1)There is no ideal line. A one-dimensional superstring best describes a vibrating line.
Point particles form this vibrating line by interconnecting via mini-string in-between the associated point particles. These point particles form where these do because the globally norm conditions that surround these point particles cause the correlative need for supplementally globally ground conditions.
2)Every one-dimensional superstring that is not an encoder has one partition, or, aberration from vibrating linearity. Every two-dimensional superstring that is not an encoder has two partitions, or, aberrations from vibrating radiation in a hoop-like configuration. These partitions are necessary for the flexibility of the said superstrings so that these may vibrate along the homotopy of their topology.
3)A substring is a superstring is one set Laplacian iteration that is fully Lorentz-Four-Contracted. A globally distinguishable superstring is a superstring that is detectable at the Planck Length or the Planck Radius, is no existent over the mere Laplacian of one iteration, and has minimized Lorentz-Four-Contractions.
4)Superstrings fit in along the ultimon by being geometrically based on globally ground conditions.
For test solutions of 5) and 6), see handwritten solutions.
7)Real residue in terms of superstrings is residue that happens during iteration metrics that involves the phenomenal discharge of these superstrings and norm states. Such phenomenal discharge is the mini-string that is being pulled out of and into the said superstrings and the said norm states.
8)Imaginary residue in terms of superstrings is residue that happens during ultimon flow that involves the phenomenal discharge of superstrings and norm states.
9)Cassimer Invariance is the unchanging condition of the recycling of norm conditions among superstrings. It is not eternally invariant among tori-sector ranges that form black-holes. Yet, it may be eternally invariant in some tori-sector-ranges.
10)Imaginary residue is delineated upon superstringular phenomena in such a way that it effects the said phenomena over subsequent iterations.
11)Globally norm conditions effect the delineation of Imaginary residue, while globally ground conditions effect the delineation of Real residue.
9)Cassimer Invariance is
Monday, December 21, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Session 6 of Course 2, Test #1
1)Is these an ideal physical line? What phenomena best describes a vibrating line? How do point particles form this "ideal" vibrating line? Why do these points form where these do?
2)Describe the aberations in a string tht cause it to not be perfectly straight.
3)What is the difference between a substring and a globally distinguishable string?
4)How do string fit in along the ultimon as a general condition?
5)Draw a sketch of a rough pattern of long and short lines that converge. It must contain at least 10 lines.
6)Draw a sketch of a rough "pattern" of long and short lines that diverge. It must contain at least 10 lines.
7)What is Real residue in terms of a superstring?
8)What is Imaginary residue in terms of a superstring?
9)What is Cassimer Invariance? Is it eternally invariant?
10)What happens to Imaginary residue?
11)How do the norm conditions of point particles effect the type of residue that these obtain?
2)Describe the aberations in a string tht cause it to not be perfectly straight.
3)What is the difference between a substring and a globally distinguishable string?
4)How do string fit in along the ultimon as a general condition?
5)Draw a sketch of a rough pattern of long and short lines that converge. It must contain at least 10 lines.
6)Draw a sketch of a rough "pattern" of long and short lines that diverge. It must contain at least 10 lines.
7)What is Real residue in terms of a superstring?
8)What is Imaginary residue in terms of a superstring?
9)What is Cassimer Invariance? Is it eternally invariant?
10)What happens to Imaginary residue?
11)How do the norm conditions of point particles effect the type of residue that these obtain?
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Page 3 of Sessions 2,3,4, and 5(Residue Applied to 2-D strings
Now that we learned what is meant by Real residue, I will apply this concept to metaphorical vibrating circles, which represent two-dimensional strings. Take two circles. One has a small radius while the other has a large radius. The two circles are initially parallel to each other and are not touching. The two circles are actually thin hoops. The two circles propagate. These are not merely duplicated. In one of such an array, the pattern of small circle placewise differentiation and large circle placewise differentiation converges to a discrete symmetry. In another array as above, the pattern of small circle placewise differentiation to large circle placewise differentiation never converges to a discrete symmetry. You might say, "Well, if it's a pattern, then it is discrete." Not necessarily. If the pattern is anharmonic or if it is long enough, it may form sub-symmetries that diverge as the "pattern" ends its phenomenal discharge. By "ends its phenomenal discharge", I mean that the circles would stop moving around, and the pattern of all of the places that the circles were at would have a limitation. Such an erratic pattern has zero Weyl-Invariance, since invariance means that it doesn't change, and something that is erratic changes the eigenbasis of symmetry that would otherwise exist. If an eigenbasis of encodement due to discharged wave homotopy diverges in terms of wave commutation, while the divergent wave commutation (not divergent wave generation, which would do just the opposite), causing these waves to keep iterating in a string-like fashion that may be of different transversal, spin-orbital, and/or radial placements respectively, exists due to the same substringular operation, then the associated superstrings will always be within the same general locus of tori sector. Such waves that diverge during ultimon flow obey an odd function of wave residue in-between instantons, and thus bear an Imaginary Residue. Once the associated waves, along with the differentiating path operands that the "odd" waves propagate along, act upon the other correlative waves that have diverged from the initial said waves, the waves as a unit are then back into iteration mode, and thus bear residue that is said to be Real. Then their residue may be taken from the strings in a method I will later show, in order that norm conditions among substringular phenomena may have equilibrium. Imaginary residue that's already delineated stays within a general relative locus per iteration in spite of the fact that Imaginary residue is residue that is produced during ultimon flow, and ultimon flow is in-between instantons, and Imaginary residue causes Cassimer Invariant modes via certain motion of Planck phenomena related phenomena that I will describe in later courses.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Test#2 of Course 1, Session 12
1)Draw two hooks that catch each other. If these hooks are the same size and are tugging with the same force and in the supplemental direction, what could cause these to be released?
2)Explain how different directions of wave-tug may be advantageous or disadvantageous to pulling in the other hook.
3)Pretend that nearness is according to a polar diagram. When are two points near for sure, when are these very near, and when are these far?
4)Pictorially contrast two near particles with two far ones. State an example in which all four of these particles are relatively near as compared to that. State another example of two particles that are much more localized than any of those particles.
5)Name the ”neighborhood” of your writing utensil.
6)What are the local neighborhoods of a molecule of the air that you are breathing?
7)Relate the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the Heisenburg Principle to an electron. Name a flaw in this argument.
8)Relate the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the Heisenburg Principle to a string. What must be so in order to validate any conclusions as to how these principles function. (Use your imagination. I need to see effort and a development of truth based on our lessons.
2)Explain how different directions of wave-tug may be advantageous or disadvantageous to pulling in the other hook.
3)Pretend that nearness is according to a polar diagram. When are two points near for sure, when are these very near, and when are these far?
4)Pictorially contrast two near particles with two far ones. State an example in which all four of these particles are relatively near as compared to that. State another example of two particles that are much more localized than any of those particles.
