Solidification of Geometrical Presence

While I might infer the "attributes of Coxeter here," it is with the understanding such a dimensional perspective which has it's counterpart in the result of what manifests as matter creations. Yet we have taken our views down to the "powers of ten" to think of what could manifest even before we see the result in nature.

When you go to the site by PBS of where, Nano: Art Meets Science, make sure you click on the lesson plan to the right.



Buckyballs

Visitors' shadows manipulate and reshape projected images of "Buckyballs." "Buckyball," or a buckminsterfullerene molecule, is a closed cage-structure molecule with a carbon network. "Buckyball" was named for R. Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller (1895-1983), a scientist, philosopher and inventor, best known for creating the geodesic dome.
Photo Credit: © 2003 Museum Associates/Los Angeles County Museum

Fundamentally the properties of materials can be changed by nanotechnology. We can arrange molecules in a way that they do not normally occur in nature. The material strength, electronic and optical properties of materials can all be altered using nanotechnology.

See Related information on bucky balls here in this site. This should give some understanding of how I see the greater depth of what manifest in nature, as solids in our world, has some "other" possibilities in dimensional attribute, while it is given association to the mathematical prowess of E8.

I do not know of many who will take in all that I have accumulated in regards to how one may look at their planet, can have the depth of perception that is held in to E8.?

One may say what becomes of the world as it manifest into it's constituent parts, has this energy relation, that it would become all that is in the design of the world around us.



While some scientists puzzle as to the nature of the process of E8, little did they realize that if you move your perception to the way E8 is mapped to 248 dimensions, the image while indeed quite pleasing, you see as a result.

It can include so much information, how would you know that this object of mathematics, is a polytrope of a kind that is given to the picture of science in the geometrical structure of the bucky ball or fullerene.

Allotropes



Diamond and graphite are two allotropes of carbon: pure forms of the same element that differ in structure.

Allotropy (Gr. allos, other, and tropos, manner) is a behaviour exhibited by certain chemical elements: these elements can exist in two or more different forms, known as allotropes of that element. In each different allotrope, the element's atoms are bonded together in a different manner.

For example, the element carbon has two common allotropes: diamond, where the carbon atoms are bonded together in a tetrahedral lattice arrangement, and graphite, where the carbon atoms are bonded together in sheets of a hexagonal lattice.

Note that allotropy refers only to different forms of an element within the same phase or state of matter (i.e. different solid, liquid or gas forms) - the changes of state between solid, liquid and gas in themselves are not considered allotropy. For some elements, allotropes can persist in different phases - for example, the two allotropes of oxygen (dioxygen and ozone), can both exist in the solid, liquid and gaseous states. Conversely, some elements do not maintain distinct allotropes in different phases: for example phosphorus has numerous solid allotropes, which all revert to the same P4 form when melted to the liquid state.

The term "allotrope" was coined by the famous chemist Jöns Jakob Berzelius.

Pasquale Del Pezzo and E8 Origination?

"I’m a Platonist — a follower of Plato — who believes that one didn’t invent these sorts of things, that one discovers them. In a sense, all these mathematical facts are right there waiting to be discovered."Donald (H. S. M.) Coxeter

There are two reasons that having mapped E8 is so important. The practical one is that E8 has major applications: mathematical analysis of the most recent versions of string theory and supergravity theories all keep revealing structure based on E8. E8 seems to be part of the structure of our universe.

The other reason is just that the complete mapping of E8 is the largest mathematical structure ever mapped out in full detail by human beings. It takes 60 gigabytes to store the map of E8. If you were to write it out on paper in 6-point print (that's really small print), you'd need a piece of paper bigger than the island of Manhattan. This thing is huge.

Clifford of Asymptotia drew our attention to this for examination and gives further information and links with which to follow.

He goes on to write,"Let’s not get carried away though. Having more data does not mean that you worked harder to get it. Mapping the human genome project involves a much harder task, but the analogy is still a good one, if not taken too far."

Of course since the particular comment of mine was deleted there, and of course I am okay with that. It did not mean I could not carry on here. It did not mean that I was not speaking directly to the way these values in dimensional perspective were not being considered.

Projective Geometries?

