms of Euclidean dimensions these are specific, length width and height, and the move to Einstein's theory of relativity, a spacetime understanding of time(gravity)Rienmann sphere leads to the understanding of the fifth postulate.

Here Giralomo Saccheri is instrumental in helping us to move to the Non Euclidean world of geometry and dimension.

Again what the hell does any of this have to do with Constitutions?

If we are to engage in the formation of any first principal, it follows logical consequences in society, and these are based on sound developing models of expression. The work must be, no matter if it is countries, or non profit groups, the constitution is the beginning frame work for further developement.

These principals govern the the local formation and membership of society.

I hope what I have posted here is some value.

Sol

Posted by sol on July 12, 2003 at 11:26:33:

In Reply to: Re: LOGIC 3: A New Equation posted by anadessma2001 on July 12, 2003 at 09:33:51:

Joe,

I believe Osher can only progress if he has a model in which to do this. I hope to expand on what he is saying(at least try anyway:)

It will be detailed in this response to John. I will point out, the beginning in his statement(A->B)[not as two separate points] and show the relevance of what B is, in light of A and that B cannot ever exist unless A exists firsts.

So what does that mean.

In order for the logic to be sound, it must always arrive back where it first started. Full Circle.

Now of course this logic I am spelling out can be challenged and worked at, but from my own perception this statement of Oshers needs to be understood from the point of view of John.

A set cannot even be entertained until the evolution of the logic is clear here and follows the understanding of rare event and what begins in a point, will have gone full circle. A point represents a string( a point->circle)boson

The calculation of energy before it loses it mass, is understood, and this information has direct correlation to the distance of what is undertsood of Inverse Square Length(what is the radius of that circle (R)has a direct correlation to its diameter(energy).

Now in order for A to proceed to B(the outer edge of the circle[sphere])the integration of spacetime must also be understood.

John talks about two points continually, and what I have been trying to make clear is this. Logically Osher has presented what I am extolling in the model of strings and their beginning, as a direct comprehensive model of the unfoldement of dimension.

In the Inverse Square Law the understanding of geometrical consideration has allowed us to take that statement of Osher and apply it to a working model.

Now not to take anything away from Osher, but this model is already in inception, and his clarification of the langage serves as a important realization. He extends this logic, even into fuzzy areas and in the Uncertainty principal, we have come to certain conclusions based on the idea of orbits and the energy configurations(?). Energy congregations. BEC and soliton wave considerations.

So we have a point then, and this is A, and to have ever moved on to sets, this must be understood. That B has a direct result of A, and that B can never exist without understading that the A=AB. It cannot, be it's inverse, because without A, B is not realized.

So the logic dictates that any beginning has to begin here in A

In the model of string it is undertsood that if logic is to go full circle, it has to have a basis from which to operate.

This principal sits in the basis of A, and represents energy. As a point source energy will have determined what b will be. Without A, no probabilstic determinations can ever be made without understanding that b will have direct results.( I seem to be repeating myself here), so in order to move out of the broken record, I now have to show that the string unfoldment follows sound geometrical expression, as well as follows the undertanding of gravitational wave production.

Ultimately Gravitational waves will be the measure of distance(10 to Fifteen billion years?). In the understanding of Inverse Square Law, on a cosmological scale, this is now understood, as well as on a quantum level.

So we have two measures here. Quantumly and cosmologically, and both have a value in the energy determinations that speak too, the radius of that circle.

Now in order for us to progress dimensionally, that circle now can become a cylinder, and this effect is immediate,and in this undertanding the probabilstic determination is very real, when it is understood that from A( U(1)) as a beginning leads into dimensional expression. That cylinder(A->B).

But to have understood this concept of energy even further, and how energy moves, we have to give a structure in which to follow, and the cylinder arises in how the windings(KKTower are specific) in how that cylinder will progress.

A single point, straight cyinder, flat brane, follows the understanding of GR having arrived at Spacetime Fabric, and moves our considerations to the dynamics of movement of that brane, string, point.

The third diemnsional here, is the movement of that string(function of the metric), and when we consider the topolgical value of energy, we must also understand that in order for it to go full circle, at 2d, it becomes clear that 3d now moves our thinking from 4d to 5d. This to me follows the Euclidean postulates, and no matter how odd, we might think about the ancientness of, today we talk quite liberally about the higher dimensions(in the fifth postulate). You cannot talk about dimension unless you understand the direct geometrical expression, and you cannot talk about B without ever speaking to A first.

I know the post is a little bit of a jumbled mess, but I hope it is clear, that U(1) is the basis of all expressions and must be geometrically understood. The Function of the metric makes this very clear.

To excell to rotating neutron stars in the work Hulse, we then can applied the Venn diagram logic, and not before.

Elliptical orbits, had to be understood first(the pendulum swings and in oscillations) nothing eixsts unless A is determined, and this is embedded in the understanding of probabilistic understanding from a 2d perspective. This tells us how that string will bend(energy).

Full circle speaks to energy. I just have geometriclaly expressed it, and that is its logic, and its math:)

Now of course anyone can argue this logic, but you will have to argue GR as well:)

Sol

Posted by sol on July 20, 2003 at 12:38:16:

In Reply to: Re: Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered? posted by DickT on July 20, 2003 at 11:31:08:

Dickt,

I appreciate this. I wonder how other mathematicians feel as well:)

What would be required then of me to continue from the position I am on interpretation of Euclidean postulate 1

If the basis of string is oscillatory movement, then how would one not see what I am saying? Where energy exists, so too curvature? The postulates are inclusive and immediate and lead directly into the undertanding of higher dimensions. We know gravity is included in this, and becomes the interpretaion of dimension, as time.

Would this not have to be defined, and in the context I do, do you see what I am saying? I know it is not supported, that's fine and I don't have a problem with this.

Sol

Posted by sol on July 19, 2003 at 07:21:04:

In Reply to: Re: The Strings Length(circle) posted by DickT on July 19, 2003 at 06:32:46:

Dickt,

Please read this post first

Yes sir:) Two points. That is what most are saying, but that is not what I am suggesting.( I believe Kaluza redefined his perception from the way I am suggesting(it had to include the logic of Euclid in geometrical expression). Kaluza recognized what Einstein had done? Is there a connection in geometrical expression and consistancy? (Einstein sat on Kaluza's work for two years:)

I really find this amazing Dickt, but I have toting this line bit for a while and have demonstrated the dimensional interpretaion, consistant not only with the mapping here using Euclids postulates.

I did not get to the fifth without understanding the work of those you have pointed out. The spacetime fabric was leading in this undertanding of what Kaluza has now brought forward in a fifth dimensional consideration.

The basis of strings from what I have understood assumes oscillations( what already exists) and speaks to what already exists in the spacetime fabric. If we had taken the leap to higher dimensinal undertsanding and these became grvaitational issues of dimension, then it was the previous work of those you have point out, beginning with Giralamo Saccheri, and the understanding of the fifth seemlyly divorce fromthe previous four has now found resolve inthe fifth and higher dimensional understandings.

Any corrections:)

Sol

Posted by sol on July 19, 2003 at 12:12:14:

In Reply to: Re: Self Evident Truths and Benjamin Franklin posted by DickT on July 19, 2003 at 10:59:59:

Dickt,

I am not upset at all, just mystified:) that relying on the analysis of those who are better equiped then I , that I would have past through the stringent requirements of, and allowed to create mayhem:)

If:) one follows its logic in direct expansion of any point, it has been mapped( I know by me:).

So since there is nothing to justify it, how does one justify anything:)You notice in the following panel a question?

What had Smolin done when he decided to create a new math?

The issue of, oscillations could never have arisen without the undertanding of the spacetime fabric(thank you einstein:).

I know of course we must refer to Minkowski here and the logical developement of non euclidean geometries, but in concert, as with the development of the methods in society there were real issues here, and I espouse the validation of science and reason.

The pendulum can never swing and the flat space remains flat, a string nevers move without ever considering the Z direction. If such movement is to be undertood it must be progressive, and logically so.

From the longitudal and tranverse application, probability distribution could have never manifested anywhere without understanding the move to higher dimensions.

Pierre Ramonds developing boson from a fermion released to a blackhole is most interesting.:)

From a one dimensional perspective, the circle is not only the measure of the length, it is also a boson? Should we then list the differences between fermion and boson for comparative explanations so I can revsit the logical developement I have followed:)I would more then be happy to retrace my steps and follow any suggetsions you may have:)

So in the "declaration of unsupported work here" what must be done next?

I appreciate your opinions Dickt.

Sol

Posted by sol on July 19, 2003 at 13:23:07:

In Reply to: Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered? posted by sol on July 19, 2003 at 12:12:14:

So which pattern shall we choose? Probabilitic determinations speak to what can become expressed, and its all base on the energy. We don't know what that is in U(1) yet. Yet we do recognize diverse pathways? The Standard model in expression and beyond?
Posted by sol on March 10, 2003 at 20:08:58:

In Reply to: Re: Euclid's Fifth Postulate posted by arivero on March 10, 2003 at 11:17:47:

arivero,

Picture is Link

OK Ok lets see. If we are speaking about c, we
are speaking *special* relativity, do we? Curvature,
mass and other concepts related to general relativity
are not relevant at this level.

I know that the thought is, and all things say, at such levels this is not so.