5)Name the ”neighborhood” of your writing utensil.
6)What are the local neighborhoods of a molecule of the air that you are breathing?
7)Relate the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the Heisenburg Principle to an electron. Name a flaw in this argument.
8)Relate the Pauli Exclusion Principle and the Heisenburg Principle to a string. What must be so in order to validate any conclusions as to how these principles function. (Use your imagination. I need to see effort and a development of truth based on our lessons.
Test 3 of Course 1 (Last Test)
1)Why must all "stuff in a spot" have angular momentum?
2)Give me an example of something actual that is not "stuff in a spot."
3)Why must strings be composed of smaller phenomena?
4)How is mass an energy?
5)How is electromagnetic energy related to mass?
6)How does a high voltage wire effect a creature that touches it?
7)How does a high amp/low voltage wire effect one that touches it? How much amps may kill a person?
8)Give an example of a harmonic wave.
9)What within an atom is the source of electromagnetics? What composes this?
10)What acts as waves? What are these waves composed of? How does this relate to superstrings?
2)Give me an example of something actual that is not "stuff in a spot."
3)Why must strings be composed of smaller phenomena?
4)How is mass an energy?
5)How is electromagnetic energy related to mass?
6)How does a high voltage wire effect a creature that touches it?
7)How does a high amp/low voltage wire effect one that touches it? How much amps may kill a person?
8)Give an example of a harmonic wave.
9)What within an atom is the source of electromagnetics? What composes this?
10)What acts as waves? What are these waves composed of? How does this relate to superstrings?
Session 15 of Course 1, Energy, Matter, and Space
If something is a thing, then it can be pinpointed to a location. If a thing stands perfectly still by way of perception, then the energies that make up that thing are in static equilibrium. If the energies of a thing are globally in static equilibrium, then the thing is a form of matter.
Space is the range of spots where things can exist and change relative to one another. If things can't exist in a certain spot or rang of spots, then those spots are not of the classification to be named spaces. Spaces may also mean separations between things or members of space, yet, in order for the separation to be space, it must have the potential to have stuff in it. If the phenomena in a "space-hole" is not energy, yet a scattered lower form of point residue that leaves upon entry, then this spot or region of spots would definitely not be "space," since it can not contain energy. For instance, a string contains a region of spots that work together to form this function, while some point commutators associate with one such spot.
Space rearranges. It is altered in its shape, topology, and distribution. Energy is the redistribution of space as both an amplitudinal, morphological, and topological differentiation that diverges from one locale to another in at least one direction. So, the warping of space is simply an expression of a global amplitude in energy codifferentiation -- how two normal energies change the pattern of their spacial environment by the modulae of their amplitudinal, morphological, and topological distributions in the local regions in which these themselves change relative to one another. Everything that changes changes relative to every other change. Familiarity with definite patterns as to how these changes effect other things leads one to find clues as to how to develop a reliable scheme that has a high degree of probability. Playing out how these various forces interact through knowledge of your familiarity may lead you in the right direction of extrapolation and critical analysis. Through pseudo trials, one may be led to distinguish an applicable path.
Space is where the universes are acting. The activity of space is energy, and where these actions form a non-kinematic "actor" of "potential energy" is matter. Energy is kinematic change in phenomena. Phenomena is often such a change itself. Transformed space through charge delineation may form energy, and various energies balancing to form a static item is matter. Items that are not kinematism are matter and have mass.
Space is the range of spots where things can exist and change relative to one another. If things can't exist in a certain spot or rang of spots, then those spots are not of the classification to be named spaces. Spaces may also mean separations between things or members of space, yet, in order for the separation to be space, it must have the potential to have stuff in it. If the phenomena in a "space-hole" is not energy, yet a scattered lower form of point residue that leaves upon entry, then this spot or region of spots would definitely not be "space," since it can not contain energy. For instance, a string contains a region of spots that work together to form this function, while some point commutators associate with one such spot.
Space rearranges. It is altered in its shape, topology, and distribution. Energy is the redistribution of space as both an amplitudinal, morphological, and topological differentiation that diverges from one locale to another in at least one direction. So, the warping of space is simply an expression of a global amplitude in energy codifferentiation -- how two normal energies change the pattern of their spacial environment by the modulae of their amplitudinal, morphological, and topological distributions in the local regions in which these themselves change relative to one another. Everything that changes changes relative to every other change. Familiarity with definite patterns as to how these changes effect other things leads one to find clues as to how to develop a reliable scheme that has a high degree of probability. Playing out how these various forces interact through knowledge of your familiarity may lead you in the right direction of extrapolation and critical analysis. Through pseudo trials, one may be led to distinguish an applicable path.
Space is where the universes are acting. The activity of space is energy, and where these actions form a non-kinematic "actor" of "potential energy" is matter. Energy is kinematic change in phenomena. Phenomena is often such a change itself. Transformed space through charge delineation may form energy, and various energies balancing to form a static item is matter. Items that are not kinematism are matter and have mass.
Session 14 on Course 1, Pictorial Learning
1)Draw two points. Draw eight curves that connect these two given points. Now, draw a curve between the two given points that is an average of the other eight. Measure the length of this last curve, using a ruler and a protractor. How much shorter or longer is the curve than the eight other added curves? Measure the angle of the tangent that corresponds to the new curve as a mean wave (if smooth), if going from one point toward another, at one locus of the given curve. This is a central state wave. Moving this wave describes a harmonic vibration.
2)Draw an ordinary rectangle. Make points along it. Now, make a point above a plane of scattered points.
Let's discuss the above.
3)In "2", which array is globally norm?
Which array is globally ground?
Which array implies point commutation?
Which array describes strings?
Do these ever interchange?
Why?
2)Draw an ordinary rectangle. Make points along it. Now, make a point above a plane of scattered points.
Let's discuss the above.
3)In "2", which array is globally norm?
Which array is globally ground?
Which array implies point commutation?
Which array describes strings?
Do these ever interchange?
Why?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Session 13 of course 1, Stuff in a Spot
Pick any object into your thoughts. If the object is physical, it is stuff. In order for stuff to be real, it must exist in space. Anything that exists in space must be located at a certain spot.
Make a dot on a sheet of paper. If the paper stays still, then the dot remains in a certain spot relative to you. Certainly, the earth is moving, the solar systems moving, our whole galaxy is moving, and even the molecules of the dot that you made are vibrating. Yet, as far as your perception is concerned, the dot's spot doesn't change, or, in other words, the locus of your physical dot remains invariant.
