It's a Penquin?

The jump from conventional field theories of point-like objects to a theory of one-dimensional objects has striking implications. The vibration spectrum of the string contains a massless spin-2 particle: the graviton. Its long wavelength interactions are described by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Thus General Relativity may be viewed as a prediction of string theory!

Unfortunately I misplaced the owner of that quote.



I just finish spending the last 8 days with two of my seven grandchildren. One had passed just a couple of days after being born.

Yes "Happy feet" has become a intricate part of my days visiting as these children are mesmerized by the hearts songs and uniqueness of being borne learning to tap instead of singing. It's trials and tribulations of being different.

Images of brain show areas that become most active during perception of pictures (a and c, in green) and sounds (e, in yellow). Small arrows point to sites of greatest activity during recall of pictures (b and d) and sounds (f). Wheeler, Petersen, Buckner/Washington Univ.

"These new studies set the stage for more intensive explorations of memory retrieval in the brain," remarks Anthony D. Wagner of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge."

See more on Remembrance here

I gave reference at one time to the topic of "Super Learning" and the method used to induce information into the brain's matter.

Music and visualization combined can create quite a compelling story, and sink deep into what is "emotively charged" for our memories. It's part of that "deep play" that I had talked about previous. While one may talk on the surface about the triviality of things, useless knowledge, some things are indeed more "emotively charged."

Incites one to "take action" if felt deeply. Not all thoughts are equal? Your defining who you are "by reacting." This is your "signature."

The Mind Field

Michael Shermer-The Power of Belief-skepticism 101

See here for more explanation on the mind field.

No one said not to have this attitude about what is presented. But to breed the very attitude of arrogance that some think perpetuates areas of theoretical science, would be a good lesson, on what concert can be raised, as the "intonations echo and entrain other thoughts accordingly in the concert hall."

For some time, it was not clear to me how to get the word into this b quark paper that we were writing at the time…. Later…I had a sudden flash that the famous diagrams look like penguins. So we put the name into our paper, and the rest, as they say, is history.”

IT is no different then compiling all that has happened in Storm in a Teacup become the last statement as an image of all the statements and exchanges "felt based on the memory of our relations." The "Colour of gravity" plays an intricate part here.

What impact the agenda, while one is holding the plight of the student and workers within science to think, that the issues with Lee Smolin cannot revive the issues confronting science "other then" those agendas? These are "another issue" outside of what must be confronted separately.

A poster boy?

I was just taking a stroll through the blogosphere. I find a lot of "skeptical things" being "echoed from one person to the next?" As if, the "idea of the incredible" cannot exist in this world "without" some scientific explanation to it?

Development of the sociological idealization of the community in the matter of things and science's measure while the subjective sides suffers.

So they make fun of the idea about what is intuitive, gosh a "zen koan?" related in some way to eastern thinking. Can have a "greater meaning" by just playing with how ideas are born? Can "mature" from other things. What part did Feynman play in John Ellis's game of "dart throwing?"

Maybe it is my own ignorance then, that I do not have an explanation for "an event?" That like the young Einstein and his compass, I was maybe just not clear on what these lines may have meant in Gaussian coordinates. Does this mean I have the mind of this five year old. Like Sean, who said I was perfect? :)

The internet and Blogs


I don't have to spell it out as of late, that I could point to a paragraph and link directly to the source, "is just the echoing of what I think" is comparative to what people can do to belittle others( comments on bloggeries) and echo some idealization by example. What "tone" shall we set in motion?

To me these "point sources" linked in paragraph are more reminders what has been discovered of late. You reference by a ¹ and then go to the end of your post entry and add an addendum?

Where this research is leading. How it helps me to keep "in tune" with what is developing in the science world. Do some think these points trivial? I'd rather set the tone in motion that encourages the "subtle perceptions" that may arise in others, and include these in a critical analysis of what is related in science to that thinking?

Why bring together so many different concepts that may be of use in our scientific examination?


What Tone is being Set?

Lee Smolin:

What we are dealing with is a sociological phenomenon in the world of academic science. I do think that the ethics of science have been to some degree corrupted by the kind of groupthink explored in chapter 16, but not solely by the string-theory community. For one thing, it is the academic community writ large that makes the rules. In a court of law, a good lawyer will do anything within the law to advance the cause of his clients. We should expect that the leaders of a scientific field will likewise do everything within the unwritten rules of academia to advance their research program.

So Sean over at cosmic variance speaks about Maharishi Mathematics. The preposterousness of the post itself degenerates into the examples of what exists in eastern thinking adapted to the methods of science now?