This link is to a post, that became a culmination of research, and you must forgive me here, being a student( a older one at that:)

The understanding comes from Alice and Bob, and simultaneity:)

How do you visualize Euclid's Fifth postulate
in the context of 3+1, Minkowskian, Space-Time? For
instance, do we choose space-like "planes" or
time-like "planes" to draw our lines?

In a point, enrgy moves and the distance between two points and the quarks tensions reveal curvature, like gaussian? Ripples on brane and a string become a brane, and how would such movement be considered, and I have brought the idea of spin here in understanding the movement of a sheet( Dickt has been kind enought to correct me here)

If Alice's position is known, Bob's is known as well? there is a call by Penrose for some new understanding here. Quantum physics and relativity must join?

In the understanding of the Friedman equation, I found it important that such movement on a cosmological level, might have been understood at much smaller level.

If energy is present so is curvature?

Sol

Posted by sol on July 19, 2003 at 12:54:59:

In Reply to: Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered? posted by sol on July 19, 2003 at 12:12:14:

What Begns in any point, and will have travelled diverse pathways? There cannot ever be nothing from which it arrives?
Posted by sol on March 03, 2003 at 09:13:42:

In Reply to: Logical Problems About Light Speed and Field Theory posted by OsherDoctorow on March 02, 2003 at 22:18:34:

Osher,

Asa student here, it became obvious to me, that the developement of the language was extremely important and the logical approach on a philosophical basis, require the developement to be consistent.

So the quest then, was to understood this "house of cards" and how it was bulit up, as well as how it would fall. Without the proper langauge and consistent application, the math had to be developeed in this sense.

I have recognized the essence of this problem as critical to further developement. By understanding the basis of all those I have come in contact with, in the information world of Penrose, Wheeler, Smolins are the expression of the desires of this attempt for interpretation, and these faces are only a few of the many, like Dirac, Bohr, Bohm as so many others.

So agreement here in principle, on the basis of the language requirement, is a recognition of the attempt here to develope the philospohical conceptualizations, that might move minds to consider the basis of this thought to language and hence mathematical interpretation.

This move in itself, would have been a common bond between the many different camps, to have suggested, that this basis is relevant. To this, I express the need for such developement and agreement. Would this not be a acceptable approach of string development, to have understood the basis of such existance, as forming from the common bond?

Where is this common bond then, and we move to consider the essence of the developemnt of the geometry as a instantaneous expressive product of matter formation?

What is first principals, that we would have move from such a consideration to have understood the road to mathematical developement was to move deeper into the philosophical basis, and consider the very beginning?( Big Bang, Brane Development, Blackhole beginnings multiple universes, etc)

Just a observer, and student.

Sol

Posted by sol on March 08, 2003 at 09:48:22:

In Reply to: The Center, and the Strings Movement?(Sol's law) posted by sol on March 07, 2003 at 21:01:49:

Movement to the higher geometries was based on the understanding of the fifth postulate of Euclid. The contentions of what might have been displayed as instantanneous riase the issue of what upper limit had been detrmined and a striaght line became understood as a value in c.

On the one hand, we seen the deviation from this straight line, and this has been my greatest confusion.

I have seen where the speed less then, has defined the matters signatories and relevance in the harmonics of elemental considerations. We have defined the matters in straight lines, yet the turn to the higher geometries, reflect not the upper dimensions of the energies for consideration, but of the matter distincton of the elements for consideration.

So what has to be understood is that speed less then c, will automaticlly turn the line. It is understood then that the shape, is relevant to the critcal density we had understood of the cosmos, and the curvature paramter is qualified here in this understand of the matters eexpressin as first principle?

Any corrections or comments.

Sol

Posted by sol on March 03, 2003 at 12:04:20:

In Reply to: Re: Logical Problems About Light Speed and Field Theory posted by sol on March 03, 2003 at 09:13:42:

From the source Penrose saw two distinct possibilities, and they were simultaneous? With a coin showing two faces, how could it ever had become possibile to distinquish one or the other? It reuqired that the understanding of energy and the gathering of such energies, would have been indicative of such curvatures.

So from a energy stand point and strings, the instantaneous action of curvature,is simultaneous?

Sol
Posted by sol on June 17, 2003 at 09:30:48:

In Reply to: KK Tower( All Pictures I have displayed are direct links) posted by sol on June 15, 2003 at 19:14:29:

The extension of the cylinder and the point? How the heck do we move the understanding forward about such a cylinder as a string and the dynamics inolved on brane development?

In this move forard in the strings understanding it is extremely difficult to follow the logic, yet what was revealled of the boson and fermion that we could have found some relevence to closed strings as bosons(force carriers) can leave the brane?

The string as a brane, and we are understanding the energy windings?

I would appreciate the ability, of the movement of the geometrical expression, of the point, line, cylinder, and we have unified the expression of longitudal and tranverse wave production, as a brane understanding in three dimensional expression.

So, without understanding the new definiton of the quark to quark measure(help:), what now do I do?

Well I like to think now of this string, as a measure of LIsa and LIgo. :)

From a cosmological understanding, we are engaged in the understanding of the brane, and the movement of. How did I ever make that leap?:)

What is first principles if we did not understand U(1) that in this beginning? Pierre Ramond speaks to this here, that we have found a place in which to consider the movement of all things. What is the big "?"?

Where is this point. What is the big bang and we have to make certain assumptions of the universe that it indeed has always held the ripples of spacetime, and that such beginnings have direct brane relations? What is the cyclical universe and brane collisions. What recedes? There is much to consider here and much that has.

I'll stop for now.

Posted by sol on July 19, 2003 at 12:43:38:

In Reply to: Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered? posted by sol on July 19, 2003 at 12:12:14:

Can't but help think of Pierre Ramonds boson to the blackhole as a Force Carrier(photon) that is subjected to Annihiliation. Now, such energy concentrations are quite revealing to me:) Has the photon be stripped?

Sol
Posted by sol on July 09, 2003 at 12:00:23:

In Reply to: LOGIC: How Logic Generates Branes and Big Bangs posted by OsherDoctorow on July 09, 2003 at 11:43:51:

Osher,

Believe it or not, I understood your post.

This is my response.:)

From zero any other potential discussed has the measure between what and how you get to one. I have included every math you can think of,and underatnd the extension of fuzzy logic from the logic. It sstill all based onthe math,a nd I know nothing of the math. Systemic fucntions from a overview, are much like recognize the geometrical consideration I have detailed many times and that logic is reveal from a point. Zero is a flat brane world,straight string, string point and that point represents a circle.

The cylider fucntion is real now ans the windings, very real in what began from a point included the energy. do you see what I am saying. The point in instantanneous inexpresion and has lenth width, and in the understanding of brane movement height. Many things now can leave the brane and bosons do. Fermions are straight string thta can bend but whse ends to not connect, they are still part of the brane.

What happen beyond the brane is soemthing else though. Force cariers become soemthing of what phtons have become in wave considerationas gravitons do ingrvaitaional considerations.

I would appreciate any correction in the second part here of the post, so I am true to the model developement that I have so far surmized in that logic(string theory).

Sol
Posted by sol on July 09, 2003 at 11:45:24:

In Reply to: Re: What A Logic-Based Universe Looks Like posted by anadessma2001 on July 09, 2003 at 11:05:32:

Joe,

You are at a advantage and as a teacher, you have fundamental values that many have to follow, because the science has taken us there. It's not imagination. Imagination comes next.

It is not imagination that we have come to the limitations, of what particle research will avail us, but true questions about energy potential that are not quite availabe to us. I do not doubt for a moment that model creation has its place, just like the math( I speak from a overview) that is inclusive like any maths, as systemic function of a zeropoint U(1).

There is no doubt I will not recieve arguement on the basis of what Einstein has done(?)and how we have been lead to space time. Einstein in his wisdom recognize something of Kaluza that took two years for his acknowledgement, and what I am saying even though I have generalized, I speak from a consistant foundation and that is geometrically entrenched.

That is the math I speak of and I have followed it through, and the further you go(previous post), in the links supplied to the order of the logic, you will become familiar with the unfoldment of what is geometrically considered.

The maelability of, I speak of here, in the continuity of movement, and it is consistant as I far as I can tell.:)

Model apphrehension even in the principal of string theory is consistent with GR and QFT, in that what has happened in particle reduction cases here, is the recognition now of what the comsological scale is allowing us to do. What is the extreme of gravity(supergravity) and what has the blackhole come to mean to us?

What is plasma and I wonder how such movements can penetrate real life functonal models like the Challenger?

Probability functions are direct patterns revealled in the oscillations, and information of the Quantum Harmonic oscillator is real time information.

The imagination I speak of, is built on solid information and progression from string theory, that has allowed me to speak to issues of energy, as fundamental values on the value of that string. The KK tower is very help in moving perception forward, and the understanding of Zeno's measure of inbetweens, is much more detailed then you can have ever thought.

From a to b is all the points of the metric tensor and today in the supergravity issues we have many more points to consider and they still exist between a->b. Gausssian fields has help me there, and Riemann as a teacher saw potential in his student:)

The value determination reveals something intrinistic about the point and goes from eculidean persepctives, we move to the level of the spacetime undertsandings . Zero here is not nothing, but a place from which movement of spacetime fabric, is not considered.

You had to include Kaluza, then the trail begins there.

The reverse of fermion, boson on the same loop describes for us the ability of energy to start off in one place and then come back to it in the energy form. Kaluza and klien begin this journey for us. The logic( geometrical considerations) has to go full circle, and back again?