A theorem which is valid for a geometry in this sequence is automatically valid for the ones that follow. The theorems of projective geometry are automatically valid theorems of Euclidean geometry. We say that topological geometry is more abstract than projective geometry which is turn is more abstract than Euclidean geometry.

There had to be a route to follow that would lead one to think in such abstract spaces. Of course, one does not want to be divorced from reality. So one should not think that because the geometry of GR is understood, that you think nothing can come from the microseconds after the universe came into expression.

At this point in the development, although geometry provided a common framework for all the forces, there was still no way to complete the unification by combining quantum theory and general relativity. Since quantum theory deals with the very small and general relativity with the very large, many physicists feel that, for all practical purposes, there is no need to attempt such an ultimate unification. Others however disagree, arguing that physicists should never give up on this ultimate search, and for these the hunt for this final unification is the ‘holy grail’. Michael Atiyah

The Holy Grail sure comes up lots doesn't it:) Without invoking the pseudoscience that Peter Woit spoke of. I thought, if they could use Babar, and Alice then I could use the Holy Grail?

See more info on Coxeter here.

Like Peter I will have to address the "gut feelings" and the way Clifford expressed it. I do not want to practise pseudoscience as Peter is about the landscape.:)



When ones sees the constituent properties of that Gossett polytope 4₂₁ in all it's colours, the complexity of that situation is quite revealing. Might we not think in the time of supergravity, gravity will become weak, in the matter constitutions that form.

As in Neutrino mixing I am asking you to think of the particles as sound as well as think them in relation to the Colour of Gravity. If you were just to see grvaity in it's colourful design and what value that gravity in face of the photon moving within this gravitational field?

We detect the resulting "wah-wah-wah" in properties of the neutrino that appear and disappear. For example, when neutrinos interact with matter they produce specific kinds of other particles.

For example, when neutrinos interact with matter they produce specific kinds of other particles. Catch the neutrino at one moment, and it will interact to produce an electron. A moment later, it might interact to produce a different particle. "Neutrino mixing" describes the original mixture of waves that produces this oscillation effect.

The "geometry of curvature" had to be implied in the outcome, from that quantum world? Yet at it's centre, what is realized? You had to be lead there in terms of particle research to know that you are arriving at the "crossover point." The superfluid does this for examination.

5. Regular polytope: If you keep pulling the hypercube into higher and higher dimensions you get a polytope. Coxeter is famous for his work on regular polytopes. When they involve coordinates made of complex numbers they are called complex polytopes.

Pasquale Del Pezzo, Duke of Cajanello, (1859–1936), was "the most Neapolitan of Neapolitan Mathematicians".

He was born in Berlin (where his father was a representative of the Neapolitan king) on 2 May 1859. He died in Naples on 20 June 1936. His first wife was the Swedish writer Anne Charlotte Leffler, sister of the great mathematician Gösta Mittag-Leffler (1846-1927).

At the University of Naples, he received first a law degree in 1880 and then in 1882 a math degree. He became a pre-eminent professor at that university, teaching Projective Geometry, and remained at that University, as rector, faculty president, etc.

He was mayor of Naples starting in 1919, and he became a senator in the Kingdom of Naples.

His scientific achievements were few, but they reveal a keen ingenuity. He is remembered particularly for first describing what became known as a Del Pezzo surface. He might have become one of the strongest mathematicians of that time, but he was distracted by politics and other interests.

So what chance do we have, if we did not think this geometry was attached to processes that would unfold into the bucky ball or the fullerene of science. To say that the outcome had a point of view that is not popular. I do not count myself as attached to any intelligent design agenda, so I hope people will think I do not care about that.

NATHAN MYHRVOLD

I found the email debate between Smolin and Susskind to be quite interesting. Unfortunately, it mixes several issues. The Anthropic Principle (AP) gets mixed up with their other agendas. Smolin advocates his CNS, and less explicitly loop quantum gravity. Susskind is an advocate of eternal inflation and string theory. These biases are completely natural, but in the process the purported question of the value of the AP gets somewhat lost in the shuffle. I would have liked more discussion of the AP directly

See here for more information

So all the while you see the complexity of that circle and how long it took a computer to map it, it has gravity in it's design, whether we like to think about it or not?

But of course we are talking about the symmetry and any thing less then this would have been assign a matter state, as if symmetrical breaking would have said, this is the direction you are going is what we have of earth?