Picture a bowling ball in its rollable area. Picture it moving or standing still, either way. If the bowling ball is moving, the ball is rolling as a weight that gains speed, or accelerates. A weight that moves has momentum. Any object has directions associated with its position. Interrelated directions associated with position describe angle. So, the bowling ball, when standing still still has direction associated with its position. The bowling ball has weight. Mass is energy in static equilibrium. So, the bowling ball is always energy. Everything with energy has a velocity associated with it. Even if that energy is the combined kinetic forces that apply to allow the bowling ball to not be outwardly kinetic itself. So, in so long as a phenomena has energy associated with it, it has momentum which is also acting in a certain direction. This is true even if the summed energies and their directions add up to the object or phenomenon globally remaining still. Thus, any phenomenon that is formed upon energy has at least some angular momentum associated with it.
If something is stuff, then it exists in a spot. Stuff that is energy or made up of energy will always bear a sense of locale, thereby being in a spot. Even if the stuff is moving in space, after each discrete unit of relative time, the stuff is in a specific location. Anything that can be called "stuff" is energy and/or made up of energy either as a kinetic form (normal energy) or as a potential (kinetic energy in static equilibrium). Any thing that exists in a spot has direction associated with it that interrelates to cause the objects position to be the way that it is in any given moment. Anything made up of energy has a momentum, since energy is a drive that has motion and is motion. Also, motion always has direction. Thus, anything that is stuff in a spot has angular momentum.
Energy can be broken down to the level of a string. Strings exist. Since these exist, these exist in a spot. So, any phenomena composed of strings has angular momentum. Things smaller than a string are gauge-actions that do not classify as energy. Things this small do not act as momentum particles, and instantaneously associate with all other point particles. Thus, these particles do not classically act as "stuff in a spot." If you went a universe of discrete lower than the superstring (which is level lower than the Planck level, which is 3*10^(-35)meters), you could attempt to justify that these point-like particles and states have angular momentum, yet you wouldn't, since such a level could never pinpoint one of these phenomena at a spot except with extremely technical probability equations. Yet, any string may be pinpointed to a relative locus by using a low level of discrete.
Make a dot on a sheet of paper. If the paper stays still, then the dot remains in a certain spot relative to you. Certainly, the earth is moving, the solar systems moving, our whole galaxy is moving, and even the molecules of the dot that you made are vibrating. Yet, as far as your perception is concerned, the dot's spot doesn't change, or, in other words, the locus of your physical dot remains invariant.
Picture a bowling ball in its rollable area. Picture it moving or standing still, either way. If the bowling ball is moving, the ball is rolling as a weight that gains speed, or accelerates. A weight that moves has momentum. Any object has directions associated with its position. Interrelated directions associated with position describe angle. So, the bowling ball, when standing still still has direction associated with its position. The bowling ball has weight. Mass is energy in static equilibrium. So, the bowling ball is always energy. Everything with energy has a velocity associated with it. Even if that energy is the combined kinetic forces that apply to allow the bowling ball to not be outwardly kinetic itself. So, in so long as a phenomena has energy associated with it, it has momentum which is also acting in a certain direction. This is true even if the summed energies and their directions add up to the object or phenomenon globally remaining still. Thus, any phenomenon that is formed upon energy has at least some angular momentum associated with it.
If something is stuff, then it exists in a spot. Stuff that is energy or made up of energy will always bear a sense of locale, thereby being in a spot. Even if the stuff is moving in space, after each discrete unit of relative time, the stuff is in a specific location. Anything that can be called "stuff" is energy and/or made up of energy either as a kinetic form (normal energy) or as a potential (kinetic energy in static equilibrium). Any thing that exists in a spot has direction associated with it that interrelates to cause the objects position to be the way that it is in any given moment. Anything made up of energy has a momentum, since energy is a drive that has motion and is motion. Also, motion always has direction. Thus, anything that is stuff in a spot has angular momentum.
Energy can be broken down to the level of a string. Strings exist. Since these exist, these exist in a spot. So, any phenomena composed of strings has angular momentum. Things smaller than a string are gauge-actions that do not classify as energy. Things this small do not act as momentum particles, and instantaneously associate with all other point particles. Thus, these particles do not classically act as "stuff in a spot." If you went a universe of discrete lower than the superstring (which is level lower than the Planck level, which is 3*10^(-35)meters), you could attempt to justify that these point-like particles and states have angular momentum, yet you wouldn't, since such a level could never pinpoint one of these phenomena at a spot except with extremely technical probability equations. Yet, any string may be pinpointed to a relative locus by using a low level of discrete.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Session 11 of Course 1, More About Relative Loci
Let me put it another way. Draw a point. Call it a spot. It is only a spot. A second spot near the first one is local to it, yet it is still separate from the first spot. If the two spots were to be at the same position and fill the same area, then these would be one in the same spot. So, if the spots were part of each other, these wouldn't be local, since these would be the same thing overlapping.
Likewise, if the second spot was smaller than the first, and occupied that first spot without causing any distinguishable change through detection, then the second spot would not be just local to the first spot, it would have indistinguishably replaced something of that first spot. The two spots would be an interdependent whole that would amount to no net change in either spot. Both spots would be inseparable increments of something that is just as it was and just where the first spot had been for some time. Local spots would be those near the first one.
Let's say that two spots overlapped. The area of the first spot would have remained intact, and the area of the second spot remained intact. The overlapped area would be dark, just as both the first and second spots were dark. It is likely that the area of overlap would be darker than either spot initially was. The new configuration would not have the same configuration as either initial spot.
Let us say that the spots were round.d Let's say that as prior the area of overlap caused indistinguishable replacement versus the darkened overlap that I mentioned in the last paragraph. The emitted area that was replaced is residue of the first and second spots, yet it is no longer a part of either spot. If the replacement was eased by the efficient removal of what is now residue, than the residue would be forced away from the new shape that has formed. thus, the new residue is no longer a part of the new configuration. You could now say that the second spot's parts that have remained unchanged are local to the first spot's parts that have remained unchanged, since these are unique and have a distinguishable identity that is different from either initial spot.
Earlier, when the overlapped area was darkened, both the maintained part of the first spot, the maintained part of the second spot, and the area of the overlap could be said to be local to the same thing.
Theoretically, anything may be broken down into parts that are unique from the original thing. Yet, certain things should never be tampered with. What determines what a unique "spot" is, that can not be broken down, nor any smaller parts found further down in scope, is your definitional context. A lepton may be thought of as a single thing when you consider it as a particle. An electron is made of leptons. An atom may be treated as a system that contains particles. Any system has components that are local to the mechanism of that system as a whole. Planck Phenomena and superstrings are discrete units of energy. This is because you can not have an energy that is a fraction of a Planck Phenomenon or superstring. For instance, a lepton system has Planck Phenomena and superstrings that are local to the very makeup of that lepton. Everything is locally interdependent on its interior and exterior.
Likewise, if the second spot was smaller than the first, and occupied that first spot without causing any distinguishable change through detection, then the second spot would not be just local to the first spot, it would have indistinguishably replaced something of that first spot. The two spots would be an interdependent whole that would amount to no net change in either spot. Both spots would be inseparable increments of something that is just as it was and just where the first spot had been for some time. Local spots would be those near the first one.