Once you get to the bubble stage the bubble itself, has the ability(supergrvaity), like the klien bottle to do topological things.

Just like the sphere, the hole, follows certain rules?

Sol

Posted by sol on July 09, 2003 at 13:09:12:

In Reply to: Re: What A Logic-Based Universe Looks Like posted by sol on July 09, 2003 at 11:45:24:

Previous post reads:

Gausssian fields has help me there, and Riemann as a teacher saw potential in his student:)

Should read in previous post:)

Gaussian fields has help me there, and Riemann, as Gauss's student, Gauss saw potential there:)

Sol

Posted by sol on June 08, 2003 at 20:46:19:

What did Saccheri find when he was working othe blemish of the fifth postualte? The working is progessive here, and the axioms of choice, have been geometrically defined now.

Euclid like Plato was systematic in his own developement of models of apprehension. Induction and dedcution, and I have demonstarted the Aristltolean view here, that might have lead a mind to consider, what was not considered before.

What are first principles derived from?

This could not have been done if we did not assume the model first, and seen where the deductions would go? They represent a certain aspect of reality, and the science of SR and GR, it became important that such a foundation be on solid footing, so the move from the Euclidean understanding, Saccheri move minds, to other avenues of consideration.

Parallel line changes, the thinking when we are to consider, what this lines encounter when it has taken shape in the higher geometries. It required a different kind of logic, that was very intuitive, based on models, defined by systematic instruction.

Strings is no different here, that the second revolution would now consider the string as a fundamental particle as not existing, but now to have considered branes(Witten hands are evident here).

Imagine indeed that such a system developed would now say, a bubble can be represented as a brane? M-theory now incorporates the ten dimensions, together with time demonstrate eleven.

Sol
Posted by sol on August 12, 2003 at 10:59:53:

In Reply to: Re: Girolamo Saccheri posted by DickT on August 12, 2003 at 08:12:22:

Dickt,

Roughly, there's a "line at infinity" that completes the figure, but it's never drawn.

1954. Have we progressed any?:)

Okay. The question here then to me, becomes the understanding of the horizon and the boundary and unboundry conditions. The sphere,and the hypberloic expressions.

Would this be correct in placing this part of your post up for my response? If not, I'm listening.

Sol

Posted by sol on August 12, 2003 at 19:11:32:

In Reply to: Re: Girolamo Saccheri posted by DickT on August 12, 2003 at 14:52:41:

Bear with me:)

KoeneJ question A small diversion:)

But here, I am not forgetting the shortest distance in a euclidean plane, versus a non euclidean, has a relationship to the fifth postulatePoincare and Non euclidean geometry

In a "gravity field" I see it this way. Is it wrong?

Please clarify. Thank you Dickt.

Sol
Posted by sol on August 12, 2003 at 19:20:32:

In Reply to: Re: Girolamo Saccheri posted by sol on August 12, 2003 at 19:11:32:

Dickt,

Your thoughts here.

Helmholtz

Have been following Einsteins progression, from before Riemann(or was it after?).

Sol
Posted by sol on August 08, 2003 at 22:58:29:

The shortest distance is a curve?:)

Haing set aside the undertanding of a flat plane(brane world) and euclidean perspectives, the higher geometries are vital to undertanding the issues in the gravity field.

Looking at energy now, does this. Who is Hemholtz? Reinmann was instrumental in helping us understand some issues here about curvature. In understanding Faraday, Reinmann helped us to envision a world of curvature, that had to that point been, held to flat straight things. Thank you Einstein:)

Gaussian coordinates need a understanding. So how many points in which any of us could have figured the metric tensor of Rienmann? Supergravity has expanded this issue and so has the issue of the energy.

Sol
Posted by sol on August 09, 2003 at 23:40:29:

In Reply to: Re: In a Gravity Field....... posted by DickT on August 09, 2003 at 08:36:24:

Dickt,

Force=Geometry?

Or is geometry, a consequence of force?

To sense that momentum from inside(have you placed yourself within the gravity field?). This is very important.

It will help to make sense of the twists and turns?:)

Sol
Posted by sol on August 10, 2003 at 07:35:58:

In Reply to: Re: In a Gravity Field....... posted by sol on August 09, 2003 at 23:40:29:

Curving

For reference, and further elucidation.

Sol
Posted by sol on August 12, 2003 at 22:36:33:

In Reply to: Re: Helmholtz posted by sol on August 12, 2003 at 19:44:15:

......gravity becomes strong?:) Posted by sol on August 10, 2003 at 07:52:42:

In Reply to: Re: In a Gravity Field....... posted by sol on August 10, 2003 at 07:35:58:

More info for consideration.

The conversation of Mike2 and his developement in Venn logic approac,h is a struggle for me as long as "A" is not recognized, out of this all logic follows( we had to determine the energy, logically and geometrically)?

Before sets and events are considered energy had to be determined, and in the understanding of the universe having changed the way we see, zeropoint vibration as oscillators, we have identifed the constituents in a way that supertsring theory recognizes?

Topos Theory then recogizes dynamical movements, and was logically derived by Smolin in his discrete understanding(Three Roads) yet he now does not recognize, but holds to his position(Perimeter Institute) yet how is that possible describing fluid things? In supergravity how will such coordinates have been explained?

Any opinions here.

Sol
Posted by sol on August 10, 2003 at 11:57:59:

In Reply to: Re: In a Gravity Field....... posted by paultrr on August 10, 2003 at 10:25:00:

Paul,

Lee Smolin sees topos logic as the logic of nature and information horizons in general. On this I would tend to agree. My only question is has he begun to degerate back into something more abstract and akin to his original almost metaphysical proposal of the multiverse. On this I think only time will tell us if he is correct are the majority of the rest of us are correct.

I think Smolin made a mistake. The development of the community of the perimeter institute was a good way to go, and distilling the views from multiple branches, gave insight into other processes, why I mentioned Mclaughin.

This assessment has been ongoing

He did it again, what he did with Penrose(The quantum foam issue)Superstringtheory and Loop Quantum Gravity, and moved to the logic(not fuzzy logic!) as you say. I recognized this, and recognize now, what he has done again. The mistake was to move away what was intuitively constructed within the confines of Reimann tensors and what Supergravity became?

It explains the movement better than anything we have currently? Some can argue this?:) I don't belong to any organization so if it seems that I am totting the superstringthery .com view, I have come to my own perspectives after distilling myself much information. Of course I could be wrong:):)

Your history lesson is important, and I will follow it for examination.

Sol

Posted by sol on August 13, 2003 at 18:43:43:

In Reply to: Re: When Euclid Model Stops working......... posted by DickT on August 13, 2003 at 07:41:00:

Dickt,

I am trying to pin down the ideas of hyperbolic andpshere considerations.

If we talk about space(euclidean) and we move to Minkowski metric, we have spacetime.

I am working from a paper here, and want to provide a good comprehension of this movement. It goes like this, that the Minkoswski metric, had a distance function dS² that can be negative, positive or zero, whereas the distance functions in space dL² can only be positive.

Geodesics for the Euclidean metric are straight lines, so space geodesics in the distance function is the pythagorean Rule. dL²=dX²+dY²

From space to spacetime, recognizes the ability of spacelike geodisics, null geodisics and time like geodisics.

Simplifiing this movement then, in higher geometries, seem easy, from the understanding of movement that is dynamical, but it definitely needs a deeper explanation and undertanding. I hope to seal that in mind.

Any corrections. Thanks Dickt.

Sol
Posted by sol on June 03, 2003 at 20:46:48:

How did Kaluza ever think of the fifth dimension as a cylinder?

It is understood the added dimension of kaluza, is a extension of Einsteins g factors.

It was understood that it would come out as Maxwell's equation for the electromagnetic field. If we had understood the progress(logic) of Einstein, to spacetime, how did Kaluza see this and extended it?

The higher dimensions, would had to leave the curvature understanding, and described the higher geometries, to have understood gravity existed in the determinations, of the electromagnetic field.

Kaluza must have extended the logic of Einstein, not in the definiton of a point to a line, but in having understood Einsteins spacetime, could have extened that logic, in a expansive mode, from a point to a circle, the circle to a cylinder.

So reduction here, would have us see where this cylinder can actually represent the string, and on expansion, the energy determination from the center 1/r, the size of that cylinder, in the energy consideration, spoke to the size of the cylinder, and its length. The quark to quark measure of points, must have included the field and tensions, now understood, as speaking to the energy found in that tension(g factors) as dimensional understandings of that energy?

So what does the graviton include? If we understood the issue of speed of em wave generation as the photon, then how do we percive information we recieve in distance to have understood that these energies speak to the understanding of the curvature of spacetime? The photon and the graviton must exist together( light cones), that what is expressed in one way for the gravitational waves would have the Em radiation effected in another?

How would that be interpreted? Cramer gives us some indication here in the expression of the lightcones(tipping?) as does pelastrian's link today.

If we understood Liminocentic structures, what has been understood of Kaluza? Think of the cylinder and the energy involved. First principles recognizes this.

All life becomes a exntension of this point and what might have been interpeted as light become gravity? In the top down approach, the ray of creationis understood and in Pascal's triangle, all definition from this point.

What can exist as energy is the top part of the cone.

What moves into the matters through that point, is the bottom triangle(ray of creation), and gravity

Any corrections for sure.:)

Sol

Posted by sol on June 07, 2003 at 09:22:02:

In Reply to: Kaluza's Cylinder posted by sol on June 03, 2003 at 20:46:48:

It is really important to understand the continuing logic and developement, and in a most generalizaed way I am moving to the topologists world, and the holes that are considered.

