An Exceptionally Simple FAQ

Hi ,

Dear Mr Malinowski ,

Just now I finished to read your last posts (february 2009),I like this article ,because there is the correlation always with a perfect balance in ultimate particles towards a physical universal spherization .

I like read all these articles and I am happy to see all these links with the foundamental spherization .

In some days via FQXi ,I have lean a lot ,it completes the Spherization Theory .

Let's see in globality ,Smal perfect spheric symetry and spheres and its numerous interactions before the ultimate particle is a specific comportment and different specific codes to a specific comportment ,the parameters in this local dynamic are relativist ,in one word,we must focus to a perceptible dynamic where we are catalysts in physical reality and motion .

In all case dear Mr Malinowski ,I like the different methods you use to calculate .The quantum gravity is so fascinating ,so much steps and states before this ultimate coded particle ,there is a wall there too ,an other link between the limits Math/Phys .

I think that if works and rational ideas focus on a spherization logic,many accelerations of improvement and of resolution ....

The quantum dimensions and cosmologic dimensiosn are linked ,I didn't know the Dirac 's Work about the large number and the ratio ,it's very interesting ,I think these results and hypothesis can help us to find our peceptible borders and these relative limits ,always the ultimate research of truth like your works Mr Malinowski about quantum gravity which I have read this day on your website.

What do you think ?

Sincerelly

I am greatful that scientists are starting to think about infinity and time and that my ideas seen usefull. I have always believed there can not be limits to size, smale or large. The universe must exist everywhere and all the time. All scientists are taught that they can not visualize the happenings inside the atom, nor can we visualize the other side of the Big Bang. Science is like a train, with everyone inside not ever allowed to open the windows and look out. You can't see out the window. So I got off the train, and walked the tracks for 23 years.

Dear Mr Malinowski ,

Thanks to answer me and nice to meet you .

You say a important thing,

You can't see out the window.I agree with this idea ,some secrets shall stay .Our limits always and our rules of catalysts .

You say

"I have always believed there can not be limits to size, smale or large. The universe must exist everywhere and all the time."

Yes indeed ,if we take the univesal link between math/phys world .

You say "All scientists are taught that they can not visualize the happenings inside the atom, nor can we visualize the other side of the Big Bang."

Yes of course ,the relative responsability in fact ,these limits are unknew and it's well as that .

We are all in the train ,and in relative perception ,it's a fantastic evolution towards the knowledges and its perfect harmony.

Kinds Regards

Steve

Dear Mr Malinowski ,

I d like speak a little about the walls and our limits .

In spherization ,I think that it exists a specific spheres fractal in each particle and their spherical fractal fields and interactions ,implying many comportments.

Let's imagine our Universal Sphere and its volume at this moment ,and its dynamic of evolution(expansion/contraction) .

the groups and super groups of glaxies turn around a center of our Univere ,towards a specific spherical coded geometry in Time .I think the ultim quantum architecture is in correaltion with our future perfect sphere and its spherical system in rotation .

I see a interesting link between,evolution ,spherization,polarization,

let's admit that the Universal sphere volume will decrease towards an ideal balanced spherical geometry .

Thus in this logic space decrease ,thus pression increase ,thus volume decrease .....about dark m and dark e ,let's imagine a kind of particle in wait thus an activation concept ,this notion implies an increasing of mass towards centers in complementarity and complexification ,harmonization .

Let's imagine now the Big Bang or others hypothesis ,for exemple a multiplication of ultim particle and its coded architecture or ..... The first step is the expansion towards a maximum volume ,after the contraction towards this perfect spherical harmony thus a minimum volume ,the question is what is the sspace between spheres in this perfect harmony ,what is the perfect balance between them.This logic implies an increase of mass towards main centers in correlation with foundamental spherization .

The Dark Matter and Energy in this logic shall decrease in volume but the mass increase .

In resume all goes to the centers and the complexification .

It could be interesting to consider the different kinds of fields of rotation with contraction ,for exemple fiels 1 super groups of galaxies( correlation with the main center (too with quantum ))fields 2 +centers groups of galaxies,after galaxies ,stars ,planets.The accretion is interesting ,how will be its velocity ,its acceleration, its exponentials ??? it's very interesting .

