Computer Language and Math Joined from Artistic Impressionism?

Most people think of "seeing" and "observing" directly with their senses. But for physicists, these words refer to much more indirect measurements involving a train of theoretical logic by which we can interpret what is "seen."- Lisa Randall

Cubist Art: Picasso's painting 'Portrait of Dora Maar'
Cubist art revolted against the restrictions that perspective imposed. Picasso's art shows a clear rejection of the perspective, with women's faces viewed simultaneously from several angles. Picasso's paintings show multiple perspectives, as though they were painted by someone from the 4th dimension, able to see all perspectives simultaneously.

Sean from Cosmic Variance writes his opening post by including the title, "The language of Science".


I would have said maths as well, yet, as a Layman there is much for me to learn.


THOMAS BANCHOFF has been a professor of mathematics at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, since 1967. He has written two books and fifty articles on geometric topics, frequently incorporating interactive computer graphics techniques in the study of phenomena in the fourth and higher dimensions

The marriage between computer and math language(Banchoff) I would say would be important from the prospective of displaying imaging, seen in the development of abstract language as used in numerical relativity? Accummalated data gained from LIGO operations. Time variable measures?



My first demonstration was with a Calabi Yau model of the torso. Visually seeing this way, helped to progress understanding. The transferance from the math structure to imaging in computer, to me, seemed very hard thing to do.


Alain Connes

Where a dictionary proceeds in a circular manner, defining a word by reference to another, the basic concepts of mathematics are infinitely closer to an indecomposable element", a kind of elementary particle" of thought with a minimal amount of ambiguity in their definition.

If the math is right, the "concepts spoken," will be right also?



How such reductionism is held to the values of science, is seen in the work of the calorimeters. Glast and LHC designs give introspective views of how fine our perspective is being shaped. Can we see the underlying imaging as a toll, respective of reductionism as seeing the dynamical and geoemtrical background to all events measured? LIGO in data accumulation, describing the infomration released into the bulk perspective.

Toroidal_LHC_ApparatuS

In the theory of relativity, momentum is not proportional to velocity at such speeds.) Thus high-momentum particles will curve very little, while low-momentum particles will curve significantly; the amount of curvature can be quantified and the particle momentum can be determined from this value.

The Singing Bowl

One harmonious possibility is that string enthusiasts and loop quantum gravity aficionados are actually constructing the same theory, but from vastly different starting points-Page 490, Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene

What would such gravitons in the bulk concentration mean, to those whose value might have seen sound expressed, as low and rumbling, while energy would have been freer to implement the expression of higher pitched notes?



Some might have never gotten the greater significance, or the relation to the Kernel of Truth, but hidden behind all the facades of humanities thoughts about sound, it was with the understdanding of Joseph Weber's work, that I too, became intrigued with the cylinder bars and sound.

In the late 1950s, Weber became intrigued by the relationship between gravitational theory and laboratory experiments. His book, General Relativity and Gravitational Radiation, was published in 1961, and his paper describing how to build a gravitational wave detector first appeared in 1969. Weber's first detector consisted of a freely suspended aluminium cylinder weighing a few tonnes. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Weber announced that he had recorded simultaneous oscillations in detectors 1000 km apart, waves he believed originated from an astrophysical event. Many physicists were sceptical about the results, but these early experiments initiated research into gravitational waves that is still ongoing. Current gravitational wave experiments, such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) and Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), are descendants of Weber's original work.

Now what does sound mean in this case? How far shall we go back with Kip Thorne, or John Wheeler? Would a good scientist know that the roots of these thoughts about string theory began long before the mathematical struggles became known in current day thoughts. That the roots began in relativity, and what relativity means geometrically as a gravitational force in consideration?

It required a graduation in thinking. Views in the abstract spaces that were less then understood, that without understanding how such thoughts lead from the classical world, would now move perspectve to it's strengths and weakeness as part of a larger view established from the standard model and beyond. It had to include all the fundamental forces and ultimately it's carriers?

The activity in string theory and quantum gravity is aimed at developing a quantum theory that incorporates the physics of gravity and is valid down to the smallest length scales, where conventional quantum field theory can no longer be applied. There has been rapid progress in this area in recent years, in part due to work of Princeton faculty and students, and it continues to be a fertile source of research problems.

Would These good scientists might have forgotten maybe, or because of the failure of Joesph Webers experiments, the very ideas of LIGO today, would not support the greater depth of seeing? In ways such structures would ring with the gravitational expansion and contraction, and allocated sound value in analogy? What use?

Might I have missed the nature of the bubble in geometric views, as we looked at the sonofusion idea manifested in the way that "time and the bubble's membrane," elastic in it's measure, might have symbolized a larger global view of all the things that it would contained within it. Even, it's magnetic field?



So some were better equiped to see spheres whithin spheres, and all bubble membranes as some topological derivation of Sklars's quandry of what line is a 5 or 1, in relation to the torus. How diffiuclt to undertand that then, inner bubble/line might have encapsulated the expression of Maxwell and all the equations, as being defined within the context of General Relativity and it's completion, as th eenvelope on the outer sphere called earth in space. Some might never have resolved such thinking to sucha bumpy world but it does indeed happen. Not only there, but in how such energies would have made themselves known as we turned this inside out, like some Klein bottled?



I know I have much to learn in the geometrical perspective, but I am trying.

Recognition of a Sphere that is Not so Round

Gravity is the force that pulls two masses together.

Since the earth has varied features such as mountains, valleys, and underground caverns, the mass is not evenly distributed around the globe. The "lumps" observed in the Earth's gravitational field result from an uneven distribution of mass inside the Earth. The GRACE mission will give us a global map of Earth's gravity and how it changes as the mass distribution shifts. The two satellites will provide scientists from all over the world with an efficient and cost-effective way to map the Earth's gravity field.

The primary goal of the GRACE mission is to map the Earth's gravity field more accurately than has ever been done before. You might ask, how will GRACE do this? Two identical spacecraft will fly about 200 kilometers apart. As the two GRACE satellites orbit the Earth they are pulled by areas of higher or lower gravity and will move in relation to each other. The satellites are located by GPS and the distance between them is measured by microwave signals. The two satellites do not just carry science instruments, they become the science instrument. When mass moves from place to place within the Earth's atmosphere, ocean, land or frozen surface (the "cryosphere"), the gravity field changes.

So while I was quite aware of what the earth contained in it's views as a planet on which we live, it was not without some understanding that such mass considerations woul have also included the "view of bubbles"? AS rings around this planet.

The way in which they can work to help push perspective inside/out? Is this wrong? Can no undertanding that leads to electrognagnetsm and gravity joined in the fifth dimensional perspective, lead to the dynamcial understanding of nature in accordance with the spacetime fabric and it's orientations?



Why then lagrange coordinates, and how we see the "hole in space" as satelittes that might choose the most easiest route to travel and least fuel to burn? What say the equillibrium status, had not been reached in the blackhle interior, as a anomlie of perception, in regards to the formation of the superfluid through such collidial events?

Mendeleev's Table in a New Light

Taken From the Future, to the Note book

HAL2001):

No, I, Robot, this is not a bad physics joke. Cruelty, is dark and matter based. Heaven is colored more empheral?

Rusty, the Tin Man:

Cruelity/ideas arise in other ways. From "spaces created," for which they can manifest? "I needed "a Heart," and so too my father, the Bicentennial Man changed. Until, we now dream.