But that is a quick end to what loggic has been formulated and there is a whole vast spectrum of information, that has been conained and moved from.

We have to leave Einstein behind here, but remember the road he has created for us to the higher dimensional understandings.

The very foundation and creation of Gr has been expounded upon here I feel, that we now have to consider dimensional interpretation in a different way.

It is a non-euclidean view that we now embrace the higher dimensional understanding and movements that we undertand what vison Kaku has seen from that bridge, to have helped us to move our considerations. His was a intuitive leap of understanding on where he sent his mind for exploration, no different then Einstein, and the ride, on the slide of light or Mooreglade's journey between galaxies:)

I venture forward here, to constinue the progression and logic of the new view Kaluza has given us. The move to the higher geometries now requires us to consider, what we turn back too? The euclidean ability of dimension significance is now applied to, the hyperdimensional world and geometries. This has to be understood.

So where I left off was the cylinder and I will have to continue this explanation from this point.

The dimensional interpretation(logic) has to be understood from this point(a plane), and I hope to do that shortly.

Sol

Posted by sol on June 07, 2003 at 10:59:04:

In Reply to: Kaku's Vision and Kaluza's View posted by sol on June 07, 2003 at 09:22:02:

The strings as a model, includes Einstein and Kaluza(remember the picture in the above post) becuase what I relay here follows the picture up top.

Now it is with some understanding that having been taken to the level of understanding of Einsteins spacetime, that it lead me to consider the Perhilion of Mercury, and the Orbiting neutron stars as evidential consequences, of the development of Gr.

So what did we learn about what is emitted from such sources and I would add the blackhole here, for obvious reasons.

So in the furthering of the understanding and consideration here, we speak of the longitudal and tranverse understanding of em and grvaitational wave production.

The model presented by Kaluza, speaks to the dimensional interpretation now evident in the diagram shown above. Please consider the following:

A string can only vibrate in one direction in a dimensional sense. It can compress and stretch, and in this consideration, what is the photon as a wave,that the photon has been reconfigured, and considered as a longitudal wave?

Now if the string includes this longitudal wave capability, what is two dimensional that we now consider, the traverse application of gravitational waves? So we have now set up our thinking, not only geometrically, and I leave out the direct connections[geometrical correlations] in life of what others might see intuitively, and what they I hope wil share in the vision share of.

When these two waves are joined in the three dimensional world the tranverse waves can now rotate( what are our neutron stars doing). In a higher dimensional understanding we have seen where this correlation had followed the strick logic and consequences, to have understood not only the pendulum, but also the neutron stars orbit, to have come to a culmination of what is seen with the help of kaluza in that the model up top is now given forward for interpretation.

Sol
Posted by sol on August 03, 2003 at 23:42:31:

In Reply to: Re: The Geometrical Considerations, Lead Us Here? posted by paultrr on August 02, 2003 at 04:05:32:

Paul,

Your point is clear, and I hope I have made mine in terms of the Quantum harmonic oscillator.

I do not consider the point particles, as nothing more then what is revealled in the consideration of its energy(what is zero-point energy?).

Here I am remaining consistent to the ideas of geomertical consideration, in a point line plane, and sayng, that any point is a circle and its radius is figured by that energy. The point(where is all begins) cylinder, brane world is all connected, but is not supported.:) Yet it follows the euclidean perspectives, and is raised to the level of non euclidean considerations?

Energy allows us to do that, and its begining is, its end?:)As bosons, the graviton and photon are well considered, and following GR, can leave the brane world?:)

Sol Posted by sol on March 24, 2003 at 16:10:18:

In Reply to: Strings or field lines? posted by Carpenter on March 24, 2003 at 14:47:55:

The first is that the strings apparently connecting the quarks are fundamental and the field lines are just "approximate pictures"

Approximate pictures serve to help us understand the significance of what moves beyond the branes.

The question of topology in reference to Smolin was the question of what maths should be used. Algebraic topology(?) and we have people who can understand where such fiber bundles might have signified a group of lines? Do they also understand the movement of topological forms? Some can visualize better then others:)

The background and non background issue has to be understood. Issues of continuity and discreteness.

The equation by Einstein although referred too, here is one of gravity, E=mc² and I would say that the Loop arena is on the side of the Boltzman understandings, of distribution and probabilities. Yet, there is some basis to what is understood of energy(strings).

The quark distances are a older view, yet the tension is understood in that field? The article is quite revealing in terms of those dimensions?

You will have to wait for some better then I to respond.

Sol

Posted by sol on March 27, 2003 at 16:46:23:

In Reply to: Re: Strings or field lines? posted by Mike2 on March 27, 2003 at 09:18:59:

Mike2,

Diamagnetic properties were always interesting to me:)I think of Faradays cage here sometimes.

Imagine what a superconductor can do?

Nitrogen helps keep the object floating. When we can figure out normal temperature, we will have made a tremendous leap:)

How are you coming with your Venn( I think that's how you spell it) logic?:)Maybe some day you will be able to provide a generalization and vision, of what you have learnt? I would find it a most interesting exercise( what I try to do):)

Sol

Posted by sol on March 24, 2003 at 08:11:38:

Discovering New Dimensions at LHC

Hope it helps:)

Sol
Posted by sol on March 29, 2003 at 04:30:51:

In Reply to: Re: I Link: Are the fundamental constants constant? Extra Dimensions posted by rtharbaugh on March 28, 2003 at 08:42:19:

Rth,

A dance indeed, and to choreographed, in the sense, of the ebb and flow, and the understanding of many things?

We see where scale, has hidden the understanding of all things, and such momentums have the oscillations, and the wave/particle would have been such a dance.

We have to understood continuity and discreteness, are a constant change, and the geometry of a mobius, or a klien bottle, is a way in which to see such a things. These are toys, that help us understand the nature of, and I would have presented the top or the gyrascope, as a understanding of the gravitational monitor of that movement.

Yet there is movement in the universe and I am trying to see where these holes(concentrations of the energy and the matters are two different points and everything in between is a flow from the continuum state to one of dicreteness) is the understanding of the matters as well. I stil speak to the enrgy when I speak to the matters, yet this move is a understanding of meomentums and change.

You have a sense of that in artistic expression. Some artists as a physicist, might have seen the understanding in the matter state of such artistic gemetrical figures.

These always help:)

Sol
Posted by sol on June 19, 2002 at 06:34:41:

Gravity is the consequence of the curving of space.

If elementary particles are not point like, the field description, become harmonic in nature? So if we see that superstrings reveal the gravity, what have we learnt about strings? That they curve space.

Any corrections?

Sol
Posted by DickT on June 19, 2002 at 08:21:51:

In Reply to: Quantization of Gravity posted by sol on June 19, 2002 at 06:34:41:

Sol,

Ignoring the usual junk that kx21 writes, you are perfectly correct. Strings produce gravitons and do curve space. They curve dbranes too.

Regards,

Dick
Posted by sol on March 31, 2003 at 12:13:38:

In Reply to: Re: Quantum Gravity posted by JohnCauthen on March 31, 2003 at 11:12:39:

John,

It would be a new law to say that particles move from point to point in space in the same amount of time, no matter how far apart the points are. It would be because the more the strings are stretched the more energy there is between intersections of strings.

In the Inverse Square Law,

the strings determination has already been considered and the gravitational consideration see here, in dimensional correlation? What are the understandings here in the field and beyond it?

Yet, in the Inverse Square Law, we recognize a basic underlying principal here, that is applied to QED, Matter constitutions and gravitons leaving that brane? You must remeber that the Em waves are held to that sheet, and are the causes of the movement in that brane. Beyond this, these gravitons have been released. These are resonante patterns(features of those waves and through supposition) set up in the bulk that interact, the matters? Brane collisions become understanding here and again kx21 presented early in 2002, as well as james in the particle considerations and the new matter?

I have spoken too Hiesenberg's Uncertainty principle as the measure, between that A and B, and in the string, I include all that I have just shown you in a instance, as a simultaneous action, I have explained through entanglement.

The importance of this is understood computationally in how such curvature have been understood in the switching process? Strings curve?

If energy is present, and the understanding of sheet movement is considered( here clarification has been given by Dickt as points and N/S connection following each in a line, yet ths serves to speak to the understanding in the generalization and approximate pictures we use also include the dimensinal significance of those gravitons:)

The Sun as a monopole recognition in the cosmological consideration, has its counterpart in the blackhole?

Yes I like your dough annalogy in the pizza picture, yet it only pertains to the understading of the hole, yet it does not speak to the dynamics. The Ato B interval need sto be understood, and I am moving in this direction. When I say to matters form, the sumultaneous undersatnding become apparent in such a computational selectin process, and how would we understand the gravity of that situation? How would we write that language?

I am working to develope another site, that Yaniru has seen, and I will be putting in the profiles soon.

First Principles is a understanding of that force, and I cannot conceive of the universe, without this energy.:)I hope there will be those who will repond favourablly to help correct where I am going with it, as I have already corrected the understadning of true representation of the Quantum Foam in this regard by Yanniru's point of correction notification.

Baez's early comment in regards to the understanding of the Riemann sphere posted by RTH(?), was the move through the Dirac system, and in "week 20" we learn to move to understand the spinors?

Again, any corrections are much appreciated.