Let's say that two spots overlapped. The area of the first spot would have remained intact, and the area of the second spot remained intact. The overlapped area would be dark, just as both the first and second spots were dark. It is likely that the area of overlap would be darker than either spot initially was. The new configuration would not have the same configuration as either initial spot.
Let us say that the spots were round.d Let's say that as prior the area of overlap caused indistinguishable replacement versus the darkened overlap that I mentioned in the last paragraph. The emitted area that was replaced is residue of the first and second spots, yet it is no longer a part of either spot. If the replacement was eased by the efficient removal of what is now residue, than the residue would be forced away from the new shape that has formed. thus, the new residue is no longer a part of the new configuration. You could now say that the second spot's parts that have remained unchanged are local to the first spot's parts that have remained unchanged, since these are unique and have a distinguishable identity that is different from either initial spot.
Earlier, when the overlapped area was darkened, both the maintained part of the first spot, the maintained part of the second spot, and the area of the overlap could be said to be local to the same thing.
Theoretically, anything may be broken down into parts that are unique from the original thing. Yet, certain things should never be tampered with. What determines what a unique "spot" is, that can not be broken down, nor any smaller parts found further down in scope, is your definitional context. A lepton may be thought of as a single thing when you consider it as a particle. An electron is made of leptons. An atom may be treated as a system that contains particles. Any system has components that are local to the mechanism of that system as a whole. Planck Phenomena and superstrings are discrete units of energy. This is because you can not have an energy that is a fraction of a Planck Phenomenon or superstring. For instance, a lepton system has Planck Phenomena and superstrings that are local to the very makeup of that lepton. Everything is locally interdependent on its interior and exterior.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
RE: Session 7 of Course 1
Two things interact in a situation. These objects or phenomena change relative to each other as both things associated in space and as two items that act as placeholders in both their individual relative time and their collective relative time. Suppose that each of these two items were a cane. Two canes. Both of these canes struck each other in many ways at the top of their structures, yet the canes never pulled each other to any significant sway, and thus only interacted as a static force that redistributed the ends of each other. Now let's say that the bottom of the canes were held by a highly powerful grip that had a leeway of some elastic modulae. In other words, the bottoms of the canes were held tightly, yet by a medium that was not rigid -- like a pair of hands. When the canes at their tops were to strike, these would be momentarily redistributed, while then returning to an approximation of their original spot. Like you can see, their differentiation would be static, and no significant net change would appear over any transient period of time in terms of the appearance of the scene. Yet, if you were to hook the ends of the canes, there would be a chance that one of the canes would pull the other. Even if both of the people holding the canes were of equal strength, depending on how the canes were twisted and/or torqued, could cause a net change in how these would be pulled.
Tug has to do with push-pull action. In order for there to be a push or a pull, there must be some static connection for at least one moment. For instance, you push a stone. In order for you to move it at all, your hand must have some interaction with the stone for at least one moment. If you tried to lift anything without interconnection, your hands would slip and you wouldn't be able to lift it. When something pulls something else, there is a significant static modulae that allows for the puller to pull. This interconnection is classically done when the two objects are hooked one onto another.
Waves tug, since these push and/or pull. The interconnection comes through electrostatics and/or hookable cusps in the morphology of the waves' structure. Strong electromagnetic fields pull in more wavelike phenomena, while strong electrostatic fields such as a high voltage fence will actually push out a person who tries messing with it. (High amps will pull you in and electrocute you, while a high voltage/low amperage situation will knock you away once the low amperage momentarily attempts to pull you in.) This is because amperage is charge per second, and a high amount of electrical charge flowing in a limited amount of time hooks any adjacent conductive material since this will balance the adjacent electrical band levels, and voltage is energy per charge, and if a wire has a lot of energy per charge, yet not much charge is flowing through the wire per time, then the low charge per time will barely attempt to pull the person while the wire's high energy will form a field that will repel the person as they are being shocked. Both examples of pull and push are examples of how interaction is a matter of wave-tug. General relocalization of particles is due to the various tendencies of wave-tug.
Tug has to do with push-pull action. In order for there to be a push or a pull, there must be some static connection for at least one moment. For instance, you push a stone. In order for you to move it at all, your hand must have some interaction with the stone for at least one moment. If you tried to lift anything without interconnection, your hands would slip and you wouldn't be able to lift it. When something pulls something else, there is a significant static modulae that allows for the puller to pull. This interconnection is classically done when the two objects are hooked one onto another.
Waves tug, since these push and/or pull. The interconnection comes through electrostatics and/or hookable cusps in the morphology of the waves' structure. Strong electromagnetic fields pull in more wavelike phenomena, while strong electrostatic fields such as a high voltage fence will actually push out a person who tries messing with it. (High amps will pull you in and electrocute you, while a high voltage/low amperage situation will knock you away once the low amperage momentarily attempts to pull you in.) This is because amperage is charge per second, and a high amount of electrical charge flowing in a limited amount of time hooks any adjacent conductive material since this will balance the adjacent electrical band levels, and voltage is energy per charge, and if a wire has a lot of energy per charge, yet not much charge is flowing through the wire per time, then the low charge per time will barely attempt to pull the person while the wire's high energy will form a field that will repel the person as they are being shocked. Both examples of pull and push are examples of how interaction is a matter of wave-tug. General relocalization of particles is due to the various tendencies of wave-tug.
The 10th Session of Course 1
Two things interact in a situation. These objects or phenomena change relative to each other as both things associated in space and as two items that act as placeholders in both their individual relative time and their collective relative time. Suppose that each of these two items were a cane. Two canes. Both of these canes struck each other in many ways at the top of their structures, yet the canes never pulled each other to any significant sway, and thus only interacted as a static force that redistributed the ends of each other. Now let's say that the bottom of the canes were held by a highly powerful grip that had a leeway of some elastic modulae. In other words, the bottoms of the canes were held tightly, yet by a medium that was not rigid -- like a pair of hands. When the canes at their tops were to strike, these would be momentarily redistributed, while then returning to an approximation of their original spot. Like you can see, their differentiation would be static, and no significant net change would appear over any transient period of time in terms of the appearance of the scene. Yet, if you were to hook the ends of the canes, there would be a chance that one of the canes would pull the other. Even if both of the people holding the canes were of equal strength, depending on how the canes were twisted and/or torqued, could cause a net change in how these would be pulled.
Tug has to do with push-pull action. In order for there to be a push or a pull, there must be some static connection for at least one moment. For instance, you push a stone. In order for you to move it at all, your hand must have some interaction with the stone for at least one moment. If you tried to lift anything without interconnection, your hands would slip and you wouldn't be able to lift it. When something pulls something else, there is a significant static modulae that allows for the puller to pull. This interconnection is classically done when the two objects are hooked one onto another.