I recall the work of Schwartz amidst the duelling Gellmann and Feynman? Can it be called that, or the philosophical difference? We know of Richard's thoughts on the philosophical of course. We know of the "eightfold path" by Murray?

Murray Gellman's reactivities to dispel corruption in the western world? Loud affirmations of "not I," as to reinforce what is thought to be the example of what is leading science in those country's philosophies? So he too was influence by the very word "Simplectics."

Sean Carroll is absorbing the influence of his location? Laughing from "that place" that his mentors did, as they welcomed "Schwartz." Never mind the desk. :)

I wonder if we can be “just as guilty” of perpetuating those things that one could despise?



Be careful least you "drawn lines" of a strange world that Dirac ventured. Whilst you drawn those "funny pictures of fabled stories" and take us on the strange journey of Alice and Babar.

Who is to know that Feynman may of understood the possibilities of the photon's journey to map this thing "as an exchange." That he could see in a geometrical way, while at a loss to write simplistically, and then, finally succeeded? See more on this relations of Gell Mann and Feynman here



Of course I am a lay person outside of the halls of science that I would want to lead by example that we have these priorities and methods to live by, other then playing the ole foolish game "look at them" and then "look at me."

Where are my keys?

"Yet I exist in the hope that these memoirs, in some manner, I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

The Extra-Dimensions?

So you intuitively believe higher dimensions really exist?

Lisa Randall:I don't see why they shouldn't. In the history of physics, every time we've looked beyond the scales and energies we were familiar with, we've found things that we wouldn't have thought were there. You look inside the atom and eventually you discover quarks. Who would have thought that? It's hubris to think that the way we see things is everything there is.

And what is it that we don't see? I thought of a comment somewhere that spoke about what first started to make it's appearance in how we communicate?

Time is the Unseen fourth Dimension

They were able to create what we recognize today as the "elliptical" and "hyperbolic" non-Euclidean geometries. Most of Saccheri's first 32 theorems can be found in today's non-Euclidean textbooks. Saccheri's theorems are prefaced by "Sac."

One of my greatest "aha moments" came when I realized Non-euclidean geometries. I had to travel the history first with Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri, Bolya and Lobachevsky, for this to make an impression, and I can safely say, that learning of Gauss and Riemann, I was truly impressed.

Einstein had to include that "extra dimension of time." Greater then, or less then, 180 degrees and we know "this triangle" can take on some funny shapes when you apply them "to surfaces" that are doing funny things.?:)

Second, we must be wary of the "God of the Gaps" phenomena, where miracles are attributed to whatever we don't understand. Contrary to the famous drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost, here we are tempted to conclude that the keys must lie in whatever dark corners we have not searched, rather than face the unpleasant conclusion that the keys may be forever lost.

Let me just say that "it is not the fact that any drinking could have held the mind" of the person, but when they absentmindedly threw their car keys. The "point is" that if the light shines only so far, what conclusion should we live with?

Moving to the Fifth

So of course whatever real estate you are buying, make sure the light is shining on what your willing to purchase? Is this not a good lesson to learn?

Moving any idea to a fifth dimension I thought was important in relation to seeing what Einstein had done. See further: Concepts of the Fifth Dimension. I illustrate more ways in which we may see that has not been seen for most could have helped the mind see how this is accomplished in current day geometric methods.

Why was this thought "wrong" when one may of thought to include "gravity and light" together, after the conclusion of spacetime's 3+1? Gravity. What Had Maxwell done? What Had Riemann done?

You knew "the perfect symmetry" had to be reduced to General Relativity?

Greg Landsberg:

Two types of the extra-dimensional effects observable at collides.

A graviton leaves our world for a short moment of time, just to come back and decay into a pair of photons (the DØ physicists looked for that particular effect).

A graviton escapes from our 3-dimensional world in extra dimensions (Megaverse), resulting in an apparent energy non-conservation in our three-dimensional world.

So why would it matter to us if the universe has more than 3 spatial dimensions, if we can not feel them? Well, in fact we could “feel” these extra dimensions through their effect on gravity. While the forces that hold our world together (electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions) are constrained to the 3+1-“flat” dimensions, the gravitational interaction always occupies the entire universe, thus allowing it to feel the effects of extra dimensions. Unfortunately, since gravity is a very weak force and since the radius of extra dimensions is tiny, it could be very hard to see any effects, unless there is some kind of mechanism that amplifies the gravitational interaction. Such a mechanism was recently proposed by Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, and Dvali, who realized that the extra dimensions can be as large as one millimeter, and still we could have missed them in our quest for the understanding of how the universe works!

Of course these ideas are experimentally being challenged, like any good scientist would want of his theory. See EOT-WASH GROUP(4)