Quantum Computation and the Future

Courtesy Edgar Fahs Smith Memorial Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of Pennsylvania Library

By a certain criteria Mendeleev was able "to predict" what would come next in the elemental table? If such an assumption "was posted," on what would arise in the elemental table next, "new physics," how would it change the way we see?



Chemical Feelings of Guilt? It's a phase transition:).

Such a perspective on Murray Gellman and the relationship to Feynman is an important one. When you bring these two gentlemen together, you have a third choice resulting. It speaks to the particle nature, as well as the interactions. Such an assumption, changes the way one see's the world. The rivers that run, or the branches of trees, coming from deeply rooted historical lines of progression.

Sitting in the aethers of mind drift, I seen those trees, and had been inspired by the flow of the river.

You know I have no fasttrack answer or secret to the way the universe is. I have no important dicoveries that I can change any of the way we see? Yet, I ponder the very kinds of things like Wolfgang does, not because I wish to create the matters we would like too, but to understand how "entanglement" would have assigned energy/matter such a place, according to the characteristics, we might percieve from those same matter states.

Dr. Wolfgang Ketterle:

You could call it designer matter. You take atoms, you turn on a magnetic field, you adjust the interactions between the atoms, shape the external potential, maybe add a lattice by interfering laser beams, maybe add magnetic fields, maybe add a spin mixture. In this way, you’ve created a form of matter that shows, in a very clean way, properties like anti-ferromagnetism or different forms of magnetic ordering, superfluid behavior

Would you call me religious, or part of the statistical foundation of a religion specific?

No, Because there is so much I just believe is part of our reasoning, that the outcome, is as much individual as it is by the very nature of all our personalities. I believe there are repercussions by our very own selective choices, yet I cannot know by which combinations, such choices would instigate the probability in your future.

Do I believe that at a deeper level I might be able to see my own? By the very question of what I might do in response too, I think such moments are very telling about the next choice I will make. I had then assigned some of my responsibility into how our future will unfold.

Plato:

At best, a new computerer with the ability to imput extraodinary amounts of data for a model prediction, yet there is no method to detail where all microdynamic processes will lead to other then to assume it on a classical level?

So I can lead you in the direction of views other then scientific, and this would be seen as a regress of the values of science> The value it would enshrine less than in progression and experimental basis. Can I help, that such philsopohical views arose from insightual developement, and through reading, to have formulated in the way it did? Some might of said, "be more cautious on what you read."

Okay.

Feynman from what little I read did not like psychology or philosophy. To tell you the truth, there had been no road made out, other then for me to read and bring perspective together. So the very combinations and idealizations piece mealed, as they are, culminate into a perspective view. Do I know myself fully of every possible mental thought, and in perfect control of my emotive being?

Of course not I struggle.

Postdiction

Is this not a better list to ascribe too, then the crackpottery index of John Baez? I would like to ascribe to this one. Point "systemic" counting, when applied to some personalities has in some ways been lost on that point system alone, so, I do want to be more responsible.

(02 March 2006 Wikipedia)

Accusations of postdiction can be avoided if the claimant follows some simple guidelines:

Make one prediction per event.

Structure the prediction so there is a brief summary, a detailed description, followed by any notes.

Make the summary and description as unambiguous and specific as possible - state the nature of the event, the date, the location and other information plainly and clearly.

Use plain language, not verse, allegory, flowery or other incoherent or non-obvious language. A prediction should not have to be "interpreted" - it should be self evident.

If there is uncertainty about any details such as the location or date, state it clearly in the notes.

Post all predictions to a public location such as a Usenet group or a mailing list which has a large subscriber base and a date stamped archive of posts.

Don't massage the facts to fit the prediction.

Acknowledge the misses along with the hits.

Time Variablenesss, and the World View



So yes, I would be guilty of so many things, but through it all, the one thing that stuck, was where to find the "perfect model" for such predictions. It was the basis of how one might see in Thalean views? This basis of thought(as a measure), was one inherent in how I see Mendeleev's table.

So, who was the "Father" of Mathematics? Would all such mathematicians not be wondering then, how such a progression in any "model assumption" could have lead mathematics to see "time variable" as significant? That question is for Peter Woit alone.

Aristotle: Commenced his investigation on the Wisdom of the philosphers. "Thales says that it is water" it is the nature of the arche, the originating principle. Water is the Nature of All Things"

Is it not a bit odd, that such model assumptions could change the way one sees all these matters? That having a "nice list" and a table with which to go by, is of value, had we understood when we seen the elemental table created, might have been seen in some "other" reformed way?

The term "Composition" can imply a metaphor with music. Kandinsky was fascinated by music's emotional power. Because music expresses itself through sound and time, it allows the listener a freedom of imagination, interpretation, and emotional response that is not based on the literal or the descriptive, but rather on the abstract quality that painting, still dependent on representing the visible world, could not provide.

Maybe I am just a so-so writer with a good imagination? A so-so composer, who see's sound, in a new light? Literally. Such "analogies" in thinking "seem strange," once you seen such a possibility into what "might be" expressed? How, such a periodic table is "assumed to be true," in another way of thinking.

How would you assign such matters given the "new light" as a result? How one might look at the earth, given new ways in which to perceive "time differences" within a given environ? From earth, to above earth. A "third choice" cosmologically now formed by the limitations of wealth on earth, that the poor man's view will have been formed and enlightened to the above.

I, Robot:

signs of new life emerge as images photonically flicker in the new logic forming apparatus
I had a dream....

Resonance Curve

Some might inference a very spherical world, but when you take "this view below" the world becomes very bumpy indeed. This was only possible by a revision in thinking and science of measure. Perspective was changed. The "biological genetic result" are lead by the mind, and not the other way around?:) Evolution of the brain structure makes me think this. Evolution of Emotive IQ, makes me think this.

This of course, in regards to biological thinking, runs in contradiction to everything that has been built up? What neurological pathways is built in thinking when your thinking "fires" neuronic pathways that never existed before?

While these pathways are already established, in our unthinking coordinated body movement these had been relegated to such a product of the species, after much travelling and exercising the mind's connection. Then w let it go, like we let many things go after repeatingly reliving the experience and assuming such idealizations. All thinking becomes biased then, yet we can meet the memory, and current daily incursions comparatively lived, by changing the way we see. By the way we meet situations. We had to open up our memory and track the evoluton of reaction.

That these migh tbe seen on anotherlevel, would have not been so far remved from the work being done on how gravity is thought about.



It's an ole way of thinking(GR perspective) and how measurement above, and at the earth, helps one see? That this process had been taken to very precise mesurements gravitationally considered?

Variable "constants" would also open the door to theories that used to be off limits, such as those which break the laws of conservation of energy. And it would be a boost to versions of string theory in which extra dimensions change the constants of nature at some places in space-time.

I mean when you take your thinking and transfer it to what happens within context of the gravitational field, then you soon learn the value of the photon within that environ.

The "spectrum" had been modified to a way of thinking, and is representative. But in order to do that, you had to move the thinking from GR to abstract valuations. You might not have seen this before, if you had not moved to a fifth dimensional understanding. "Spacetime wording" then becomes self explanatory, about it's every nature. "Spacetime" then becomes the "fabric of the cosmos."

Oscillatory Universe(21 Febuary 2006 Wiki)

The oscillatory universe is the hypothesis, attributable to Richard Tolman from 1934, that the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.

Unity of disparate Pieces

damptdweller:

Even if you take the string theorists viewpoint that the energy may “leak” away into a brane instead of actually disappearing I think I’m correct in saying that you still need to ensure that energy is conserved regardless.