Waves tug, since these push and/or pull. The interconnection comes through electrostatics and/or hookable cusps in the morphology of the waves' structure. Strong electromagnetic fields pull in more wavelike phenomena, while strong electrostatic fields such as a high voltage fence will actually push out a person who tries messing with it. (High amps will pull you in and electrocute you, while a high voltage/low amperage situation will knock you away once the low amperage momentarily attempts to pull you in.) This is because amperage is charge per second, and a high amount of electrical charge flowing in a limited amount of time hooks any adjacent conductive material since this will balance the adjacent electrical band levels, and voltage is energy per charge, and if a wire has a lot of energy per charge, yet not much charge is flowing through the wire per time, then the low charge per time will barely attempt to pull the person while the wire's high energy will form a field that will repel the person as they are being shocked. Both examples of pull and push are examples of how interaction is a matter of wave-tug. General relocalization of particles is due to the various tendencies of wave-tug.
Tug has to do with push-pull action. In order for there to be a push or a pull, there must be some static connection for at least one moment. For instance, you push a stone. In order for you to move it at all, your hand must have some interaction with the stone for at least one moment. If you tried to lift anything without interconnection, your hands would slip and you wouldn't be able to lift it. When something pulls something else, there is a significant static modulae that allows for the puller to pull. This interconnection is classically done when the two objects are hooked one onto another.
Waves tug, since these push and/or pull. The interconnection comes through electrostatics and/or hookable cusps in the morphology of the waves' structure. Strong electromagnetic fields pull in more wavelike phenomena, while strong electrostatic fields such as a high voltage fence will actually push out a person who tries messing with it. (High amps will pull you in and electrocute you, while a high voltage/low amperage situation will knock you away once the low amperage momentarily attempts to pull you in.) This is because amperage is charge per second, and a high amount of electrical charge flowing in a limited amount of time hooks any adjacent conductive material since this will balance the adjacent electrical band levels, and voltage is energy per charge, and if a wire has a lot of energy per charge, yet not much charge is flowing through the wire per time, then the low charge per time will barely attempt to pull the person while the wire's high energy will form a field that will repel the person as they are being shocked. Both examples of pull and push are examples of how interaction is a matter of wave-tug. General relocalization of particles is due to the various tendencies of wave-tug.
RE: Session 6 of Course 1, Jointedness
Picture the frame of a warehouse as it is being built. Certainly, all of the materials used to build the building are not going in the same direction. If this were to happen, the pieces used to make this building would either be laying on top of each other and/or laying side by side and/or connected in a long line that would not be able to form a building. Some parts of the building would need to be connected at the side of other parts.
If you are going down a road, and you come to a stop, after which immediately turning right, you would have made a ninety degree turn. The same would be true in such a case if you were to turn left. Ninety-Degrees looks like an "L" or a backwards "L." Ninety-Degrees is also the change from the side of a circle to its top, and is the phase difference between sine and cosine. When you draw a sine wave correctly, it is a smooth curve. When you draw a cosine wave correctly, it is a smooth curve. If you draw a terraced structure correctly, it makes some immediate direction changes either when going from up to across and from across to up or when going from across to down and from down to across.
Let us examine a curve that is smooth from our perception. Its change in direction has no erratic differences along the swipe of the curve. You can't draw any lines between any three points of the curve from the perspective at which the curve is smooth. Yet, if you were to observe the curve from a smaller scale -- perhaps down to individual molecules that make up the writing that formed the drawing of that curve, you would notice jointedness at this or some smaller level. Likewise, if you took monkey bars at an elementary school, and you looked at these at some smaller level, there would be a point where you could see a smoothness to the curvature. This would be a perspective of the apparently jointal object to where it would no longer appear jointal, yet smoothly curved.
So, jointedness is a function of all phenomena, as well as smooth curvature is a function of all phenomena. If you look at phenomena at a small enough basis, any change in position is a ninety-degree alteration of space relative to some other phenomenon. Yet, if you look at things from a large enough or a small enough basis, all curvature has some smoothness. For instance, with the monkey bars, if you make a one sided map of the area of the monkey bars at a distance, and localized these, the monkey bars would appear as a thin structure of lines, or, if observed from a further distance, these may appear as a dot or a thin line. It would not appear as a jointal composite here, yet as a smooth and tiny structure. Yet, if you observed certain molecule's curvature from within the monkey bars themselves, again, the monkey bars would appear as a smooth structure and not as jointal. Certainly, observing the monkey bars for their intended purpose would make them appear quite jointal.
Ninety-Degrees means immediate change in direction. In order for anything to happen in space, direction must change immediately from some perspective. Yet, in order for change to have any organization, there must be smoothness. Thus, jointedness and smooth curvedness.
If you are going down a road, and you come to a stop, after which immediately turning right, you would have made a ninety degree turn. The same would be true in such a case if you were to turn left. Ninety-Degrees looks like an "L" or a backwards "L." Ninety-Degrees is also the change from the side of a circle to its top, and is the phase difference between sine and cosine. When you draw a sine wave correctly, it is a smooth curve. When you draw a cosine wave correctly, it is a smooth curve. If you draw a terraced structure correctly, it makes some immediate direction changes either when going from up to across and from across to up or when going from across to down and from down to across.
Let us examine a curve that is smooth from our perception. Its change in direction has no erratic differences along the swipe of the curve. You can't draw any lines between any three points of the curve from the perspective at which the curve is smooth. Yet, if you were to observe the curve from a smaller scale -- perhaps down to individual molecules that make up the writing that formed the drawing of that curve, you would notice jointedness at this or some smaller level. Likewise, if you took monkey bars at an elementary school, and you looked at these at some smaller level, there would be a point where you could see a smoothness to the curvature. This would be a perspective of the apparently jointal object to where it would no longer appear jointal, yet smoothly curved.
So, jointedness is a function of all phenomena, as well as smooth curvature is a function of all phenomena. If you look at phenomena at a small enough basis, any change in position is a ninety-degree alteration of space relative to some other phenomenon. Yet, if you look at things from a large enough or a small enough basis, all curvature has some smoothness. For instance, with the monkey bars, if you make a one sided map of the area of the monkey bars at a distance, and localized these, the monkey bars would appear as a thin structure of lines, or, if observed from a further distance, these may appear as a dot or a thin line. It would not appear as a jointal composite here, yet as a smooth and tiny structure. Yet, if you observed certain molecule's curvature from within the monkey bars themselves, again, the monkey bars would appear as a smooth structure and not as jointal. Certainly, observing the monkey bars for their intended purpose would make them appear quite jointal.
Ninety-Degrees means immediate change in direction. In order for anything to happen in space, direction must change immediately from some perspective. Yet, in order for change to have any organization, there must be smoothness. Thus, jointedness and smooth curvedness.
