Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Left or Right Brain Doesn't Matter, When your In The Dimenisons?

Einstein in response tyo Minkowski's Space World: Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence

If we recognize the valuation of what exists regardless of the things that would hold the photon for consideration, the realization is, that the inetrplay would have revealled the Halo in definition of that gravitational radiation?

A natural or acquired predilection towards geometric or algebraic thinking and respective mental objects is often expressed in strong pronouncements, like Hermann Weyl’s exorcising “the devil of abstract algebra” who allegedly struggles with “the angel of geometry” for the soul of each mathematical theory. (One is reminded of an even more sweeping truth:

This goes back to the origins of the math, as to whether it is manufactured or is natural? Some of these distinctions are self evident as we look at Pascal's triangle for a selection of what may arize out of what might be called quantum geometry. We had to understand it's origins and the distant functions that would have been revealled? We also understood where such a view would have become realizaed in the detrminations of the nergy that was produced and the curvatures that would be inherent in this scalable feature relegated to dimension.

If the brain resonates, then it may become aware of the undercurrents that would subjectively be realized in the subconscious, to have understood that it too was capable of determining the outcome to a pressupposed course of action taken in life? Chaldni plates, but much subtler in the brain's organization?

The subconcious was able to predict the outcome of the actions that have been set, by the actualization of consensus. Ramanujan moduli forms may have, from what I understood found such expressions and spoken to the predictabiltiy of outcome, in relations to what I have just said above.

Einstein's usage:
We can distinguish various kinds of theories
in physics. Most of them are constructive.
They attempt to build up a picture of the more
complex phenomena out of the materials of a
relatively simple formal scheme from which
they start out. Thus the kinetic theory of gases
seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and
diffusional processes to movements of molecules
-- i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis of
molecular motion. When we say that we have
succeeded in understanding a group of natural
processes we invariably mean that a constructive
theory has been found which covers the
processes in question.
Along with this most important class of
theories there exists a second, which I will
call 'principle-theories'; These employ the
analytic, not the synthetic, method. The elements
which form their bases and starting-point are not
hypothetically constructed but empirically
discovered ones, general characteristics of
natural processes, principles that give rise to
mathematically formulated criteria which these
separate processes or the theoretical
representations of them have to satisfy. Thus
the science of thermodynamics seeks by
analytical means to deduce necessary conditions,
which separate events have to satisfy, from the
universally experienced fact that perpetual
motion is impossible.
The advantages of the constructive theory
are completeness, adaptability, and clearness,
those of the principle theory are logical
perfection and security of the foundations.
The theory of relativity belongs to the latter
class. In order to grasp its nature, one needs
first of all to become acquainted with the
principles on which it is based. Before I go
into these, however, I must observe that the
theory of relativity resembles a building
consisting of two separate stories, the special
theory and the general theory. The special
theory, on which the general theory rests,
applies to all physical phenomena with the
exception of gravitation; the general theory
provides the law of gravitation and its relations
to the other forces of nature.

Found in: "What is the Theory of Relativity?",
Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers
Press, p. 228-9.

Part of the difficulty in understanding the analogies to scientific pursuite is the relationship what might be drawn to the "idea"? Like sound, consolidation in nodal points lines of the Chaldni plate. Such predictive features of the marble drop of course ask us to question what outcome waould be a viable model to what might be demonstrated in the Bell curve?

Quantum gravity models in the membranes show nodal point flips as in the monte carlo model for comprehesnion. Demonstrates the triangular function of this energy, and becomes quite pronouced, the greater the energy?

We do not know for sure how particles get their mass. The current best idea is that they acquire it by interacting with a field (like a gravitational field), known as the Higgs field. The more strongly a particle interacts with this field, the greater its
mass. The field is expected to produce a new particle called the Higgs particle.

INherent in the quest for the appropriate visaulization of course depends greatly on where these abstractions exist? Without this ocean in which we are immersed, it would make no sense to speak about maths which do not arise into fractorialized states of existance. Not arisng from states of nothinness, but from states of possibile outcomes?

No comments:

Post a Comment