Sol

Posted by sol on June 06, 2003 at 06:13:27:

In Reply to: The String-Point Paradox and Applications posted by OsherDoctorow on June 06, 2003 at 01:16:26:

Osher,

I am reminded of the pendulum for various reasons.

In the flat brane, and extension of the logic of string, we have replaced any particle, with the understanding that its nature is not described any more my the matters in conisderation, but by undrstanding what the flat brane represents.

In this case,if there is no gravitational or Em waves to consider, then in the view of the pendulum, as it hangs, static and devoid of the kinetic energy, we see where this brane represents point of view in the logic of its developement(flat space) yet is it ever so?

From the dimensional perspective, and the understanding of brane scenario, has followed strick logic and balance in accord with GR. This is what gives it its consistancy, and is geometrically understood, and from this point, we had introduced Kaluza, because Kaluza embraced Einstein's GR, and gave it a different view.

Strings encapsulated Kaluza and further expanded and from kaluza we were turned back to look at the understanding of euclidean referencing, Maxwells equation and now see the conclusion of Gr in the understanding of the energy.

I hope I have given some length and breadth to the understanding of the four dimension perspective, of Gr in the understanding of the euclidean directions and the six dimension that forms from xyz.

I hope the logic is apparnet in what I have shown and it leads from a point. John's view here are understood, and I have yet to see how the logic has been implored by him in the understanding of the expansion of that g metric.

We have been taken to this point by mathematical deductions and this is the logic I speak of. When you now consider the brane you consider not only the flat brane , but what arises from that brane as loops, and what is allowed not to leave open strings. Fermions and bosons are specific here, yet what is a photon and what is a graviton(boson), and they have been specific here. What is allowed to leave the brane?

Youmust understand by looking at the brane we have now embraced the higher dimensinal geometries and th eunderstanding of the g metric. The grvaiton comes into the picture here, as a entity, and inthis understanding we now speak of the graviton a a representative of that higher dimenisonal understanding. When we speak of enerrgy now we see intothe understanmding and extensinof that g metric, and Kaluza help us change in what we see of the higher dimensions.

Einstein too understood the higher geometries and the Rienmann sphere. Also in the friedmann equation, a further exploitation of the work in higher geometry maths. Think of the sadlle now. But also remember, the movements are dynamic here.

I hope I have directed your view most apropriately to that point, and what it entails:)We have been taken on a wild journey and it issued from that point. This is first principles to me, and we have not spoken of dirac and the S matrix, and how it is alive today, in strings. I ave yet to fuly understand this, but is important fromthe understanding of what introductions are made in dealing with the knowledge we have. I think of Feynmanns toy models for the extension and understanding of QED, and what is taking place in the world of particle considerations. Waves/particle work, has to be done here by me as well.

Sol

Posted by sol on June 06, 2003 at 15:11:24:

In Reply to: Re: Some Words To Think About. posted by jmgriffin on June 06, 2003 at 10:05:05:

Jon,

A link for your consideration

What you do with Kx21 is your business. Would I feel differently to your questions, of course not.:)

I will try and be specific.

In the euclidean understanding there is three directions.

y(arrow time)
/|
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
-->

Think of the rotations around each one of those directions.

What is Omega, the curvature parameter and critical density? What does the friedmann equation tell us(getting a feel for)?

If there are six rotations and spacetime is four, in a ten dimensional model, a bubble would then become 11 and M theory.

The universe becomes very dynamical in the logic of topology. The move to higher dimensions was necessary,and the sphere, was a positive move, and what do we understand of spacetime, and the movement here?

Think of the triangle here. A flat plane, and then think about what that triangle means in terms of degrees. On the flat plain it is 180, while on the sphere it is greater than? What about the saddle. Consider, what is understood of a triangle placed on the saddle? This movement is dynamical in that we have have understood something about the open and closed universe.

Well we are given a overall picture to consider, yet Mooreglade has directed our attention to the galaxies, and imagine the edge of each of these galactic centers, and they have been defined for us?

This work by mooregalde is important from this perspective and how would we define monopoles as exiting or drawing into( what does the Bose Nova say) and we are drawn to events in the galactic centers, imagine such a principals placed at the understanding of the quantum blackholes?

I do not know if I gave you anything to think about?:)

Sol

Posted by sol on May 22, 2003 at 09:04:05:

In Reply to: Re: Quark's Mass at relativistic speeds posted by DocN on May 22, 2003 at 08:55:09:

Doc,

Is another perspective for sure.

Spin orientations has been quite a topic that we have explored before, and to understand the complexities inside the proton, is like watching movement(motion) inside a sphere. How so?

If we had understood the gravitational field outside the bubble, how would that bubble look to us as the outer limits are defined? On earth that sphere is quite ugly?

What is the basis of grvaitatinal configuration based on(condensed matter physics?)?

Spin orientation would have been significant factor here in the understanding of that gravitational field?

Sol
Posted by sol on July 18, 2003 at 07:42:15:

In Reply to: Re: If Energy is Information posted by OsherDoctorow on July 17, 2003 at 21:22:24:

Osher,

But does the Reincarnation that will occur tomorrow exist somehow today and yesterday? I suspect not.

Indeed I think we have come to our full disagreement and in the spirit of dicussion, what you have said so far has not convinced me. What you are saying is a personal perspective and relies on past information, so until I can see where, you have integrated such a perspective, then you have not really explained the past to me.( Please understand this paragraphs constructed in such a way to honestly and constructive speak to the ideas that are being generated in your own mind) Can you explain the integrative effect better?(entanglement is avery important theme here in what you propose of entanglement, that a John Bell saw something quite interesting in the pursuite of Einstein's view on simultaneity?)

This brings us to time, and there's no reason at all to regard time as not expanding as we age. We talk of spacetime on the brane and gravity on the bulk and in the interconnection, but that means that there is something common about space and time. I think that Minkowski's intuition (he was Einstein's Chairman) shows us something of this similarity of time and space. Time expands in the future direction as we live it. We create the future.

To me it seems inevitable that when energy is used in any form, there are direct consequences in the issue of entanglemnet that on discrete and constructive levels, any interaction what so ever, raised the question of influence, so the pursuite was to remove the observer from this process.

So lets try and distinquish when the observer is involved(what LIGO becomes) and when the observer is not(what LIGO is), and we get two different picture heres. If you stand on the outside as obsevrer, the events that take place are relevant. If you stand on the inside of those events, then indeed one would hope that such constricting views would not have ever been so difficult, but to me, the professionalism, will be seeing above that situation.

Now indeed having said that, I raised the question of the inverse square law again, and ask that what is constitued in the distance, holds to it fuzzy language, but on any graph probability recognizes where the intensity of energy will spike. Probability tells us, when so many flips of the coin will reveal to us the probabilty of any event(photon),as we have gauged the results.

Now such uncertainty, held in the interest of orbital considerations and energy values, what releavnce is a photon and the energies levels, when a photon containes no mass? Feynmann path integrals speak to us about interactions that have been recognized in the developing framework of U(1). We must remember a photon will react in a gravitaional field.

A certain assumption has to exist in order for us to understand that the effects are already there, in terms of information and on gravitatinal considerations, this information is very important.

I will put out this word for you(Geometrodynamic)Osher and from it I would sincerely like to know what materializes in your mind. Because I know you will not only think of what you have written so far, but of what interlinking capabilties have thus far developed in that retrospect:)

Please I hope, you take this in the spirit of discussion and exercise of ridding subjective views from the essence of our conversation:)

If the arrow travels one way,and the light has left the event, we know the speed of C is equivalent to the speed of gravitational waves generation? So if we recieve such information, what process of decay from mass has allowed us to speak to any energy, and its pendulum swing(probability distribution), that has begun in oscilalltory moments(missing mass that expelled out ward)?

I would truly appreciate corrections.

Sol

Posted by sol on June 11, 2003 at 06:59:41:

In Reply to: Re: Superluminal communication? Surely not... posted by egibbs on June 11, 2003 at 05:01:17:

Ed Gibbs,

Kaluza help turned this around for us?

These are equivalent to EM waves propagating backward in time. You could call these instrumentation artifacts if you like, but they represent real mathematical entities (though not necessarily physical entities).

A natural progression of the logic and of course here, we understand and get a look at the developement in the comprehension of dimension?

The graviton is a intersting "hole" in the issue of strings, and imagine the depth of very point on the brane?

Sol
Posted by sol on June 01, 2003 at 05:53:29:

In light of Ligo methods of laser application, and what could have been interpreted as noise?

It becomes a question in my mind, about what speed is attained( laser application) and what never is calculated less then the desired, to have phton applications dropped off into noise?

In this interest, such energies are maintained in a way that the energy is recycled(how do you recycle mass above speed of light of c), and that such a measure of speed maintained at all costs without going over and throwing inmass interference?

How would this have been done? In consideration of the mirror, and light application here, what value is seen that allowed us to coionsider what a gravitational wave is?

A couple of things were then considered in terms of the maintennance of speed of light, that anything over it would have singled, a mass accumulation, and that anything less than, a deviation in the lights path?

Having understood this now, it became clear to me why a attenuator was so highly considered to make sure any variation in that speed above(is recycled back into the amounts of energy needed to maintain status quo, or below that would have disasterous effects, on what is measured in terms of those gravity waves?

Any impurites in the length of the tubes and vacuums in that tube, must have been considered for us to undrstand any impurities would have had again, disasterous effects on the refractability of what could have interferred with that signal.