Session 6 of Course 1, Jointedness
Picture the frame of a warehouse as it is being built. Certainly, all of the materials used to build the building are not going in the same direction. If this were to happen, the pieces used to make this building would either be laying on top of each other and/or laying side by side and/or connected in a long line that would not be able to form a building. Some parts of the building would need to be connected at the side of other parts.
If you are going down a road, and you come to a stop, after which immediately turning right, you would have made a ninety degree turn. The same would be true in such a case if you were to turn left. Ninety-Degrees looks like an "L" or a backwards "L." Ninety-Degrees is also the change from the side of a circle to its top, and is the phase difference between sine and cosine. When you draw a sine wave correctly, it is a smooth curve. When you draw a cosine wave correctly, it is a smooth curve. If you draw a terraced structure correctly, it makes some immediate direction changes either when going from up to across and from across to up or when going from across to down and from down to across.
Let us examine a curve that is smooth from our perception. Its change in direction has no erratic differences along the swipe of the curve. You can't draw any lines between any three points of the curve from the perspective at which the curve is smooth. Yet, if you were to observe the curve from a smaller scale -- perhaps down to individual molecules that make up the writing that formed the drawing of that curve, you would notice jointedness at this or some smaller level. Likewise, if you took monkey bars at an elementary school, and you looked at these at some smaller level, there would be a point where you could see a smoothness to the curvature. This would be a perspective of the apparently jointal object to where it would no longer appear jointal, yet smoothly curved.
So, jointedness is a function of all phenomena, as well as smooth curvature is a function of all phenomena. If you look at phenomena at a small enough basis, any change in position is a ninety-degree alteration of space relative to some other phenomenon. Yet, if you look at things from a large enough or a small enough basis, all curvature has some smoothness. For instance, with the monkey bars, if you make a one sided map of the area of the monkey bars at a distance, and localized these, the monkey bars would appear as a thin structure of lines, or, if observed from a further distance, these may appear as a dot or a thin line. It would not appear as a jointal composite here, yet as a smooth and tiny structure. Yet, if you observed certain molecule's curvature from within the monkey bars themselves, again, the monkey bars would appear as a smooth structure and not as jointal. Certainly, observing the monkey bars for their intended purpose would make them appear quite jointal.
Ninety-Degrees means immediate change in direction. In order for anything to happen in space, direction must change immediately from some perspective. Yet, in order for change to have any organization, there must be smoothness. Thus, jointedness and smooth curvedness.
If you are going down a road, and you come to a stop, after which immediately turning right, you would have made a ninety degree turn. The same would be true in such a case if you were to turn left. Ninety-Degrees looks like an "L" or a backwards "L." Ninety-Degrees is also the change from the side of a circle to its top, and is the phase difference between sine and cosine. When you draw a sine wave correctly, it is a smooth curve. When you draw a cosine wave correctly, it is a smooth curve. If you draw a terraced structure correctly, it makes some immediate direction changes either when going from up to across and from across to up or when going from across to down and from down to across.
Let us examine a curve that is smooth from our perception. Its change in direction has no erratic differences along the swipe of the curve. You can't draw any lines between any three points of the curve from the perspective at which the curve is smooth. Yet, if you were to observe the curve from a smaller scale -- perhaps down to individual molecules that make up the writing that formed the drawing of that curve, you would notice jointedness at this or some smaller level. Likewise, if you took monkey bars at an elementary school, and you looked at these at some smaller level, there would be a point where you could see a smoothness to the curvature. This would be a perspective of the apparently jointal object to where it would no longer appear jointal, yet smoothly curved.
So, jointedness is a function of all phenomena, as well as smooth curvature is a function of all phenomena. If you look at phenomena at a small enough basis, any change in position is a ninety-degree alteration of space relative to some other phenomenon. Yet, if you look at things from a large enough or a small enough basis, all curvature has some smoothness. For instance, with the monkey bars, if you make a one sided map of the area of the monkey bars at a distance, and localized these, the monkey bars would appear as a thin structure of lines, or, if observed from a further distance, these may appear as a dot or a thin line. It would not appear as a jointal composite here, yet as a smooth and tiny structure. Yet, if you observed certain molecule's curvature from within the monkey bars themselves, again, the monkey bars would appear as a smooth structure and not as jointal. Certainly, observing the monkey bars for their intended purpose would make them appear quite jointal.
Ninety-Degrees means immediate change in direction. In order for anything to happen in space, direction must change immediately from some perspective. Yet, in order for change to have any organization, there must be smoothness. Thus, jointedness and smooth curvedness.
Test #1 For Course #1, Session 8
1)What are the six keys that I gave to logical organization?
2)List an example of each of the previous keys.
3)Draw a two-dimensional axes. Draw an identity function from it. Draw a line that is (-1)*the identity function.
Label the quadrants. Circle the labels of the quadrants that corresponds to the identity function.
4)Make a cartoon of the identity function moving as a swipe of one full circle going counterclockwise.
5)Draw lines that go jointedly from one spot to another.
Next, draw a smooth curve that approximates this path.
6)Draw a circle. Circle its top. What function is maximized there? What function is zero there? Put a square at the bottom of the given circle. What function is minimized there? What function is zero there?
Put a triangle on the left side of the given circle. What function is minimized there? What function is zero there? Put a rectangle of the right side of the given circle.
What function is maximized there?
What function is zero there?
7)Why can't change be constantly jointal?
8)Why can't change be constantly smooth?
9)What does the Heisenburg Principle amount to?
2)List an example of each of the previous keys.
3)Draw a two-dimensional axes. Draw an identity function from it. Draw a line that is (-1)*the identity function.
Label the quadrants. Circle the labels of the quadrants that corresponds to the identity function.
4)Make a cartoon of the identity function moving as a swipe of one full circle going counterclockwise.
5)Draw lines that go jointedly from one spot to another.
Next, draw a smooth curve that approximates this path.
6)Draw a circle. Circle its top. What function is maximized there? What function is zero there? Put a square at the bottom of the given circle. What function is minimized there? What function is zero there?
Put a triangle on the left side of the given circle. What function is minimized there? What function is zero there? Put a rectangle of the right side of the given circle.
What function is maximized there?
What function is zero there?
7)Why can't change be constantly jointal?
8)Why can't change be constantly smooth?
9)What does the Heisenburg Principle amount to?
Test #1 For Course #1, Session 8
1)What are the six keys that I gave to logical organization?
2)List an example of each of the previous keys.
3)Draw a two-dimensional axes. Draw an identity function from it. Draw a line that is (-1)*the identity function.
Label the quadrants. Circle the labels of the quadrants that corresponds to the identity function.
4)Make a cartoon of the identity function moving as a swipe of one full circle going counterclockwise.
5)Draw lines that go jointedly from one spot to another.
Next, draw a smoothe curve that approximates this path.