About walls here is a global point of vue ,

The walls are everywhere ,in each particle before the unknew ,this maximum universal entropy ,in all centers behind the ultim spherical membran of the coded particle .Cosmologically speaking we can imagine a kind of limit membran ,this memebran in time will decrease in surface in correation with contraction and spherization towards perfect architecture .In fact our quantum architectuire is like a code to our future universal sphereand its galaxies in rotation (finishid ,this point is importnt that imples an end in the physical world ,the perfect harmony ,but not an mathematic end behind walls ,it's different .

In resume expansion towards maximum volume ,after contraction towards the perfect spherical geometry and minimum volume ,in time increasing of mass ,DM DE decrease (activation /pression,),complexification and accretions towards centers .It's the same logic with super groups of galaxies ,groups of galaxies,galaxies ,stars.

Thus spherical fields and its sphere volume increase the accretion and its gravity but its volume decrease(the field sphere volume) ,it's logic beacause the mass increase .

An other point is the gravity and the mass and its effects on the space curvature ,this increasing of mass too in linked with spherization because the gravity increase ,the mass too , and space spheresize itself towards universal center .

What do you think ?

sincerelly

Steve

As far as you know, has any one else stumbled across your idea, and if not, why do you believe you are the first one to do so?

Hello dear Jason ,

Could you develop your message I don't understand all .

Thanks

Regards

Steve

Is this thread still active?

(please delete above post because the brackets used to represent Mean for Mass do not show up and the whole post makes no sense sorry)

GOD/SUPERSYMMETRY/SUPERFLUID/ZEROPOINT/VACUUM EQUATION:

mean Mass = sum U(SampleSpace) divided by DegreesOfFreedom

( ex. dodecahedron .... meanM=U/DOF

meanM=91/13

meanM=7 )

GF SPHERE/STRING THEOREM:

U/DOF=(DOF+1)/2

( ex. dodecahedron .... 91/13=(13+1)/2

7=(14)/2

7=7 )

Works for ANY length of string or ANY size of sphere

*wink

(props to whoever defined "sample space" - that quality haunted me for years until I came across it at Wikipedia)

I may sound condesending or arrogant ... but unfortunately people capable of grasping these things are in the minority. Add in the fact that most physicists let ego rule their logic and you will understand that I face an uphill battle.

Quantum physics is an illusion. It exists in the 5th dimension called "ether" or "spirit" or "thought" or "the existential" etc. etc. I may even go as far as to say that the 5th dimension (quantum realm) can only be known in "cyberspace".

Its the "esoteric" realm ... like astrology, numerology, or tarot cards ... something ruled by patterns but it seeks to end "freewill" and it believes in "fate" (determinism if you prefer). Its what's literally known as "black magic". All illusion.

Science and true physics on the other hand are "white magic" and based on truth. Any serious philosopher knows the fundamentals to knowledge require the understanding of the "Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle" which basically states that "nothing can be measured perfectly because the measurement/measurer effects the outcome". Ever heard of a band called "The Perfect Circle"? True measurement or things like zero do not exist! ...did you know in medevial times that any discussion or belief in zero was cause for arrest or put to death?

Quantum physicists are trying to break the laws of reality and create "free energy/zero point energy" when any intelligent physicist or philosopher knows that the best we can philosophically ever do is 99.999~ effeciency!

Its all about the "god particle" called the Higgs Boson ... yet here's where I find extreme irony ... I'm an Agnostic ... I know that god is suprarational and "unknowable". You cannot prove god exits because god is inconceivable. I do believe in the "possibility" of god and I am extremely religious but I know an incarnate living god is IMPOSSIBLE.

Here's the irony ... I am astounded when I find a person (typically an athiest) who is absolutely certain a Higgs Boson can be proved to exist YET IN NO WAY COULD EVER CONSIDER THAT GOD CAN EXIST. The Higgs Boson and an incarnate god ARE OF THE SAME PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT!

Now I am not saying quantum physics doesn't have its uses ... but what I am saying is that I can evaluate a persons intellect simply by knowing if they know the possibility of what can and cannot exist in such examples as supersymmetry, zero, a perfect vacuum, a perfect superfluid. All these things CANNOT EXIST IN REALITY AND ONLY EXIST IN OUR THEORYS/THOUGHTS/ON PAPER/IN THE 5TH DIMENSION!