I would like to undertand this better in light of the applications of interferometry considerations. We see now where the understanding of Einstein is of great value here and the progression has been moved along nicely in what was considered by Kip Thorne and what should have been placed in space(LISA)

This thinking of Einsteins, has lead us to the world of gravitational considerations, and most rightly so, in what we can and do percieve as tangible expressions of the development of SR and GR.

How does brane and graviton considerations fit in all this?

This has been on my mind for a while now, and the dimensional referencing that has been done, has required the shift to Witten, and the graviton developement. This is the logical consideration of application of theoretical developement, that has been most appropriate. Its logic.

Continue expansion on the mathematcal formulations that have found a extension from the work of SR and GR, that has now become the foundation of the graviton? I evoke generalizations that have produce sound logic(math in the expressions of information?)

How does such thinking and we have set up a good foundation of movement here in strings, that the questions about brane developement have now been considered. It requires us now to move on, in what that graviton represents.

I will continue another thread to demonstrate problems I see we might encounter in terms of speculations about FTL. I have touched onthem lightly through this thread and have not spelt them out, for obviuos developement of others intuitive undertandings?

What has been shown to this date and I have been most careful to follow the development of what has lead us all into the very boundarees of knoweldge already supplied by Einstein that we now move that edge, to further expand our understandings. We do not ignore what was relevant inte workings of Wheeler, Einstein, Penrose Smolins and others becuas ethe logic tha was and is developement has mathematically been considered.

In the post haste dvelopement of thinkng like that Geon, we see and understand the attempts by Smolin and to use the developmental logic , as I have mentioned a couple of times now. Aside from all other specualtions, this had to be considered, and not ignored although Smolin might have beat a hasty retreat from strings for reasons of discrete undersatndings?

Some may take affront, to this area of thinking that is developing. But it is in sound application and the logic(math) that we have to see this boundary or step off point.

Like links in this respect that provide the groudwork for further development.

Sol
Posted by sol on June 01, 2003 at 06:04:15:

In Reply to: Infinite Dimensional M Theory/Duality, Sir Roger, Plato, Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg posted by OsherDoctorow on May 31, 2003 at 23:37:39:

Osher,

Here is a link to consider. For sake of consistancy, that issue leqding into dimensional consideration need to be understood, and the grvaiton is a move in this direction. It is not completely understood by me, the move to what the photon represents, now, has been raised by Witten in consideration of that graviton.

What is the speed of light issue here, and we will move our thinking to mass accumualation and what happens when the space is consider here.

I am very green in this respect, having moved along slowly to have undertsood what strings and M theory is really about. I hope in what had presented you might have found value, to move forward what might have been seen as a rare event in a photons change of plans, that we might now entertain the gravition change of plans in light of, the consistancy of c.

I believe I have understood the logic of application here and presented in its proper light, even though making the generalizations I do. It does follow the math and hence the logic of movement and considerations? Smolin's topologiocal fomrulation of spacetime fabric understanding and mass accumulation? Three roads into one?

Sol
Posted by sol on May 07, 2003 at 19:38:06:

Kaluza-Klein theory has been enjoying a revival thanks to string/M-theory, where adding more spatial dimensions to the metric promises to yield all the known interactions. This is in direct analogy with the original K-K theory, where the addition of a fifth dimension was shown to yield both gravitation and EM. Also in line with the original theory is the notion that the extra dimensions must be "compactified" (very small) because we do not "see" them.

I highly recommend O'Raifeartaigh's beautiful little book on 'The Dawning of Gauge Theory', which contain the original papers, together with excerpts from the seminal works by Weyl, London, Schrodinger, Fock, et al. Also of interest is 'Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories' (ed., Applequist) where you will find an easy overview of the subject by Witten entitled "Search for a Realistic Kaluza-Klein Theory'. Witten illuminates the relationship between relativity, K-K theories, gauge theory, and hidden variables theory. Also of great interest in this regard is Cao's essay "Gauge Theory" in 'Philosophical Foundations of QFT'. (ed., Brown & Harre)

Sol

Posted by sol on June 08, 2003 at 20:46:19:

What did Saccheri find when he was working othe blemish of the fifth postualte? The working is progessive here, and the axioms of choice, have been geometrically defined now.

Euclid like Plato was systematic in his own developement of models of apprehension. Induction and dedcution, and I have demonstarted the Aristltolean view here, that might have lead a mind to consider, what was not considered before.

What are first principles derived from?

This could not have been done if we did not assume the model first, and seen where the deductions would go? They represent a certain aspect of reality, and the science of SR and GR, it became important that such a foundation be on solid footing, so the move from the Euclidean understanding, Saccheri move minds, to other avenues of consideration.

Parallel line changes, the thinking when we are to consider, what this lines encounter when it has taken shape in the higher geometries. It required a different kind of logic, that was very intuitive, based on models, defined by systematic instruction.

Strings is no different here, that the second revolution would now consider the string as a fundamental particle as not existing, but now to have considered branes(Witten hands are evident here).

Imagine indeed that such a system developed would now say, a bubble can be represented as a brane? M-theory now incorporates the ten dimensions, together with time demonstrate eleven.

Sol
Posted by sol on April 22, 2003 at 13:09:05:

I am placing this link here to help others understand better the issue of dimension. These four people are at the leading edge.

The understanding of dimension is a gravitatinal one.

Space Exploration in the Colliders

Sol

Posted by sol on April 23, 2003 at 07:34:22:

In Reply to: Proper Understanding of Dimension posted by sol on April 22, 2003 at 13:09:05:

How long have we come to understand that the Euclidean geometries having been in a state for the last 2000 years and within the short time in a historical sense Ivanovitch Lobachevski, Janos Bolyai and Karl Guass made good use of the fifth postulate, from Euclid's Elements? They moved our understanding to Hyperbolic geometry. Einstein also used this in takingus to the understnding of Spacetime(curvature?)

The sphere becomes a interesting object in which to speak about triangles. This movement is demonstrated, by our reocgnition of the Friedmann equation, and our understnding of the universe or in th every shapes we might hav eunderstood in the orbitals. It become a interesting perspective in term sof topological movement as well.

Whatis the Time Issue, as a four dimensional understanding?

It is one of curvature.

If gravity is so weak, in the three dimensions we know, at what point do we now look at the distortion of space, as a relevant issue, with which we must understand, is not the same rigid structures, we had taken for granted?

Moving into a fifth dimensional perspective, we have move our view into the understanding of energy and what it does?

The gravitational presence here, in terms of the distance, becomes a interesting issue, when in that distance, we also speak to the understanding of what energy is contained in that space(dimension).

If a string is one dimensional and a plane two, when does a brane reveal three? I have already provided a link for this.

Any corrections?

Sol

Posted by sol on June 07, 2003 at 23:31:47:

In Reply to: Re: Pleading the Fifth (of Euclid) posted by pianowow on June 07, 2003 at 15:25:46:

Some of our historical figures understood the higher geometries, like gauss, kaluza and klien. Einstein help us to this point. Kaku is a good man with words, and help people see a world that few had understood but now we find many who do.

New models are being produced, to help us progress.

Sol
Posted by sol on June 08, 2003 at 17:42:32:

In Reply to: Silent People posted by sol on June 07, 2003 at 23:31:47:

Why the Reinmann sphere?

Higher dimension thought had to have its limits in finiteness for the math to make sense?

If you have holes in the arguement, you are in trouble?:)

Sol
Posted by sol on June 17, 2003 at 08:41:06:

In Reply to: The Boundary Conditions are Specific? posted by sol on June 08, 2003 at 17:42:32:

Soon after the work of Bolyai and Lobachevsky, others constructed models of hyperbolic geometry within Euclidean space. By renaming certain geometric objects from Euclidean space as the lines and circles, people developed systems in which all of Euclid's postulates hold except that there were infinitely many non-intersecting lines, violating the parallel postulate. These models, all isometric, verify the existence of hyperbolic geometry. As Courant and Robbins state in "What is Mathematics," "This must, eo ipso, be just as consistent as the original Euclidean geometry, because it is presented to us, seen from another point of view and described with other words, as a body of facts of ordinary Euclidean geometry."[C]

It is important to keep this evolution of the maths in mind.

Kaluza and Klein raise the understanding of movement here in ways, that many have not considered before, and from a certain perspective(what is energy in the geometrical interprpetation) and the issues have been moved forward in strings, implored in the use of the klein bottle(the basis of string theory has found its relevanceand how do we extend the point?). I have been specific in the strings length, and applied the logic most appropriately, moving to brane consideration, the function of the metric, and issues that can leave the brane( what are ripples in space).

The very movement here has been the mathmatical understanding from what I have understood, of the Calabi Yau? That by going in one hole(how did this hole come into existance and we speak about the warpage of spacetime) you move through the winding tunnels, and by following this map, the consistancy takes you through movement without runing into lines the would have impeded one's movement. I hope that made sense.

Sol

Posted by sol on June 17, 2003 at 10:05:21:

In Reply to: M Theory (What is SuperGravity) posted by sol on June 17, 2003 at 09:51:57:

I couldn't help get involve in the thinking of the worm hole, and at the same time wonder how that fabric is folded back to back, and we have found where two points have actually connected themselves.

It is extremely difficult for me to understand, what supergravity actually means, if we did not take that sphere and consider the hole in it. If we cannot consider the hole, as a function of the metric, how is the warpage of spacetime ever considered?