6)Draw a circle. Circle its top. What function is maximized there? What function is zero there? Put a square at the bottom of the given circle. What function is minimized there? What function is zero there?
Put a triangel on the left side of the given circle. What function is minimized there? What function is zero there? Put a rectangle of the right side of the given circle.
What function is maximized there?
What function is zero there?
7)Why can't change be constantly jointal?
8)Why can't change be constantly smooth?
9)What does the Heisenburg Principle amount to?
2)List an example of each of the previous keys.
3)Draw a two-dimensional axes. Draw an identity function from it. Draw a line that is (-1)*the identity function.
Label the quadrants. Circle the labels of the quadrants that corresponds to the identity function.
4)Make a cartoon of the identity function moving as a swipe of one full circle going counterclockwise.
5)Draw lines that go jointedly from one spot to another.
Next, draw a smoothe curve that approximates this path.
6)Draw a circle. Circle its top. What function is maximized there? What function is zero there? Put a square at the bottom of the given circle. What function is minimized there? What function is zero there?
Put a triangel on the left side of the given circle. What function is minimized there? What function is zero there? Put a rectangle of the right side of the given circle.
What function is maximized there?
What function is zero there?
7)Why can't change be constantly jointal?
8)Why can't change be constantly smooth?
9)What does the Heisenburg Principle amount to?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
SESSION 5 OF COURSE 1
What kind of planar curvature is equally distant from its center at all times? A circle. If the top of a circle were anywhere where you arbitrarily determine it to be at, where would the circle be maximized at? At that top. A maximum position indicates the location of its highest value and the top of something is higher than its bottom. This depends on whatever you arbitrarily called the "top." This generalization depends on if the "top" were the highest point of the circle, and if, depending on your context, the maximization of the circle's structure were to also be at one with whatever you may also arbitrarily call the maximization of the circle. For instance, not as a trick question, the maximum position on the earth would more likely be the magnetic north pole rather than the magnetic south pole. In trigonometry, the sine function is maximized at pi over two. This is at ninety degrees, and is at the top of the circle. If you looked at the circle upside down, the top of the circle (actually, the bottom) would appear to be 3pi over two. Here is where the sine function is minimized. If you choose an orientation that is fixed, and pi over two is at a location mathematically at least, then, by this orientation, that position is always the top of the circle. Here, we are talking about a unit circle, so when the sine function is maximized, it equals one. And when it is minimized, it equals negative one.
How does one come up with what the sine and cosine functions are? In a unit circle, what's the closest distance from the x-axis to the top of the circle? One. Likewise, what's the closest distance from the y-axis to the right side of the circle? One. What's the closest distance from the x-axis to the right side of the circle? Zero. What's the closes distance from the y-axis to the top of the circle?Zero. Likewise, the sine function is maximized at the top of the circle (pi/2) and the cosine function is maximized at the right side of the circle (0pi). The sine function is zero at 0pi, and the cosine function is zero at pi/2. What does this indicate? It shows that the sine function is more of an indicator of how things change in nature. For instance, a toy rocket starts from "scratch", not accelerating or decelerating. You shoot it out. It goes from zero to an accelerated speed. Soon, the rocket slows, rapidly decelerating. Once it falls, it will accelerate toward the earth (the earth's acceleration upon this toy rocket being constant)
How does one come up with what the sine and cosine functions are? In a unit circle, what's the closest distance from the x-axis to the top of the circle? One. Likewise, what's the closest distance from the y-axis to the right side of the circle? One. What's the closest distance from the x-axis to the right side of the circle? Zero. What's the closes distance from the y-axis to the top of the circle?Zero. Likewise, the sine function is maximized at the top of the circle (pi/2) and the cosine function is maximized at the right side of the circle (0pi). The sine function is zero at 0pi, and the cosine function is zero at pi/2. What does this indicate? It shows that the sine function is more of an indicator of how things change in nature. For instance, a toy rocket starts from "scratch", not accelerating or decelerating. You shoot it out. It goes from zero to an accelerated speed. Soon, the rocket slows, rapidly decelerating. Once it falls, it will accelerate toward the earth (the earth's acceleration upon this toy rocket being constant)
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Session 4 of Course 1
Draw a horizontal and vertical axis that intersects at their origins. Again, the horizontal axis is the x-axis here and the vertical axis is the y-axis here. With your 3X3 post it sheets, make a "cartoon" of the x-axis moving toward the y-axis from one side and then from the other. Next, do the same with the y-axis moving toward the x-axis from one side and then from the other. Now, using your colored pencils, make the x-axis one color, and the y-axis another color. Next, make two "cartoons" in which one shows the x-axis rotating around the y-axis as the whole configuration moves up and then down in the motion of an upside down "U", while the other "cartoon" show the y-axis rotating around the x-axis as the whole configuration moves up and then down in the motion of an upside down "U."
The purpose of this is to show that directorals (indicators of direction) may partially and wholly differentiate, and this may happen from either a static or from a kinematic basis.
The purpose of this is to show that directorals (indicators of direction) may partially and wholly differentiate, and this may happen from either a static or from a kinematic basis.
SESSION 3 OF COURSE 1 (Curvature)
Draw a line. It goes from one spot to another. Usually, when people refer to something as a "line", what they really mean is a straight line. Although truly straight lines are hard to draw in a sketch, these do exist in nature to a high degree of precision. With a compass, you can draw a line that is perfectly straight up to the precision of the thickness of that line. What may vary on a smaller scale is the thickness of the line due to your drawing utensil, or the smoothness of the straight edge that you used. When you use lines, you are involved with linear geometry. How do you determine if something is in a straight line? Take three of the points you are considering. Get out your straight edge. Try to have all three points even with the edge of the straight edge. If the points aren't all along the edge, then the points do not describe a line. Thus, the points are not linearly distributed.
A line describing a simple function does not change in curvature. Let's say that you had a horizontal x-axis and vertical y-axis. One line is perfectly vertical. This line has no real curvature. It could be said that its curvature is infinite, except that you can not divide by zero. Slope is the word used to indicate what a curvature is. Slope is equal to vertical change (rise) over horizontal change (run). If something rises with no run, then its slope is (something/0), which you can either look at as absolutely infinite or as a slope whose curvature is fictitious, since one can not divide by zero. A horizontal slope is zero, since (0/anything that is not zero or imaginary) is zero. A slanted line among these axes is real and non-zero, yet, if it remains constantly linear, then the curvature does not change. If a line is displaced, then it no longer is the same line. Such a change would have a change in curvature, yet this would be a different function, and what we discussed above was a constant function.
For instance, the identity function is a line where x=y all of the time, when you are talking about an x--y plane. If the line is constantly this function, then its curvature will not change. I will mention later of many functions where the curvature changes. You may even have a case where there are many axes for the dimensions of the particle, and there may be a straight line where each parameter for each axis is incremented to the same degree at each detectable level of measurement. This would be an even greater type of identity function.