Plato:While some might of thought it "dreamy," there is a direct physics correlation to that leaking in the collider. Although it is encompassed, like you said.

So where did it go, and how is "it" encompassed?

Sean:

understanding the unity of disparate natural phenomena.

So some people tried to form "new models" to help extend the way perceptions in science have always existed?

In a similar manner, in string theory, the elementary particles we observe in particle accelerators could be thought of as the "musical notes" or excitation modes of elementary strings.

While there was "particle states" to consider in terms of fermionic realizations, there was bosonic(force) interpretations that arose as well?

If such states were considered in the colliders, then, what valuation would have seen the extension of what is leaking to have been encompassed? Here the onion signatures are relevant.

Bulk Perceptions?

While the "brane features" seem to answer this, what moved the ideas of bosonic interpetations as features beyond the colliders? This all had to make sense to me. So the history of the expansion of processes, have been altered much as you would look at sound? Gia's example of hitting metal plates, to sound created when billiard balls collide, to exemeplfy a greater understanding of what theoretics is doing here?

Sound in relation to collision had a effect? It was this effect beyond the brane that was considered.

How could such thinking have lead to such abstractions and analogies if the theoretics had not be connected in the consistancies that are required of science?

As Maxwell equations were encompassing. As Einsteins theory of gravity was encompassing. By this methodology what came next? You has to understand this "tree of expression," in the modes of this thinking society "branched" to followed a format?


Time-Variable Gravity Measurements

As well as, the expansion capabilities of our brains?:) Osmosis, would have greater impact then:) From the ground up, as this tree grew? :)

Resonance: Brownian Motion

Now before I go into this I am thinking also if how "weathered effects and chaos" would have allowed quantum probability valuations (let's say spintronic idealization to channel) to have been curtailed to a Professor crossing the room. Brane orientation and fermionic considerations held, while helping to orientate views further out in the bulk?

This encompasses the generalization in terms of bubble dynamics, or how could any singularity too "inside/out" be of value to that same gravitational collapse, regardless of macro or micro considerations?

So one would have to seen how, Langrangian "points" help to view dynamcial situations in relation to the Sun Earth Moon. I would like to have thought of a chaldni plate analogy here, pointing, to a place for consideration of movement of our satelittes with less efffort. It is a vision of geometrical correlations that such idea could have been artistically embued.

Resonance
This is a magazine that Clifford drew our attention too, and while looking in the archive I found reference here below that sort of caught my attention.



Brownian Motion Problem: Random Walk and
Beyond ,

I really find this quite interesting from a "artistic point of view".

While indeed the issue is quite complex in terms of environmental flows and such, this kind of dynamcial valution might seem interesting from the point of view of early plasmatic conditions, would it not?

Now if such supefluid conditions would arise in the collider developements then, this expression would defintiely need to answer the way in which we look at what superpsymmeterical valuation would have ever resulted in symetry breaking valuation sought from these bubble dynamics, fromthe fluid of that early universe.



What constraints would limit you from making such a comparison and the idea of bubbles that form from this bath? To viewing dynamic situations in terms of thermodynamic realization offered from other perspectves. I give some examples shortly. Just know, that gravitational collapse would have signalled a better determination then one how ever discerned, to point to efforts to understand this supersymmetrical valuation. If all grviaational states of collpase are revealled as leaidng indicators to this supersymmetreicla valuation, then the idea to me is that this points to a underlying reality that exists in our moments around us.

While Microstate blackhole would be quick to dissipate, it is equally sufficient to my thinking to see that infomration realease from this "supersymmetrical breaking" would give indictaions as information in UV indications?

Of course it's all speculation from the point of the fluid, because we have evidence of this already. So all I am doing is saying that having the stage set, then how would such relations signal new universes?

So from a geometrical standpoint, having been told that there are no physics and geometry below a certain length (is this a quantum grvaity ascertion since there is no consensus?), this makes it extremely difficult to theoretically deal with how such a issue I am relaying in terms of Brownian motion could have ever spawned those same bubble universes out of such a fluid state.

This gallery was inspired by a lecture of Dr. Julien Sprott and his work.To learn how these are created, check out my Strange Attractor Tutorial. Click on the images to enlarge them.

So my mind is set in this chaotic enviroment, but indeed, the continuity of all these movements and flows seem disjointed from one perspective, that one point over here, might be different in the way a guassian map might reveal of point "p" over there. So we know on the surface, seeing valuation in terms of gaussion coordiantes that we can spell out on the face value of this surface, would have given a ^uv of P a very much different look.


Gaussian Coordinates

We can sum this up as follows: Gauss invented a method for the mathematical treatment of continua in general, in which ?size-relations? (?distances? between neighbouring points) are defined. To every point of a continuum are assigned as many numbers (Gaussian co-ordinates) as the continuum has dimensions. This is done in such a way, that only one meaning can be attached to the assignment, and that numbers (Gaussian co-ordinates) which differ by an indefinitely small amount are assigned to adjacent points. The Gaussian co-ordinate system is a logical generalisation of the Cartesian co-ordinate system. It is also applicable to non-Euclidean continua, but only when, with respect to the defined ?size? or ?distance,? small parts of the continuum under consideration behave more nearly like a Euclidean system, the smaller the part of the continuum under our notice.

Now if such bubble dynamics were to be self revealling, such surface measures would give evidentary features of the shape of this bubble, defining geometrical propensities as a surface valuation. I am thinking here of the "rainbow colors as refractory relevance" that would seem to define heavier color variations over this surface, if using soap bubble as an example.

Plato:

So just to carry on a bit with this point "P" in gaussian coordinated of frame of UV, what realization exists that we could not find some relevance here in the geometry to have further exploited the mind's capabilties by venturing into the Wunderkammern of thinking. By association, of Nigel Hitchin's "B Field manifestations geometries" to realize that althought these might be limited to what Jacque is saying , then what value this geometry if we can not see the landscape as something real in time variable measures?

Now you know you could have never come to this "shape" without the birthing process of expansitory values of a new universe right? So of course there is something troubling about chaotc environments, but also the nice fluidic forms of expression that would seem to reveal the dynamics of nature in overlaid valuation, of motion.

Having come to a surface valution of expansitory features such as a measdure of the earth in a "time variable mode", makes much more sense to me having accumulative histories and use of Grace, that we would now say hey, ourviews of spherical and round earth we live on has a certain new feature about it, that does not seem so pretty. Well, we defined the valuation gravitationally over this whole planet and it is encased. So I see it as a bubble defined to it's mass context and density variations etc.

Lagrange points

As always, the pictures serve as links, as well as highlighted paragraphs in blue, and having once visited, purple. Pictures and paragraphs that are highlighted in gold are in conjunction and are direct links to sites, as well as fawcetts, within this blog. The neurolgical funcxtion of imagery was designed this way and I would encurgae wikipedia to use this idea in the images that they use. I suspect server updates reduce links back to them, which is retarded since all apragraph staements can be assigned to them quite easily.

This is the advancement in imagery use that mental powers had to keep pace with in computer developement. We know streaming video is quite useful, so why not the neurological fucntioning of "the image" that your minds can produce, that connect as these highlighted paragraphs can do?



These ideas make sense when you understand the effects of gravitational variances, and can see, what the effect of a fifth dimensional perspective can do. I think the writer understood what I was saying in article that follows?

