Monday, July 20, 2009

Kaleidoscope

By education, the divine essence of man may be unfolded, brought out, lifted into consciousness byFriedrich Fröbel


It may not be of interest to many that this pursuance of mine is a journey into understanding features of consciousness that some may not like to admit are an important part of science and theoretics "in my view." To have it as a guide for mind mapping of sorts. To what and how the universe expresses itself. How the soul can devise it's own map of expression as if toward "higg's forming mission" from a leading perspective, which then becomes integrated into the world as an object/person this represents.

G -> H -> ... -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -> SU(3) x U(1).

Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles


So where is it I place my eye( is it the physical or mental observer) as I look through the Kaleidoscope? The lens is the energy(sun) it's motivation toward a multifaceted frame work, that it can be mastered to become meaningful to the reasoning mind to say, that this pattern rests in nature, and also rests, in my own soul. So the energy highlights both examples to say that I was able to pattern this expression, so as to which so many of us do, to be what is normal in the structure of this human form to allow this soul to express itself in the object of this reality. How "fine its shape" that it does not discard the understanding of the geometry that allowed it to express itself from a soul in expression to a euclidean straight line, to become the hyperbolic generated in non-euclidean.


Online Etymology Dictionary-1817, lit. "observer of beautiful forms," coined by its inventor, Sir David Brewster (1781-1868), from Gk. kalos "beautiful" + eidos "shape" (see -oid) + -scope, on model of telescope, etc. Figurative meaning "constantly changing pattern" is first attested 1819 in Lord Byron, whose publisher had sent him one.



Known to the ancient Greeks, it was reinvented by Sir David Brewster in 1816 while conducting experiments on light polarization; Brewster patented it in 1817. His initial design was a tube with pairs of mirrors at one end, and pairs of translucent disks at the other, and beads between the two. Initially intended as a science tool, the kaleidoscope was quickly copied as a toy. Brewster believed he would make money from his popular invention; however, a fault in the wording of his patent allowed others to copy his invention.[citation needed]

In America, Charles Bush popularized the kaleidoscope. Today, these early products often sell for over $1,000. Cozy Baker collected kaleidoscopes and wrote books about a few of the artists who were making them in the 1970s through 2000. Baker is credited with energizing a renaissance in kaleidoscope-making in America. In 1999 a short lived magazine dedicated to kaleidoscopes called Kaleidoscope Review was published covering artists, collectors, dealers, events, and how-to articles. This magazine was created and edited by Brett Bensley, at that time a well known kaleidoscope artist and resource on kaleidoscope information.

Craft galleries often carry a few, while others specialize in them and carry dozens of different types from different artists and craftspeople.

Kaleidoscopes are related to hyperbolic geometry.


So it is not quite as accurate as I would like to be in my quest to define what it is I am seeing and be as plain as possible. It's as if you could not know that with a current view of the First Three Minutes of Steven Weinberg, it wasn't enough in order to become much more dynamical to have our perception pushed back to the microseconds and see the universe in this new way.

The hyperbola is often encountered but rarely recognized in everyday life as the apparent shape of a circle, of which some portion is behind the viewer, as when standing inside a circle on the ground gazing horizontally, or holding a hula hoop around the body. If rays from the part of the circle behind the viewer could somehow pass through the head and thence through the lens, they would register on the retina as the second branch thereby exposing the hyperbolic structure.


So the difficulty stems in my mind from how and where I am looking from, as if I look through the Kaleidoscope to see the energy fragmented and schematic in origins, to see that it is patterned in the psychological assessment of my searching for the "fabric of consciousness" to be capable and expressive of this energy. To lead the reality forming apparatus "to exist" through such patterning as to form a hyperbolic expression from the beginnings of the ability to then become the "pattern in nature."

So, as if the momentum of the expression of this universe is a expression of, something false to the true vacuum, then how shall this be demonstrated? How shall this be demonstrated in the soul?

Thales the Father of Mathematics may have said that water was the basis of all that exists and in such continuity of expression such an expression seems fitting for the birth of language to speak to the labels we assign with such wording that it would not have implied something other then what we came into this world to express.

But with the ability to choose circumstance by attitude and endeavour, by our character to display, then what reaps the rewarding soul but to find what it rightfully choose to experience is not all happenstance but always there is the same way for review as it was to look back to the origins of our patterning before we manifested into this life?

So where is that?


See:Kaleidoscope

3 comments:

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

This post addresses what I just have with Stefan and Bee, which is to ask what it means to not wanting either our destiny decided or our potentials limited. I would call this the fingerprint of consciousness, which we know intuitively we be a part of. How do we know this to be true was given by Rene Descartes when he said “COGITO ERGO SUM” or simply “I think, therefore I am”.

Best,

Phil

Plato said...

Hi Phil,

Of course I find this interesting.

I have had many issues with our current internet provider that we will be changing. But it may be in the future in terms of couple of weeks, so our time on the internet has been sparse.

The wee hours is all that we are capable of, and lucky until a certain time and then not at all.It seems to me to be throttling.

Mine from article said it's not on the list but I know when three computers experience the same thing that it is not my hardware and more a carrier line we have been shifted too.:) Anyway....

From a condense matter theorist point of view a bottom up approach instead of a top down, and this seems to fall in line with perceptions Descartes correlates from what I read from your link to examples of deductive approach and logic from that bottom up versus that inductive approach from the top down?:)

But knowing that the limitations of science as it has been reached in a experimental gap in terms of continuity, and smoothness in regard to Navierstokes and the QGP this places my views on the universe in formation with a telling feature of what existed before being transferred to what exists today.

The superconductors have holes in them which explains the loss of energy and the unaccountability of what transpires into dimensional relations.

This sets "my logic" as to what exists outside the box of cosmology, as it exists within it's own parameters to say that something does exist at a much subtle level that is much finer then the current building block of reality.

So I go with what's closest in terms of the top down and explain the microseconds instead of the minutes.

Best,

Plato said...

Phil ,

After lunch at CERN and a visit to ATLAS, Weinberg gave a colloquium on "The Quantum Theory of Fields: Effective or Fundamental" to a packed audience. In his talk, he looked at how the use of quantum field theory in particle physics has fluctuated in popularity since Paul Dirac first introduced the approach to describe the interaction of particles with electromagnetic fields in the late 1920s. In particular, he posed the question: Is quantum field theory fundamental or does it arise from some deeper theory, such as string theory? "I don’t want to discourage string theorists," he concluded, "but maybe the world is what we’ve always known: the Standard Model and general relativity." See:Steven Weinberg visits CERN

I realize where Weinberg might be coming from, and what knowledge exists around him for him to speak on this issue this way. It's always best to be on the "safe side" in science?

Best,