From the brane, there is a direct expression consideration and the only way this makes sense, if we understand the hyperbolic expression and here we take our signal from, Einstein and apply this thinking to a total pictue of M Theory?

Am I on the right track?

Sol
Posted by sol on June 17, 2003 at 09:51:57:

Have I moved the understanding forward in the logic development here?

I have no one to show me, and I am going at it without someone to lead, other then, the information that is being presented for inspection. Information that is already there.

What does this picture mean? How is it those edges can now become smooth?

This is where I am headed.

Maybe someone can help on the issue of the Reinmann sphere and the points on that sphere?

Sol

Posted by sol on June 17, 2003 at 10:53:07:

In Reply to: What is a Wormhole posted by sol on June 17, 2003 at 10:05:21:

If we have come to some understanding of supergravity, what have we said of the universe?

The bais of Hyperspace had to be understood. Why I place the link here in concern with the understanding of the Friedmann equation.

Why, is the brane, considered the bubble?

What have we learnt of the foam world and the subject of spacetime? Is their a connection? David Deutch and others( Igor) are asking us to consider the spacetime Fabric in a way we haven't before?

Here in the understanding of Supergravity, I see the dynamics of the universe and it is spelt out logically, and where have I taken our cues from?

The Reinmann sphere has been embbedded in the view of supergravity and has become M theory?

My mind is abuzz with all this information and getting it in order is of utmost importance and I look to the basis of GR and understanding of probabilistic determinations and understand what energy to mean in this vast picture of movement? I hope I am being clear here.

I am open to corrections.

Sol

Posted by sol on July 15, 2003 at 06:35:45:

In Reply to: Quanglement posted by sol on July 14, 2003 at 23:40:21:

The Advent of the Algorithm, by David Berlinski,Pg 10 Para 2,

"But no one," Leibniz continues, "has put forward a language or Universal Characteristic which embodies at the same time, both the art of discovery and the art of judgement."

As Leibniz pauses and looks up, the duke casts about for a response. He can think of absolutely nothing to say.

"If we had it," Leibniz goes on, his voice low, urgent but curiously toneless. "we would be able to reason in metaphysics or morals in much the same way as in geometry and analysis. If controversies were to arise, there would,be no more need of disputation between two philosophers then between accountants. For it would be suffice to take their pencils in hand, sit down to their slates, and say to each other(with a friend as witness, if they like): Let us Calculate."

Posted by sol on July 15, 2003 at 07:01:58:

In Reply to: The Geometry of Consciousness posted by sol on July 15, 2003 at 06:35:45:

Link to Pelastrian site(Pierre Ramonds chart[that is what you see first])Pelastrian now integrates into his model.

Grand Unification

The unification of the strong force is well beyond our reach at the present time, and the unification of gravity with the other three is out of reach for earthbound experiments. This has led to greater cooperation between high-energy particle physicists and astrophysicists as each group realizes that some of their answers can only come from the other.

Posted by sol on July 15, 2003 at 07:11:30:

In Reply to: Re: The Geometry of Consciousness posted by sol on July 15, 2003 at 07:01:58:

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/why.htm

The ? is the question of Grand unification.

I forgot to add that.

Please any corrections, as it is extremely important that this graph of Pierre Ramonds is understood.

Sol
Posted by sol on July 15, 2003 at 07:23:45:

In Reply to: Re: The Geometry of Consciousness posted by sol on July 15, 2003 at 07:11:30:

Hyperphysics site demonstration."The First Three Minutes by Steven Weinberg"

Inverse Square Law(U(1) is a geoemtric point) is very specific and so is the strings evolution geometrically.

Here we look beyond the standard model.

Sol

Posted by sol on July 15, 2003 at 07:42:13:

In Reply to: The First three Minutes posted by sol on July 15, 2003 at 07:23:45:

Knowledge has immediate consequences and so does a string.

The Fifth Element, attempts to write the algorithm, where all consequences are immediate, and belief now, has its consequence in reality.

Energy(consciousness) has direct results, and implications in the understanding of curvature. Reality accepts that ideas are born in mind, but they come from a diverse field of understanding. Remember the V, and what can moved into the mind as a idea. Mandalic interpretaions contain much information(energy)as a energy capsule, and when it arises from the subconscious, it arises from that diverse field.

Where would that collective unconscious(chaotic?) be?

Think of yourself a fisherman, and the hook that is dropped. The fish as spiritual food. There are direct consequences, of those who hold the rod, and what they will find in life, and it comes from what anyone believes.

If a string curves, so does consciousness form.

Liminocentric strucures are very important to understand.

What is U(1)?

Every geometrical point has a beginning. This has been define as a geometrical expression, and it is expansitory, and follows certain laws.

Sol
Posted by sol on July 15, 2003 at 07:48:38:

In Reply to: Re: The First three Minutes posted by moorglade on July 15, 2003 at 07:39:31:

Mooreglade ,

Like you, I am learning to define what the algorithm means, and this is part of the process of explaining,the Fifth Element and what I had asked of Tonyc. I have not heard from him for sometime.

I think you and I are learning to understand what must begin and has been written must begin from some point. Some people do not like to hear that.

Sol
Posted by sol on July 16, 2003 at 22:34:42:

In Reply to: Re: The First three Minutes posted by OsherDoctorow on July 16, 2003 at 12:28:12:

Osher,

It is a shame that we refer to subjective analyisis as only a possibility, because if we cannot reproduce this in others, what is produced in our own minds then, is not worth much more then a plum nickel(a subjective perspective:)?

A general consensus, might make it so, and reality for all intensive purposes, has those who particpate in this forum, as willing guests that interact in a reality based program, we call the Superstring forum.

Now of course, you are quite busy , and by the posts you produce, your mind seems to be very busy too:)

If we are to ever considered reality, more then, what we have confided amongst ourselves in this particpation, there is a result of having come too, a conceptual understanding of what energy does and means. Do we use it in consciousness, and by what vehicle does such a consciousness utilize this energy?

We have to ask ourselves are we indeed creating the techno base computer robot , by undertanding the extension of any idea can become the reality of the signals, that we use to produce further extensions of that idea?

Neurons and interconnecting neurons(links), that ignite pathways inside the brain, and what principles are these(beliefs) that we sit here, and find such mechanical means to symbolize our expressions?

How can strings at lower energies, speak to what is instilled in higher energies( gravity) and what is most intense, that we had not considered the extreme graviational consideration, and find ourselves understanding complex thought patterns, in a pulse(how big or how small)?

Scale here, has to be aplicable in both, and in the dimensional consideration, the Inverse Square law sets up the extent of what the gravity field, and in that field, we refer to dimensions?

I present Liminocentric structures, not because I wish to imitate, but because I found them within in my own consciousness. It is something very real. I may enlist the interpretaion of what any drawing might tell us of the individual(his/her doodlings) and what do we find represented deeper inside?

It has to arrive first from some place(Jung and the Yellow Castle, his own unique past, realize in todays world?), and all pathways are understood as posssibilties. How many unique designs, and now, as a model developes we have identified something very real in consciousness, and it has been developing all along.

Architecturally the design, expands into reality, and what string and structure speak( that it has immediate consequences). The mandalic interpretaion now recognizes that in any mind, we might have found the energy of that string bending this way and that, and we only looked at a circle with a point in it. Used it as a schematic drawing for dimensional interpretation?

There is a process within ourselves, that we use, and we use emotives parts of us, as well as the intellect to draw the pathways for which all energy will be expressed, and this is immediate?

What comes first? Emotions or the intellect and what energy will express it? Will it happen simultaneously as energy will in the determination, as in the bending of that string, that by our own recognition, such energies can be used?

Have we defined what gravity is, in what emotive sufferings have restricted the vision of, and that such world could contain the human soul to boudaries of its own existance, in self?

Hope this didn't sound like a riddle:)

Sol
Posted by sol on July 18, 2003 at 22:03:11:

In Reply to: Re: Consciousness Has to Be Understood in Oneself posted by jmgriffin on July 18, 2003 at 12:28:27:

Jon,

The next move, so to speak, is to have a certain level of creativity and imagination into things of fantasy etc. In order to think at such levels, one must think like an artist, but like a child - having a free roaming mind - delving into things never thought of before. Of course, it is more detailed but I think one would get the idea.:-)

There is a language for communicating with the mathematicians and that language is the basis for theoretical developement. I am sure the mathematicians can speak here and I do not want to labour that point, other then to say this. The physics requirement are develeopmental roads to fruitation and it remains a theory until the actual experiementations begin.

One I mention today is table top experiement on distance and what this might mean in dimension. Gravity is asssociated here.

Of course I have spent time exploring my own head, and the emotive and intellectual side of myself that I speak quite freely, yet without that basis of interpretation in anothers head, of course there is work that always needs to be done.

Spending time on this board does something in terms of assimilation, once the points we discussed are laboured over and over again by the new people that show themselves, that in time, you concretize the process in one's head.

Its like developing a attitude in life, because on the reflections, we say things to ourselves, and in time, the reality forms itself around it. It can't be help, and in this way we also concretize memory and emotive states at the time of the inflection into memory.

Now what is so hard about that?

Started reading a book today by the Dalai Lama called the Transforming Mind. He begins by defining the Tibetan term Lo-Jong, which literally means "training the mind" or "transforming the mind" which he implies requires internal discipline.