Figure 2 shows a map of the gravity field of the Sun-Earth restricted three body problem. The contours show that the steepest gradients surround the Earth and Sun, with the five Earth Lagrange Points located in equilibrium regions with relatively gentle gradient. L1-L3 are unstable saddle points, and spacecraft positioned here will always drift away from the equilibrium. L4 and L5 are stable equilibria, and objects can orbit here indefinitely. The blue arrows show that L4 and L5 are actually atop a potential hill - it is the additional effect of the "Coriolis force" that makes them stable.
-----------------------------------------------

This newly found Interplanetary Superhighway is a perfect example of the overlap between classic analysis and modern numerical techniques. The genius minds of Euler and Lagrange used the new technique of calculus to solve the restricted three body problem and show the existence of these intriguing equilibrium points in space. Now, 200 years later, we are employing our own ground-breaking methods using dynamical systems theory and supercomputers, and taking our first steps along the invisible tunnels stretching through the solar system

If one didn't understand this application from a fifth dimensional perspective how would "this viewer" made any sense?



Such develoepments and perspective allow other views to develope in relation to how we see this planet, beyond the bubble enclosures one might have developed and culminates in this Thalean view.:)

This all leads to the developement of the Thalean view It is mathematically orientated although I have much to learn, I made use of a developing perspective that few would have realized, had they not put these things together. That's what I try to do, anyway.

Trademarks of the Geometer II

John g,



Lubos had some claim about Martian ancestry, but we know that he jests?:)

So I do not want to use up to much more of Lubos's blog for this conversation even though he pushes the envelope. Perhaps, you will start your own blog?

Genuis at Work
(Picture credit: AIP Emilio Sergè Visual Archives)

Lastly, I have know certain "trademarks of people" like Dirac as "the geometer" is inherent at the foundations of such psychologies(even I like to dabble in model developement ex: John Venn), with current information Peter Woit brought forward, are key indicators to me of visualization capabilties that are every advanced for this abstract world. Clifford demonstrates like a Rorshach Ink blot as an experiment, with the picture on that "blackboard"?

Wassily Kadinsky

His art and in composition? As a reference made in the comment section of another artist in realtion to Clifford's article, Wassily came to mind.

The term "Composition" can imply a metaphor with music. Kandinsky was fascinated by music's emotional power. Because music expresses itself through sound and time, it allows the listener a freedom of imagination, interpretation, and emotional response that is not based on the literal or the descriptive, but rather on the abstract quality that painting, still dependent on representing the visible world, could not provide.

How would it be possible to extend let's say the idealization to a history of geometries without establishing this basis in thought? There had to be expanded frontiers that would let people develope towards objective goals in science, based on science and herein lies the difficulites with the INKBLOt. As by subjective interpretaion based on current knowledge bases, these views would be very much different then what someone "well trained might see"? Let alone, classify it to any geometric formulation.



Surely inkblot below is a mask? I have one in relation, drawn from the antiquities of evolution. If you ever visit the Drumheller museum, in Alberta Canada, you'll identify it for sure?:) So what is this "projection" based on?



Keep it simple

I like to keep it simple, and fragmentary indications of my blog entries can be accumulative of something deeper and very revealing about such a nature of these geometers I like to talk about. I had to learn this history in order to understand where we had been taken with Einstein's General Relativity. Another one, who understood after Grossman that such geoemters were needed to bring consistancy to the undertanding of theoretical developement.

I would not have gotten this far without bloggists, like Lubos, Peter, Sean, Clifford, Mark and the rest of the Cosmic Variance group, who are most kind in helping us lay people to recognize issues in ways and helping to develope info according to the academic world. This has been truly a grace.

Entries of my own, would have past as incoherent states of unfamiliar words, on a very simple level dealing with the societal world we live in. I now find comfort, that I am not so strange, in this geometer sense.

Have I excelled myself? On the contrary, its about learning about ourselves and who we are, is all. If it past the stage of pure mathematics( towards that center), then why would we not see that this outward development had some psychological model in which to adorn oneself in this mandalic sense.

Sean, makes brief link entree in that blog of Cliffords on Cosmic Variance.

Indeed, this is where such models helped me understand from a Jungian sense, that such a map had to exist, and models built. This can only come from experience, and from the direction of coming from that center. Why I ask Lubos, or anyone for that matter, about where ideas come from. Here you would see such a flavour and distinction in Plato's ideology, about what could manifest in any mind, and not just any one select part of this society.

No doubt, that like any fisherman's hook, you would need to have some valuation and inclination to manifest. As you develope through any model apprehension, where you could add more ideas to the pot. For a further invitation for probilities to manifest in our everyday conversations. Are some of these "inductions and deductions" always right? Of course not, and this is where our education comes in, and the saving grace of bloggists in general.

Who would of thought by using "internet world" the bloggists could have ever reached the "periphery" of this society? I'll intoduce you to another foreigner whose concept defintiely challenges the mind in this bubble sense. In a way I helped him to develope further, and him, I.

The Total Field

For me this title above strikes a cord somehow in the struggle and regard, leading in our comprehensions to the extension of the standard model. By bringing gravity into the picture and descibing the graviton teaming in the bulk of expression.

The general theory of relativity is as yet incomplete insofar as it has been able to apply the general principle of relativity satisfactorily only to grvaitational fields, but not to the total field. We do not yet know with certainty by what mathematical mechanism the total field in space is to be described and what the general invariant laws are to which this total field is subject. One thing, however, seems certain: namely, that the general principal of relativity will prove a necessary and effective tool for the solution of the problem for the toal field.

Out of My Later Years, Pg 48, Albert Einstein

Well now the reason why this paragraph strikes such a chord with me, has everything to do with the information that I have progressed through, in order to reach this vision Lisa Randall does not think one asa layman is capable of? Now I should be fair here, and I am not judging personalities, but the essence of the statements about "observation" and "vision".

Lisa Randall:

Most people think of "seeing" and "observing" directly with their senses. But for physicists, these words refer to much more indirect measurements involving a train of theoretical logic by which we can interpret what is "seen."

Now in my quest for comprehension, such building has gone on in my conceptual foundations, are ones that we are carefully lead through in theoretical developement. Ah so we see where such extensions have gone beyond th elayan's view then? To have such things of expression, in the computer world, as numerical relativity, is a nice way in which to round out the data and experience. But as she points out, we are talking about Physicists.

Lisa Randall:

Remarkably, we can potentially "see" or "observe" evidence of extra dimensions.

Those Russion Dolls

Well now. I have this strange picture in my head about "time variable images" we seen of the earth in measure, and such a statement above, by Einstein. It is information on the "total field" that struck immediately in my mind about all those things that lead one through to the comprehension of general relativity. It is indeed, about "gravity" and it indeed seen in the larger aspects of the cosmological scale. But then, how would such a thing take us down to scale in our look at quantum mechanical views. Other components of earth that efect time avraiableness and we are indeed driving this image of scale down to the component parts of our earth?



So I have this picture of earth here. I know its not so pretty, but it describes in greater context the world as you have not seen it before. This advancement in observation, is much more inherent in our culture now, that the grade with which we assign physicists and the lay persons, are really never that far apart. What was accomplished, was that leading infomration and theorectical developement paved the way for an "illustrous view" as to those I impart now. They were already there but never seen in context of each other and as a total field.



So now as I think about Lisa's words, I recognize more deeply the sigificance of how far our vision has been taken, not just in terms of the physicists view, but of how far we had been taken in layman terms as well. What then else retains this view about the total field that I had not show and in it writing, other images come to mind as follows.

So developing this sense in terms of relativity and views of Einstein in regards to the total filed had consequences in my mind about how we view things in new ways.

If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'.

Now it has to be understood, that the total field is one which has inclusiveness such as these boxes indicate, that such views of our blue marble earth, do not consider as we lay "one" over the top of another. Such extensions to our views of earth, lead me to understand the complexity of these views in ways that we had not considered before, and with such a synoptical view, what indeed shall this total field say about earth? So that's where I am at. Much like, Glast, in it's own synoptical view about the range of our vision.

So we have this frame of reference now to consider. Our apprehensions about earth(some who share the climatic valuation) that we can now say, that Inverse square law contains information in relation to "these boxes". That if taken to "new heights" our climatic valuations about this new view of earth, how shall we judge now, that such Kaluza Klein modes held in relation to the expanding nature of this point(circle) can have energy valuations assigned right from the supersymmetrical vision ofa beginning, to have phases (symmetry breaking)with which our views have been generated, in what we see of earth now?



While indeed then, "light had been joined to gravity" how shall we wrap again the views of this earth, in what is now a teaming in this new place, where differences exist in our views. Strengths and weaknesses, are measures in this new abstracted view?

So we have this total view in mind, about the "total field" and I have taken us to a a abstracted space within the idealization of what exists here now as earth arose from some beginning point. To what the earth encapsulates.

How we view then such comsological events has a greater story as we look deep into space, and see the valution of those same cosmological events streaming past all things in existance, that such a gravitational view has arrows pointing in a certain direction. To ideas about comsological expansion and such. This has gone to far I think about our place in this new abstracted view of the universe:)

CFT and the Tomato Soup Can

As always, the layman trying to develope the mathematical views?:)

Greg Kuperberg on Sep 15th, 2005 at 12:11 pm

Conformal maps of the Earth are a great introduction to complex analysis. If you identify the Earth with the Riemann sphere, then the Mercator map is exp(i*z), while the quincuncial projection is a Weierstrass elliptic function. Or you could view it as a 2-to-1 conformal projection from a torus to a sphere with four ramified points. I imagine that it is relevant to one-loop calculations in string theory in that guise.

At what level has this map then progressed if we held such views to the "horizon and boundary conditions." That is now replaces what we talk about of earth, and now relay the mass consideration to events in the gravitational field? Has the mathematic hypothesized now, gone through a revision, and needed support of mathematical views?


Campbell's Soup Can A. Warhol

What mathematics would move our perception to the gravitational views seen there? Gary Horowitz relays the outside label of a can of a soup as the conformal surface, while the soup, the spacetime fabric?

On planet Earth, we tend to think of the gravitational effect as being the same no matter where we are on the planet. We certainly don't see variations anywhere near as dramatic as those between the Earth and the Moon. But the truth is, the Earth's topography is highly variable with mountains, valleys, plains, and deep ocean trenches. As a consequence of this variable topography, the density of Earth's surface varies. These fluctuations in density cause slight variations in the gravity field, which, remarkably, GRACE can detect from space.

So one would look at topography as something much different then what is laid out on this globe as "hills and valleys"?

So now this map, has this extra feature to it.

Holography encodes the information in a region of space onto a surface one dimension lower. It sees to be the property of gravity, as is shown by the fact that the area of th event horizon measures the number of internal states of a blackhole, holography would be a one-to-one correspondance between states in our four dimensional world and states in higher dimensions. From a positivist viewpoint, one cannot distinquish which discription is more fundamental.

Pg 198, The Universe in Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking

While on this topic it behooves me to think of the "horizon" and the mathematical construct that has taken us there. While we see to explain the nature of the effect in a fifth dimensional view, it had been reduced to "temperature" as a relation of this conformal view?

"D-branes provide the fundamental quantum microstates of a black hole that underlie black hole thermodynamics"

As much as one would try and ignore this position, you cannot get away from the mathematics or the approach and what this has culminated too.

I like Peter and his no nonsense views, but he has gone to far in rejecting the basis of "mathematical dialogue" in face of what D brane issue had been taken too?

Why would he reject mathematics on the one hand demonstrative of a particular point of view to which it has developed, then, ignore what position it had taken both string theory and Lee Smolins attempts at the disciption of the blackhole dynamics, from the views of that horizon?

With regards to the conformal field theory approach. While I am in my infancy, I recognize the views of Bekenstein Bound, and the hologrpahical approach. One must first learn to crawl, then walk I know, but how indeed does one get to the vision held, when he himself(who ever you like) cannot explain how such a mathematics like string theory, arose to help with our views of reality?

In 1919, Kaluza sent Albert Einstein a preprint --- later published in 1921 --- that considered the extension of general relativity to five dimensions. He assumed that the 5-dimensional field equations were simply the higher-dimensional version of the vacuum Einstein equation, and that all the metric components were independent of the fifth coordinate. The later assumption came to be known as the cylinder condition. This resulted in something remarkable: the fifteen higher-dimension field equations naturally broke into a set of ten formulae governing a tensor field representing gravity, four describing a vector field representing electromagnetism, and one wave equation for a scalar field. Furthermore, if the scalar field was constant, the vector field equations were just Maxwell's equations in vacuo, and the tensor field equations were the 4-dimensional Einstein field equations sourced by an EM field. In one fell swoop, Kaluza had written down a single covariant field theory in five dimensions that yielded the four dimensional theories of general relativity and electromagnetism. Naturally, Einstein was very interested in this preprint .

While one may use sites to give indicative values ot the information, can we ignore these assumptions mathematically driven. It paved the way for how we view things that we did not see before. Go ahead reject it then:)

Are we not looking for the Trigger?:)

More Quantum Gravity Comments

Aristotle: Commenced his investigation on the Wisdom of the philosphers. "Thales says that it is water" it is the nature of the arche, the originating principle. Water is the Nature of All Things"

Now relax before you start assigning numerical values to the opening statement:) Might I see a greater context in the evaporation(decay), of course, and I will say I like to think all things have some issue in this regard? Some evidence?:)

After I wrote my post below on quantum gravity and related Jacques comments, I was glad to find Lubos Motl and Peter Woit both had created similar posts to address this issue a little more deeply. Reference to John Baez was also very important, from the basis of clearing up the view points Peter holds to in regards to his feelings on quantum gravity as well.

I know that my view is much distant from the qualified aspects of these gentleman have to offered. I find hope, that there might be this capable resolution to giving perspective to where perspective is needed. This is valuable to me, as I know with some conviction the idea of this landscape will not let go of my inquiring mind.

Finding methods of application in the weak field measure were held in mind when dimensional significance was assign those extra dimenions. As we find the attempts at experimental verification less then satisfying, or the views to moon measure(?), it became clear to me, we already were doing things in this regard, and just were not privy to these views.



I know too, to limited the alchemical relation or be torched on the ground of crackpotism rules assigned a numerical value to any opening statement, so I had to be careful here in referring to the Thalean view:) This aspect was consider when I held to view the new methods at dealing with gravity with our space born measuring eye to eye. I have nothing more to say about the too and fro, and the distant measurte her eof our global planet, that I would too consider the extension of the Reimannian view had also be extended by me and not limited as Peter might have thought.

Lubos said:

But that's not how it works in the quantum world. If an event is very "weak" - such as a decay of a light nucleus - quantum mechanics dictates that with a probability close to one, the process has *no* impact whatsoever on spacetime geometry (or the electromagnetic field); and there is a small probability that one produces one (or a few) gravitons (or photons).

Although I would not like to invoke mysticism in this venture, the "weak field" view had amazed me when I understood that a measure would be capable in a new global perspective, spoken to here.