Isostatic Adjustment is Why Planets are Round?

While one thinks of "rotational values" then indeed one would have to say not any planets is formed in the way the sun does. Yet, in the "time variable understanding" of the earth, we understand why it's shape is not exactly round.



Do you think the earth and moon look round if your were considering Grace?

On the moon what gives us perspective when a crater is formed to see it's geological structure? It's just not a concern of the mining industry, as to what is mined on other orbs, but what the time variable reveals of the orbs structure as well.



Clementine color ratio composite image of Aristarchus Crater on the Moon. This 42 km diameter crater is located on the corner of the Aristarchus plateau, at 24 N, 47 W. Ejecta from the plateau is visible as the blue material at the upper left (northwest), while material excavated from the Oceanus Procellarum area is the reddish color to the lower right (southeast). The colors in this image can be used to ascertain compositional properties of the materials making up the deep strata of these two regions. (Clementine, USGS slide 11)

See more here

Hydrogen, and the Law of Octaves

Alex Vilenkin - Many Worlds in One article by Mark of Cosmic Variance drew my interest again after reading with a new perspective gained from understandng some implications about the "anthropic principle."

Sometimes I even still hold to the idea it is better not to touch this topic because of the greeness with which insight has now taken over. This greeness resides against the reason with which such logic is necessary in regards ot the debate between Susskind and Smolin.

I do not want to be blinded by the razzle dazzle either of men leading this debate, so as to the layman's pursuite of understanding, I hope to show what I am seeing?

While I have not read the book either I am still "drawn to the debate" about what the "anthropic reasoning" is talking about at a fundamental level? Scared yes, and on wobbly legs so I continue.

So as a layman I am curious too ,about views here and what the basis could lead too, in terms of what our universe had become?

If "carbon" wasn't present at the beginning, then how would you explain our universe?

Because the triple-alpha process is unlikely, it requires a long period of time to produce carbon. One consequence of this is that no carbon was produced in the Big Bang because within minutes after the Big Bang, the temperature fell below that necessary for nuclear fusion.

Ordinarily, the probability of the triple alpha process would be extremely small. However, the beryllium-8 ground state has almost exactly the energy of two alpha particles. In the second step, 8Be + 4He has almost exactly the energy of an excited state of 12C. These resonances greatly increase the probability that an incoming alpha particle will combine with beryllium-8 to form carbon. The existence of this resonance was predicted by Fred Hoyle before its actual observation based on its necessity for carbon to be formed.

I too hate the idea of the "law of crackpostism," yet research back to mendeleev table in regards to Newland, raised interesting ideas about the future of testbility?

A "harmonical disseration" about the ways we will in the fuure be able to map the elements in "photonic imagery" devised to work within carbon processes?

What were the ground rules for this universe?

He is best known for discovering the element plutonium, with Edwin McMillan. He led the team that devised the chemical process for extraction of plutonium.

Seaborg served as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission from 1961 until 1971.

He and McMillan shared the 1951 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for research into transuranic elements.

Having a framework here in which to establish the elemental nature of our universe, how is it that such principals inherent in "string theory" should not direct our attention to what is a viable indicator of what will fill the spaces between, as Mendeleev was able to do in prediction?

While one has been introduce to the "allotopes of Coxeter," it is not without some thought that "planck length," along with the understanding of what "geometrical inhernetness?" qunatum geometry, would also spew forth from the very basis of the beginning of that big bang?

So while I have shown the allotrope here, and dimensional perspective developed, what degrees of freedom say that the space would allow all constants of nature to be described here, and allowed such geometrical principals to form in the bucky ball of carbon, carbon nanotubes?

It was not wihtout directing our attention to the immediacy of that big bang in the microsecond of "planck time" that we are at a loss then?

The last major changes to the periodic table was done in the middle of the 20th Century. Glenn Seaborg is given the credit for it. Starting with his discovery of plutonium in 1940, he discovered all the transuranic elements from 94 to 102. He reconfigured the periodic table by placing the actinide series below the lanthanide series. In 1951, Seaborg was awarded the Noble prize in chemistry for his work. Element 106 has been named seaborgium (Sg) in his honor.

See:

CNO and the Law of Octaves

Allotropes and the Ray of Creation