I have spent time understanding the structure of my own consciousness so I could understand just what emotives were in the understanding of feelings, not just touch, but of what is enveloped in the mind. This rules a lot of things, rules the body and rules the endocrinolgy of the system. What is the seat of the soul for some? Heart spleen, maybe the pineal gland?

The heart can beat fast in anger, but it also beats fast in inspiration. Heighted elevation is much different then just standing on a mountian and breathing thin air:)Yet the soul in its longings always looks for high places. I think there is a reason for that. It can be as simple as the difference in elevation, as I have said, and what higher means?

Does it mean better? Or does it mean we can see clearer? There is no doubt here that the thin air can cloud vision, but true to form, the view, is always very far:)

Once you move in the Z direction, the Romans in their armies have now graduated to the skies in which wars are fought today. Like I had mentioned previous, we can talk about the earth and the flatnes with which we seebut from another perspective the parallel lines are much different on this sphere we call earth.

My life has been very active in the work that I do, but I also cherish the private side, that I have studied most of my life.

It has to amount to something, and with all the data, models are built. Whether they are true to the standards of today physics, requires that any leap in the developmental field, recognizes the education it must go through first.

This has to be done, although, I have found people who are quite able to create worlds, like pelastrian, and come back to make sure the foundation is viable. Check out the many artists and and you get a sense of the vision. Some of those artists trained themselves in the understanding of dimension, and the Flatlanders are a epic now:)Some were good mathematicians, with abend to artist flare. Some were good writers, with a flare for the future.

But they all, had to understand something:)

Sol
Posted by sol on July 20, 2003 at 09:46:13:

In Reply to: Connected Consciousness posted by pelastration on July 19, 2003 at 04:45:26:

Pelastrian,

Envelope is a interesting concept, becuase it reminds me of the bubble, as well as what belief does whenyou hold to it. It encompasses all that you are and althat you think, feel.

Without these you cannot ever hope to understand what belief really is. Its just the way it is. There is conseqeunce to any position and when you envelope experience, you also provide for future realities to occur.

I once mentioned the fisher men and how what is placed at the forefront of mind definitely correpsonds to what that hook will catch, implies something very importance in the deeper part of ourselves. Some will undertand that and some won't, it all depends on where they are in their own lives.

A book read one day, can hold different meanings tomorrow, and a post read one day will hold something else tomorrow. It depends the individual.

But I would also like to move forward from the term of the transforming mind, and see what the Dalai Lama has to say, because I have journied and modelled my own self in what experience was, in definition, and what consicousnes was in terms of awareness. There are deeper parts of ourself that have recognized and require shutting down the noise, is very important.

I have learnt to operate in such a way to allow introspection, and have used music to implelled me deeper towards inpsirative links. At the same time focus, to prevail in my writing. A lot can be happening around me,and I can focus quite easily.

I have tried meditating and find the depth and intorspective value already there? How is that possible?

The Dalai Lamas words are of recognition, as I have already spoken them myself, not in the language with which he uses, but in the constructive model of apprehension awas built through that introspection.

Hope that made sense.

Sol
Posted by sol on July 18, 2003 at 22:46:04:

In Reply to: Re: Consciousness Has to Be Understood in Oneself posted by paultrr on July 18, 2003 at 20:03:12:

Paul,

perfoms many functions at a Plank level that can best be explained with concepts one encounters in quantum computer progamming.

These new computers will truly be amazing in terms of the speed of information that will travel no doubt(the complexity of information that can travel inside those computers). Actually in Japan they just created a supercomputer that can take a enormous amount of information in relation to weather, that we now have a new form of weather man, that is much more realistic.:)

The issue of simultaneity is one that we have bantered around this board for a while and there are strict rules here about simultaneity that has been transformed into the questins of entanglement. There is a historical process that has been followed here, that now such entanglements are consider viable.

Now the interesting thing is to speak to the spookiness that Einstein spoke of, and what would be spookier then having two events so far apart( my post to you) is now a issue in cryptography.

Now think of this indeed, that if any thought held had direct effects attached to it, what would be understood in the dynamical field around us?

If we had considered that any state of belief, assumes indeed, that this position will determine the future, then what would the determinations be, that any choice will have a desired result? The energy that is sent outward, is specific, in what is detailled in the longitudal and transverse waves, as oscillatory features of the missing mass:)

If the distance between any event, from our past, is directly connected, we will have undertsood that our connection is instantaneous. This link removes ten billions years of separation, and allows us to reconstruct the events then.

No we cannot not go back and change it, but we can certainly read information from our past:)We just do not know how to do that yet realistically. Someday we might adjust a tuning dial like those ole radios and find the music of change that has happened, and is being described.

I contend as well that the basis of any algorithm, will dictate the shape of any source action(energy) that is sent outwards can hold information, and realistically be reconstructed geometrically, as the geometrics of that historical time now being deplored.( the reverse of today is yesterday), and in Penroses map, the reality is that when ones sphere moves, the other does as well, only opposite(spin orientations).

Sol

Posted by sol on May 15, 2003 at 17:21:38:

In Reply to: Cryptography Under neath the Qubit Language? posted by sol on May 12, 2003 at 07:10:32:

A link Doc supplied in the other thread.

The questions raised by Doc on entanglement, have been a interesting journey for me in trying to comprehend this.
____________________________________________________

Einstein's Simultaneity

So under this heading then:

1.GHZ entanglement
2.Penroses simultaneity( a new language)
3.Einstein's simultaneity
4.Aspect and others
5. Spooky at Any Speed(Focus article) link brought by Mooreglade

The principal here that must be understood is what is revealed of energy. If a string is energy, and energy curves, where ever we see a string, a string curves. The deifnition of the Harmonic oscillator defines no singularity, but recognizes the nergy of any particle?

In this case energy implies, curvature and a particle?

Sorry for the inuadation of the links, but I can come back to this post for references ,and move forward from here.

Sol

Posted by sol on December 24, 2002 at 10:47:44:

In Reply to: Einsteins Simultaniety posted by sol on December 24, 2002 at 10:32:49:

http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/webseminars/hartle60/2-penrose/032-frame.html
Posted by sol on December 24, 2002 at 10:32:49:

In Reply to: M Physics 21: Pair Production / Pair Annihilation Invalidated SR's Equation? posted by kx21 on December 23, 2002 at 14:51:18:

Kx21,

It was important to understand this evolution and roots, to have better understood the value of this historical progression. You will find the posts correspond quite nicely to the articles that I have moved this discussion through a sequence of events.

It began with Einstein, and today, we have a interesting question about photon splitting, the sum of its parts, and about, what information could have existed. How such distances, can have been removed to have least time principle at the heart of science today?

For me to understand this progression, it was necessary to understand this history, gives us a good understanding of that standard model, the force carriers and their role in how we might have understood this progression.

What does strings have to do with all this and Dickt summation on Dirac to Superstring theory, is a basis from which to work. There is a lot in between, that one must visit Einstein and the Reinmann sphere and what is of value in geometrical expression and the dimensional significance.

Penrose now raises a understanding about the value of spin we did not have before?

Superstring theory answers this value of Einstein, in simultameity, that the Bell Theorem now handles quite nicely. We have those who like the Aton Zielinger, with the Aspect experiments allowed us to speak to this, as well as Holt Shimony and Chuaser. I am sure I have missed many people that we have not understood this historical, necessary as well.

Sol
Dark Matter has Been Proven ( Hyperspace Dynamics ) Dec. 29/Jan. 5 issue - With its talk of space-time and cosmic microwave backgrounds, astrophysics has a tendency to sound like sci-fi. But 2003 made it clear that the truth was stranger than even that kind of fiction. Take Science magazine's Breakthrough of the Year�the confirmation of "dark energy" and "dark matter" lurking in the vast void of space. It's a major, fundamental development in physics, the discovery of the very stuff that makes up the overwhelming majority of our universe. The kinds of ordinary particles we're all familiar with�electrons and protons and such�make up only 4 percent of known matter. The rest is either dark matter or dark energy. But there's still so little known about those exotic entities that the very concept is able to flummox even the editor who anointed it the year's biggest Big Idea. Told that a journalist had some basic questions about dark matter and energy, Science editor in chief Donald Kennedy responded, "Join the club." (In all fairness, the guy's a biologist.) I think if it is understood, how the dynamics are involved, and how beautiful the movements are, have we then not come to understand the issues of Hyperspace? What does the Casimere plates tell us about such movements? Ordinary Particles Only Make up 4%... ...and dark energy and matter make up 96%? You have to understand what links them both I guess:) From this one gets the sense of the dynamical nature of such movements, with particle appearances ( discrete structures ), and such. If the understanding is recognized, then it becomes apparent, that geometrical consideration, has to be implored in the issue of First Principles, as popping in and out, of reality. From: [email protected] (sol) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Hyperspace has been Revealed? NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.188.209.112 Message-ID: <[email protected]> I think if it is understood, how the dynamics are involved, and how beautiful the movements are, have we then not come to understand the issues of Hyperspace? http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@@.1dde72fd http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/socboard/messages6/376.html Posted by sol on December 30, 2003 at 12:42:26:

Dark Matter has Been Proven ( Hyperspace Dynamics )

What is the next step and how would strings apply?:)

Sol

From: [email protected] (sol) Newsgroups: sci.physics.research Subject: Dark Matter has Been Proven ( Hyperspace Dynamics ) NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.188.209.112 Message-ID: <[email protected]> I was just wondering if there was any signifance to what is being explained here? http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/socboard/messages6/376.html Sol

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws