Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Expansitory Valuation of a Circle with Gravity?

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 I refer to this often, because of this connection between inner content and outer context. I know it deals with a consciousness and subjective valuation, but it seems very important when you think of what could happen between the compactification of the sun or earth and its size, once dealt to a blackhole?

In this setting of the spherical mass M, we define the value rS = 2M as the Schwarzschild radius of the mass. If the mass has a radius less than rS, then it is called a black hole. In that case, the surface r =rS is called the event horizon of the black hole.

Sometimes the determination of this value has to be seen in light of how we see the gravitational properties of the energy. Windings then, come of value in KK tower representations, and hence images of circles joining other circles can represented in a tree?

It's trunk and branches. Although this imagery is a little different, the base of the larger circle has pointed in the right direction, if we think of flat euclidean space, where no gravity potential can exist? Although we like to think there is never this abscence of harmonic oscillation, it would have to be assumed that it had always existed and can never really be zero?

Had I then complicated the ideal of this circle by recognizing this value from the ground up, had I lost sight of it's root system, and how well it is buried in the earth. How shall I explain this, but as a inverse function of growth? This is not possible. So we see where the seeding had the potential to rise from the earth in one form, and proceed to move into the air, as a phase from it's early unverse beginnings?

So where does this motivation then exist in the design?

A circle of radius r has a curvature of size 1/r. Therefore, small circles have large curvature and large circles have small curvature. The curvature of a line is 0. In general, an object with zero curvature is "flat."

See LIminocentric structure here for a deeper explanation. Greene's emphasis helps in other aspects as well. How can a six foot man exist in such a tiny circle?:)

The familiar extended dimensions, therefore, may very well also be in the shape of circles and hence subject to the R and 1/R physical identification of string theory. To put some rough numbers in, if the familiar dimensions are circular then their radii must be about as large as 15 billion light-years, which is about ten trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (R= 1061) times the Planck length, and growing as the universe explands. If string theory is right, this is physically identical to the familiar dimensions being circular with incredibly tiny radii of about 1/R=1/1061=10-61 times the Planck length! There are our well-known familiar dimensions in an alternate description provided by string theory. [Greene's emphasis]. In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above? (Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)

So in the one sense(or topo-sense) I see similarities between planes and cyliners and they are isometrically equivalent, and then ideas of topological design spoken of, in the idea of the coffee cup becoming a donut, and all of a sudden this kind of geometry had taken a turn for perspective that deals with other things then I am normally accustom too.

So on a csomological level we get this sense of curvature and here to further exploit this understanding the means to such equations supplied for this endeavor.

But taken to the tree level(potato plant):) and interactive features of windings how shall we interpret such energies, but by those same windings? That the seed of the plant held a greater design for growth, yet it is in the seed this plant and it's energy contained that it's futre is realized. I know this plant thingy is a bad analogy for how such circle and the arrow of time. Would a flower be better? How does anything loop back onto itself and replay this universe all over again?

Physics at this high energy scale describes the universe as it existed during the first moments of the Big Bang. These high energy scales are completely beyond the range which can be created in the particle accelerators we currently have (or will have in the foreseeable future.) Most of the physical theories that we use to understand the universe that we live in also break down at the Planck scale. However, string theory shows unique promise in being able to describe the physics of the Planck scale and the Big Bang.

So when you read Lubos's entry here in Nasa's Collider you have to wonder? How on a physical level, the circle implied( our universe now after the first three minutes) could have ever recieved the connotation of it's valuation in a collision as large as we see in that situation? But you have to understand this connection between Gia and the "plate he hits", or the mirror moon measures and of course, there are simultaneous question about dimensional perspectve and compacted circles that raised the undertanding beyond current standards in our everyday world. Much like understanding strong curvature in a circle. How far can this be taken?

You would not think this post here would have ever had anything to do with Lubos simple statement about Nasa'a Collider, but it does?:) I guess it depends on which circle you belong too?

No comments:

Post a Comment