We live between the 4th dimension(time) and the 5th(quintessence/ether/dreams/thought/spirit etc. etc.)

My "god' equation is a very pompous title ... its more literally the description of the perfect supersymmetrical dimension, superfluid, or zeropoint vacuum.

I consider my "GF String/Sphere Theorem" the "Pythagorean Theorem" of the 21st century. Its based on any length string or any size sphere!

Try and think of an equation that adds as perfectly as mine does AND YET STILL APPLYS TO BOTH STRINGS AND SPHERES!

I face an uphill battle against quantum magicians and simpletons too uneducated to grasp the beauty of my theoretical equations.

I just want some support. Theres more than just math to this ... ITS ALL POLITICS AND QUANTUM PHYSICISTS SUCKING UP FUNDING MONEY FOR THEIR HUMMERS AND CHEESEBURGERS FOOLING UNEDUCATED BUSINESSMEN INTO THINKING THEY CAN DO "MAGIC" ...

Please spread the word about my equations. I am ready to straighten out all the bs goin on.

GF

Garrett,

I am not adept at these very advanced maths - blame my aberrant schooling. I envy your skill in the advanced maths.

Now, I understand the idea of a "principal bundle" in terms of kinematic constructs, with each particle field represented by a resolved tensor vector, and thus the bundle would be a group of particle fields (with each field represented by a resolved tensor vector). And my understanding is that a "group dance" corresponds to the interactions of all the particle field tensors in the group. My understanding is that our knowledge of the particle field tensors that have already been 'measured' allows the prediction of the existence of unknown particles on account of the force/vector discrepancies in a given group.

My question is:

Do you see a hierarchy of the particle field tensors in terms of what pf tensors initiate the twists and what pf tensors dominate a given group? Or, do you arbitrarily assign what pf tensor initiates a twist?

To give you a little background of where I come from - I have been working on my version of the theory of kinematic relativity. And I believe I am thus far still just scratching at the surface of the theory of kinematic relativity. My theory of kinematic relativity describes motion transformations within a 3-d space 'dimension' and absolute duration transformation along a 1-d time 'dimension'. I use the idea of a kinematic continuum as the matrix of the physical transformations (i.e., the obervable phenomena), which is why I have the idea of kinematic (i.e., kinetic or motion) constructs examined using a pure 'vectorial analysis' approach instead of the prevalent (mixed-up) 'dimensional analysis' approach.

Both my logical language and my mathematical language can be considered unconventional. But I hope you won't mind so much.

Kind regards...

GF, your formula works for any N. The (25,1) dimension has a very nice formula which works only for n=25-1. Sum the squares from 1 to 24. You will get an square.

Ya, I know my equation works for any N(dimensions). I know because I tested it to the first 300 numbers so I know its empirical!!! -I considered using the letter N for Degrees of Freedom since that implies the number of N but I was more specific and chose Degrees of Freedom (DOF). I could have used Cells but cells can be different sizes inside a shape so DOF was more appropriate.

I hope people see my equation is empirical.

I said my equation (String/Sphere Law) works FOR ANY SIZE string OR sphere so on that alone is what gets me so excited yet frustrated that in a couple weeks so far noone has realized it. Although I havent really showed this to any scholistic authorities yet.

yes I know I spelled scholastic wrong :P

Garett,

Could the very nice structure of the E8 have a possible geometric connection with the sub-structure of the universe? Could logic be the pre-geometric precursor to such a structure i.e. could a simple rule of logic create in an explosive process this E8 structure as a sort of fractal?

( I am thinking about the basic quantum of time evolution, a small explosion with an actual structure that translates into specific sizes, shapes and masses from sub-atomic particles to crystallographic systems...)

Thanks,

Marcel,

Mahdi,

you said, "The first cosmic law is that nothing can be determined unless established with what is contrary to it. And things are sometimes concrete and sometimes abstract and both are the same according to law. "

That is beautifull and very true.

Much of the other stuff you said was a bit too deep for me. Maybe I lose the meaning from your translation into English. I don't know.

Good post though. I would like you to be more clear on what point you are making but its deep stuff and I'm sure some truth in it.

Numbers are fascinating and no single value is more important than the other but I appreciate people explaining any pattern they see.