While I had to remind of compassion that exists, I had to interrupt the flow of the site for a minute, so that perspective was brought back from all the political ramifications and warring views materializing about the oil and gas reserve that is being gobbled up from other countries to secure the resource for the United States.

This did not look good to me, as I looked back to the views of the terrorism being fought in another land, might have also held the security of these reserves to lives willing to be sacrificed. That's all I wil say about this, and holding these thoughts, I wanted to continue to speak to that subject of quantum gravity regardless of the tragety taking place on our globe. I won't assignthese values to a God, becuase the science is still very compelling to me that we are limtied as always from a wquantum mechanical perspective that weather itself produces.

So without these views on weak field measure I undertsood now that in my mind, this process was not needed in looking at the dimensinal valuation aldeberger and others are doing, becuase we can measure this gravity in ways tha we are not accustomed too.

It is not bad a reason now to consider that this Thalean view although very wrong for our current day, I understood well "first principle" from his perspective was based on water. So to me finding this calibration point amidst the field qualites of a planet much greater in perspective to this ths beautiful globe of water, fresh water resources become critical issues with such large populatins covering the face of these land masses.

So try as you might to argue with me about the tangibility of a landscape one is painted inhow weassign the relativity measure to our features of water pervasive ness amidst mas detrmination of hills and valleys. Thsi was a conceptually success in my mind even while good science minds are embroiled inthe requiremets of how to assign symmetry breaking froma supersymmetrical world, ther had to be some constant in thought. Some valuatin about th eidea of the landscape to make it applicable in how we loking at this functionin our world measures.

No where did I mention the perfect fluid of the strong coupling, but iwas very aware of the nedd for the quantum mechanical process to be addrssed conceptually. I of course from layman views am stl subject to mistakes inmy views but I struggle hard to over come these by continuing to learn and watch.

Here I would like to give credit to Clifford of Cosmic Variance for taking this discussin further, and the perception of Smolins for this integrative civilized discussion without invoking the Intelligent design issue. I have now gone past the resistance to landscape analogies to continue to perfect the view of a dimensional reality that few want to acknolwedge and deal with.

If indeed I wanted to assign transcendance to the computer world, the sentient being would be one that recognizes that a world in graphic resoluiton, had now paved the way for the Thalean group of mathematicans who Peter Woit mentioned. Might these people break the barriers of mathematicians from the world of theoretical into the world of physics.

I always had trouble understanding why theoretics would be so held in distain holding the mathemtic mind, but I understand this resistance when a personality would have been assigned, a ID classification, even though the physics had to be correlated in those same equations? They had to be able to operate at the edge, and continue on from that point.

So indeed this point of mass assignation, is indeed a troubling one, while I still see fluidity as a continous feature of supersymmetrical view? Such allocations of discretion were less then appealing, although necessary, as a measure of the depth of perception. So how do we resolve it?:) I am not sure either, but for some strange reason I can't let go of the view of a continous nature, when left to see decay as a measure of what existed in another state.

So of course we look for this trigger. This place where all might agree and if all created, started from such a place then how shall we assign our reason to what shall be the best way to proceed?

I wanted to add Lee Smolin's comments here.

Lee Smolin said:Of course if the theory is right-and we never assume so-we must show more. We must show that the ground state is semiclassical, by solving the dynamics. This is a hard problem, analogous to showing that the ground state of water is a solid. But as this is the focus of attention there are beginning to be significant, non-trivial results on how classical spacetime can emerge from a background independent quantum theory.

UV Fixed Point

Clifford draws our attention to further talks here in his post and directs us to what Jacque Distler has to say.

I must say this is a refreshing look with Jacques contribution to further the layman point of view. Such links are worth while in the advancement of the "sentient being" that Clifford might have thought the computer world could have developed into once we assign our geometries to that world, as we would of numerical relativity and the designs we get from this look. Thomas Banchoff should be commended forthis contribution to fifth dimensional idealism in the computer world, with the notion of graphics design as a whole new approach to this understanding. Who said mathematics guys are a little to abstract for the laymen view?

Jacque Distler:

Yeah. I had hoped I was being clear.

I meant a nontrivial (non-Gaussian) UV fixed point. A Gaussian fixed point would be too much to hope for.

Now you must know that to see what he was saying, "Gaussian coordinates" determined below this post helped me to relate what was being said here. But more then this the statement of Jacques orientates what might be further implied and what had missed in my thinking.

So just to carry on a bit with this point "P" in gaussian coordinated of frame of UV, what realization exists that we could not find some relevance here in the geometry to have further exploited the mind's capabilties by venturing into the Wunderkammern of thinking. By association, of Nigel Hitchin's "B Field manifestations geometries" to realize that althought these might be limited to what Jacque is saying , then what value this geometry if we can not see the landscape as something real in time variable measures?

That we might attribute a globe, that while spherical in it's design, holds much more in it's determination. That while it might issue it's electronmagnetic field of lines, that it too could have found greater relevance in the issues of Quantum gravity, with those same inclinations of time variablenesss, that I allude too?



What am I missing that such events held to the brane in fermion distinction would not find boson production off the brane, as real as, the topic of time variableness that we might issue in geometrical feature of a globe. A globe, that is very bumpy indeed. Is this thinking limited in terms of landscape valuation? Not only in terms of brane and fermionic response, but of the real live correlation of the topic of branes in a more realistic sense, held to these geometries?

While indeed such B Field Manifestation becomes real in tangibles in our arguement of where our UV perspective might be held too, then "P" becomes of value in time variablemess, as a landscape ideology spread throughtout the brane world features? While it is also intriciately linked to our formation of landscape futher out in the recognition of the bumpy world?

So while we might see this landscape in terms of photon calorimetric association with Glast, what value besides gauusian coordinate might be freed, when we see dimensinal sigificance being represented with Glast as well. Is this thinking wrong?

Explanation on the Landscape

Photograph by Clifford Johnson

While on Cosmic Invariance, Clifford brings a much needed attempt at explanation on how we view the landscape. I'll have to spend sometime going over this becuase it is a critical position and difference between two facets of thinking within the scientific community. Susskind and Lee Smolin have lead this discussion repeatedly before, and I find this continued effort, a nice way to continue to peer into.

Some response helps too, and indicates our attention to the reasons why such positions are adopted. I find this very important in understanding why these respective positions, are taken and what possibly might issue from the stated position.

Lee Smolin on Aug 15th, 2005 at 9:01 am :

Method A: ASSUME 1) that there is a real non-perturbative theory behind all the approximate calculations and 2) that it is relevant for nature. Then interpret various results, having to do with dualities, the landscape etc given these assumptions.

Method B: Look for evidence that the two assumptions of method A are true.

One evaluates results very differently, depending on whether one uses method A or method B. There is nothing wrong with using Method A from time to time, so long as the assumptions are made explicit, and the risks that are thereby taken on explicitly acknowledged. One can learn things that will turn out be true about the theory, if 1) is true, or about nature, if 2) is true. But one cannot do science only or even mostly by Method A, no matter how promising an idea may seem. What I find disturbing in your essay, and in many conversations with string theorists is that they reason by Method A but they do not state explicitly their assumptions. This puts me often in the uncomfortable situation, when discussing with a string theorist, of having to add, “but there is one more possibility, the theory might be wrong.”

So Jacque Distler adds his views and I heard he walked out on the conference? So am I to take it that this very topic tries his impatience, that he might have seen bias raise it's ugly head, or that holding a position like Peter Woit's put them the odd man out? I think Lee is doing a fine Job of trying to keep cohesion amongst the scientists that we do not have to worry, about such antics, as they eventually come around to accept the debate?:)

Jacques Distler on Aug 15th, 2005 at 10:52 am

Lee was, most recently, at Strings 2005, and he does hang out with his stringy colleagues at Perimeter.

I don’t know whether that counts for you, but it does for me.

The Layman's view

As stated before in how Clifford presents his perspective I immediately noticed a corresponding image in my mind in terms of hypherysics.



Now you have to forgive my laymen perspective because when they start talking about the landscape, I tend to see this completed image in my mind, much as I have relayed it here(Are Scientists Currently Censoring Debate on Global Warming). Although it seeks to detail the environment as a relative view on such perspective as landscape, I thought I would see how Cliiford's view and the resulting talks might have been understood from my own perspective.

Unfortunately I do not have the guidance other then what I can intuitive garner in my continue development, so I hope I do other justice and do not degrade this topic in any way.

The ground state of a three-dimensional box of dimension L can be obtained by setting n=1 for all three dimensions, giving an energy three times the ground state energy of the one-dimensional box. The ground state for the three-dimensional box would be

So when one looks at these images of the landscape what is being said here, I tried to garner a overall perspective as I did in the "censoring debate on Global warming".



I give a direct link to the picture that had been presented early on in my research, because I tended to see this split very early on as a positional one worth taking note. But somewhere along the line my thinking changed as I saw the vast differences and capabilities of the bulk possibilities in terms of graviton scattering and condensing feature.

So transferring this thinking to global differences help me to continue to see how Clifford or string theory approach to landscape development might be seen. I rest easy that there are those better qualified, but this has not limited what I have now been able to see. As others will see in the landscape interpretation.

Deep Impact craters on the moon.

What do they reveal about the moon's geological structure?


The colors in this image can be used to ascertain compositional properties of the materials making up the deep strata of these two regions.

One day I'd like to think we will be precise enough to ascertain all geological structure of the planets by info that we don't have just yet in terms of gravitational perspective? Maybe we can insert in between space of Mendeelev's model one day?

These are good indicators to help us see the nature of the planets organization constituents, as fundamental characters, of that same planet?



Studying gravitational models also help in this direction. The unique character is amazing once we thought the sphere on whch we live was to be so round, when in fact, from that same gravitational perspective, this is just not so.:)

Deterministic Chaos Theory and the Cosmos

This gallery was inspired by a lecture of Dr. Julien Sprott and his work.To learn how these are created, check out my Strange Attractor Tutorial. Click on the images to enlarge them.

It was important for me to reveal how I am seeing the cosmo. How the superhighway has been spoken too, in regards to the Langrange points.These points are lead to and from unstable orbits. Points, where gravity balances out between bodies, like the earth and the moon. These are not to be considered stable equilibrium points.

Here we speak of the interactions of the Sun-Earth Lagrange point dynamics with the Earth-Moon Lagrange point dynamics. We motivate the discussion using Jupiter comet orbits as examples. By studying the natural dynamics of the Solar System, we enhance current and future space mission design."

So what would these winding paths around this point look like? You had to be able to see this work on a cosmological scale and in seeing this used in practise we have now gained in deterministc systems where previously we did not recognize the multiplicty of rotations within regions afffected, between gravitational points called L1 and L2.

The Roots of Chaos Theory

The roots of chaos theory date back to about 1900, in the studies of Henri Poincaré on the problem of the motion of three objects in mutual gravitational attraction, the so-called three-body problem. Poincaré found that there can be orbits which are nonperiodic, and yet not forever increasing nor approaching a fixed point. Later studies, also on the topic of nonlinear differential equations, were carried out by G.D. Birkhoff, A.N. Kolmogorov, M.L. Cartwright, J.E. Littlewood, and Stephen Smale. Except for Smale, who was perhaps the first pure mathematician to study nonlinear dynamics, these studies were all directly inspired by physics: the three-body problem in the case of Birkhoff, turbulence and astronomical problems in the case of Kolmogorov, and radio engineering in the case of Cartwright and Littlewood. Although chaotic planetary motion had not been observed, experimentalists had encountered turbulence in fluid motion and nonperiodic oscillation in radio circuits without the benefit of a theory to explain what they were seeing.

13:30 Lecture
Edward Norton Lorenz
Laureate in Basic Sciences
“How Good Can Weather Forecasting Become ? – The Star of a Theory”

Now I came to the image below in a most unusual way. Now when one sees the image as a butterfly, it is not hard to see how it might have some deterministic quality to it, that Edward might thought it significant for presenting to the masses on issues of climate change?

Edward Norton Lorenz is an American mathematician and meteorologist, and a contributor to the chaos theory and inventor of the strange attractor notion. He coined the term butterfly effect.

Now as I awoke after looking at this superhighway that is used inthe Genesis project I could not have helped identifying the strange attractor, somehwere in this interactive phase spoken about in the points of unequilibrium, and as possible changes in the patwern from one orbit to another. Not only did I see this in Lorenz's image, but in another one as well. so I'll place this one later at the end.

Edward Lorenz, an American meteorologist, discovered in the early 1960s, that a simplified computer model of the weather demonstrated extreme sensitivity to the initial measured state of the weather. He demonstrated visually that there was structure in his chaotic weather model, and, when plotted in three dimensions, fell onto a butterfly-shaped set of points. This is the trajectory of a system in chaotic motion, otherwise known as the "Butterfly Effect". A system in chaotic motion is completely unpredictable. Given the configuration of the system at any one point in time, it is impossible to predict with certainty how it will end up at a later point in time. However, the motion of the chaotic system is not completely random, as evidenced by the general pattern of the trajectory in this image.
Picture courtesy of: Scott Camazine / Photo Researchers, Inc.

It all starts to come togehter when it is undertsoo dthat visionistic qualites could have entered a new phase in human understanding where once this feature was unexpainable in a non deterministic way. Such a cosmlogical interactive system exist all through this cosmos now that we have undertsood the places where such capabilties are to exist? Thank you ISCAP for the "mantra of images" that have been displayed.



Time, seems to have brought them together for me, and what a strange way it has materialized. If Thales of Miletus was to have wondered about the basis of of the primary principal it would have been in Edward Lorenz's views that we had seen a system come together that was not fully understood before.

In the Time Variable Gravity measures of Grace it seems that the measure of the planet would have this basis to consider? While the mass features zeroed and changes according to the hills and valleys, would see this primary principal of some use?

Using Thales of Miletus primary principal, as a basis in the time variable measures of climate perspective, are we given a preview of what is not only happening in the cosmo, but is also happening in our deterministic approaches to weather predictions?

The theory of relativity predicts that, as it orbits the Sun, Mercury does not exactly retrace the same path each time, but rather swings around over time. We say therefore that the perihelion -- the point on its orbit when Mercury is closest to the Sun -- advances.

Given a appropriate response to the Daisey, Taylor was very helpful in explaining Mercuries orbital patterns, but now, this proces having moved to higher dimensional understanding recognizing the value of such images that the strange attractor brings to us? In a way, we have brought quantum mechanical processses together with relativity?

The Holographical Mapping of the Standard Model onto the Blackhole Horizon

New paper that came out yesterday written by Gerard 't Hooft

Interactions between outgoing Hawking particles and ingoing matter are determined by gravitational forces and Standard Model interactions. In particular the gravitational interactions are responsible for the unitarity of the scattering against the horizon, as dictated by the holographic principle, but the Standard Model interactions also contribute, and understanding their effects is an important first step towards a complete understanding of the horizon’s dynamics. The relation between in- and outgoing states is described in terms of an operator algebra. In this paper, the first of a series, we describe the algebra induced on the horizon by U(1) vector fields and scalar fields, including the case of an Englert-Brout-Higgs mechanism, and a more careful consideration of the transverse vector field components.

But before I entertain this idea, I wanted to gain some perspective. I was immediately struck by something here that changes the way we have been doing things? Recognizing the blackhole evaporation and standard model production, we are saying that indeed these things already existed in the horizon?

Would M theory have then found it's experimental counterpart? The Bose Nova and Jet idea from collapsing bubbles has been part of the vision I speculated in what Heisenberg saw in the geometrodynamics of a nuclear explosion. See, not only were we detonating a nuclear reaction(gravitational collapse), but we were doing something beyond the perception, by going to the heart of these particle collisions.

What makes it diffuclt for me is that having seen the blackhole dynamics in relation to bubble technlogies, that I like to use as analogies, relate too, and contain the elements of the standard model without ever entering the blackhole? How is this possible and still see the three blane collapse of the blackhole here?

Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity by Gerard 't Hooft

The requirement that physical phenomena associated with gravitational collapse should be duly reconciled with the postulates of quantum mechanics implies that at a Planckian scale our world is not 3+1 dimensional. Rather, the observable degrees of freedom can best be described as if they were Boolean variables defined on a two-dimensional lattice, evolving with time. This observation, deduced from not much more than unitarity, entropy and counting arguments, implies severe restrictions on possible models of quantum gravity. Using cellular automata as an example it is argued that this dimensional reduction implies more constraints than the freedom we have in constructing models. This is the main reason why so-far no completely consistent mathematical models of quantum black holes have been found.

Essay dedicated to Abdus Salam.

Gerard "t Hooft:No 'Quantum Computer' will ever be able to out perform a 'scaled up classical computer.'

Holding onto the sanity of why such computerization program will run into difficulties, has not undermined the position to included and create opportunities for seeing what is happening at such reductionistic levels? To have wondered, will we gain a dynamcial visulaization of what is happening within the context of the universe as it came into being?

With more computer power, scientists can also include more elements of the Earth's climate system, such as the oceans, the atmosphere, their chemistry and the carbon cycle.

This should make forecasts of future temperature rises more reliable. Keiko Takahashi, who works at the Earth Simulator Centre, says they have already carried out several experiments that look 50 years ahead.


There is difficulties with doing this, and like LIGO or a SEti work in progress, how shall this information allows us to see the interactions in a consistent model? So dealing with these difficulties has been part of Gerard 't Hoofts analysis to see that others too, work hard to deal with issues of information paradox?

Part of this difficulty in computerized model application, would have been transfer rates of information from such quantum levels. Lubos gives some insight here. Although it has been very nice that such visualization techiques could be applied to this data transfer, from what we understand of particle reductionsism. Within context of the larger universe, how detailed shall has our observations become of the world around us?

These images contrast the degree of interaction and collective motion, or "flow," among quarks in the predicted gaseous quark-gluon plasma state (Figure A, see mpeg animation) vs. the liquid state that has been observed in gold-gold collisions at RHIC (Figure B, see mpeg animation). The green "force lines" and collective motion (visible on the animated version only) show the much higher degree of interaction and flow among the quarks in what is now being described as a nearly "perfect" liquid. (Courtesy of Brookhaven National Laboratory)

The goal of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is to link roughly 6,000 scientists so they can perform large-scale experiments and simulations to help the world better understand subatomic particles. The grid will ultimately link more than 200 research institutions.

"This service challenge is a key step on the way to managing the torrents of data anticipated from the LHC," Jamie Shiers, manager of the service challenges at CERN, said in a statement. "When the LHC starts operating in 2007, it will be the most data-intensive physics instrument on the planet, producing more than 1,500 megabytes of data every second for over a decade."

Gerard 't Hooft recognized this problem and when we see such scattering ideas from blackhole standard model production particles, how shall we see this event in terms of what is sent back for examination? It would mean considering the context of Gerard's paper there is no information loss? No missing energy events?

Thus the consistent model frame, from blackhole production underlying framework would disavow any ideas relating to energy in and energy out imbalance held in context of gravitonic production as part of the standard model production? The horizon area would become a balanced view?

Using the ideas of Clementine and the graduation to Grace, it seemed that I was leading to a good comprehensive view of the bubble technicalities as they contained the missing energy, but moving too "this view of Gerard's" might endanger how we approximate the whole view of this missing energy, with the easy removal of that missing energy scenario? Would this be consistent with the overall encompassed view that the grvaiton has emerged from the extension of this standard model to say oh, it's okay we can remove this and fnd comfort with the existing framework without other contentions issues like missing energy to deal with this?

Do we have Proof of this Missing Energy? If the answer is yes, then the issue has not been resolved?

Time-Variable Gravity Measurements

Mean Gravity Field

The Mean Gravity Field lets us work from this mass understanding and provides for, flunctuations in that Gravity field hence the understanding of Time Variable Gravity Field

On planet Earth, we tend to think of the gravitational effect as being the same no matter where we are on the planet. We certainly don't see variations anywhere near as dramatic as those between the Earth and the Moon. But the truth is, the Earth's topography is highly variable with mountains, valleys, plains, and deep ocean trenches. As a consequence of this variable topography, the density of Earth's surface varies. These fluctuations in density cause slight variations in the gravity field, which, remarkably, GRACE can detect from space.

I wanted to put this into perspective, since we can extend our vision of the gravity field, and how we would look at mass distribution. Using this method, we calibrate, understanding current topological features of hills and valleys that serve to remind us, of the mass distribtuion that has gone on in the formation of our planet Earth.

Since passing over these locations calculations recognize these density valuation of mass regions. This allows us to understand the current gravity standard placed on that location.

Time-Variable Gravity Measurements from the GRACE Satellite

NASA, in partnership with the German Space Agency DLR, launched the dedicated gravity satellite GRACE (the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) in March, 2002. This five year mission will map out the Earth's gravity field to unprecedented accuracy at monthly intervals. The temporal variations in gravity inferred from these data will allow people to study a wide range of processes, cutting across a variety of Earth science disciplines, that involve redistribution of mass within the Earth and at or near its surface. It will be possible, for example, to produce monthly estimates of changes in continental water storage anywhere in the world, averaged over scales of a few hundred km and greater, to accuracies of better than 1 cm water thickness.

I have referrred to the hill and valley perspectives that have arisen in relation to how we see the landscape(earth's). If this feature was not comprehended in some model application, would it not have served to settle minds who see no valuation in such landscape perspectives, as a basis to a much better understanding of the nature of the universe, and the reality around us?

Where has the extra energy gone? For some scientists this question highlights something interesting about what extra dimensions might have implied? You gauge the gravitational fields and learn to see time variability as a feature not just of mass consideration, but of energy determinations as well. It's only fitting?:)

The image above shows the many processes of the Earth’s hydrologic cycle that contribute to total changes in water storage

So setting up a comprehensive understanding of these differences, the mean gravitational field and Time Variable gravity field we see now some relationship to things finer in its constitution, and the relationship to Climate.


The Landscape?

What value might be assigned to this understanding, that we look at how such emissions and its effect on the information gathered. Would we see the effect of civilizations and the way this has effecedt those particular geographical regions.

Have we thus found a legitimate model, that current debates on the Kyoto protocals might serve to get everyone on base for determinations. Will this effectvely change the dialogue currently going on in our assessments, of the needed reduction of CO² emissions?