A line may appear straight even when it isn't. It may be constantly in one plane, appearing to go in only one direction while it actually is jointal in many segments. This may be indicated by a change in the morphological appearance or texture that is shown by looking at the object. Sometimes, by distinguishing SINGULARITIES in segments of something's appearance, you may discuss how an object is not straight.
A line describing a simple function does not change in curvature. Let's say that you had a horizontal x-axis and vertical y-axis. One line is perfectly vertical. This line has no real curvature. It could be said that its curvature is infinite, except that you can not divide by zero. Slope is the word used to indicate what a curvature is. Slope is equal to vertical change (rise) over horizontal change (run). If something rises with no run, then its slope is (something/0), which you can either look at as absolutely infinite or as a slope whose curvature is fictitious, since one can not divide by zero. A horizontal slope is zero, since (0/anything that is not zero or imaginary) is zero. A slanted line among these axes is real and non-zero, yet, if it remains constantly linear, then the curvature does not change. If a line is displaced, then it no longer is the same line. Such a change would have a change in curvature, yet this would be a different function, and what we discussed above was a constant function.
For instance, the identity function is a line where x=y all of the time, when you are talking about an x--y plane. If the line is constantly this function, then its curvature will not change. I will mention later of many functions where the curvature changes. You may even have a case where there are many axes for the dimensions of the particle, and there may be a straight line where each parameter for each axis is incremented to the same degree at each detectable level of measurement. This would be an even greater type of identity function.
A line may appear straight even when it isn't. It may be constantly in one plane, appearing to go in only one direction while it actually is jointal in many segments. This may be indicated by a change in the morphological appearance or texture that is shown by looking at the object. Sometimes, by distinguishing SINGULARITIES in segments of something's appearance, you may discuss how an object is not straight.
Friday, November 27, 2009
PART 4 OF SESSION 2 OF COURSE 1
So, you might add, "Could you tie all of these in to show a relationship between this and string theory?" Yes. Strings are very small components of phenomena. They are hard to detect. Most physicists consider studying these to be like studying magic. But they are wrong. The tool to understand what a string does and how it behaves is the consideration of the simplest relative discrete phenomena as a logical set of things that interact with simplicity. If the bases you piece together form a complex whole that makes sense and solves all documented research as to how particles behave, then it would appear that you are on the right track.
Verifying a theory makes a law. Laws are probable. Science is PATTERNED proof.
Being FAMILIAR with science leads to technology.
By piecing together CLUES, one may make more theories.
By forming a scenario, one may determine potential ROLE PLAYING.
By DISTINGUISHING one thing from another, one may discern what different things are in your studies.
Finally, by knowing how the components of your research are localized, the possible places that these components may be transferred to, and the limits of h ow these components behave, one may competently do scientific work.
As of the year 2001 (2009), scientists thought that you could not detect where an electron is and what it is giving off at the same time. (Heisendorf Principle).
If you know enough info, you know that the prior may at least be extrapolated when one considers the activity of the substringular. (The more refined the research, the more precise the results.) By understanding the nature of superstrings, you can show that usage of these through technology may prove what I am saying to be true.
Verifying a theory makes a law. Laws are probable. Science is PATTERNED proof.
Being FAMILIAR with science leads to technology.
By piecing together CLUES, one may make more theories.
By forming a scenario, one may determine potential ROLE PLAYING.
By DISTINGUISHING one thing from another, one may discern what different things are in your studies.
Finally, by knowing how the components of your research are localized, the possible places that these components may be transferred to, and the limits of h ow these components behave, one may competently do scientific work.
As of the year 2001 (2009), scientists thought that you could not detect where an electron is and what it is giving off at the same time. (Heisendorf Principle).
If you know enough info, you know that the prior may at least be extrapolated when one considers the activity of the substringular. (The more refined the research, the more precise the results.) By understanding the nature of superstrings, you can show that usage of these through technology may prove what I am saying to be true.
More On the Higgs Action
When a Higgs Action reverses in relative directoralization, the “vacuumed pouch” that is Dirac relative to the Higgs Action hermitianly changes in its second derivative. It will reverse the concavity of the mini-loop hermitian singularities that exist as the gauge-action field sub-quantum that exist between a superstring and its associated light-cone-gauge eigenstate. Look. As Kaeler metric happens, gauge bosons pluck the assocaitaed second-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstates, as is always the case during BRST. The scattering of the norm-conditions in the Klein Bottle, also seeing that a superstring in the substringular (fully contracted here) has a length (1-D) or circumference (2-D) of 10^(-43) meters, inverts the vibratory holomorphicity of the associated Schwinger Index away from the Rarita Structure. Such an inverted vibration increases the impedance of a Fadeev-Popov-Trace while it allows for the increase in permittivity of the associated superstring. Again, gauge-bosons have twice the circumference of a two-dimensional regular superstring. Each Kaeler metric in a superconformal Fourier Klein Bottle transformation during a Gaussian Transformation equally increases the metric-gauge potential of the superstrings, while increasing the metric-impedance potential of the superstrings’ associated Fadeev-Popov-Trace or Planck phenomenon related phenomena.
PART 1 OF SESSION 1 OF COURSE 1
Think about it. Stuff exists. Things come into play the way that they do based on the summed happenings that preceded this. A limited mind can not possibly be consciously aware of everything that has ever happened, is happening, or ever will happen by the very nature of the word limited. Yet, through a little knowledge and rational thinking, there are many things about life that you may determine through PATTERNS. For example: One plus one is two. You could never count to two trillion, yet you just know that one-trillion plus one-trillion is two trillion. Of course, you might add. That takes no grandiose knowledge. But did you notice here that you did this with a pattern? Can you think of many other patterns that fit this example? Sure.
Another aspect of rational thinking is CLUE FITTING. If you ate one calorie of food, this alone couldn’t possibly make you gain one pound of fat non-water weight, since one pound of fat non-water weight due to calories consists of roughly 3,500 calories. Two things cannot occupy the same spot at the same time. An ice cube cannot remain frozen in a hot pan. Etc… .
Yet another aspect of rational thinking is FAMILIARITY. You know that ice is colder than water. Day is brighter than night. Steel is harder than felt.
Yet another aspect of rational thinking is ROLE PLAYING. I don’t mean pretending necessarily that you are everything, yet putting a situation into a scenario to where through familiarity, clue fitting, and patterns, you may estimate an interaction and/or a set of interactions.
Another aspect of rationality is DISTINGUISHABILITY. If you can distinguish similarities, differences, if something exists and where that is, and what it is collecting and/or giving off, then you may become more actively familiar with what you are talking about.
Finally, and aspect of rationale is BOUNDEDNESS AND SENSE OF DIRECTION.
If you know where you are and where you can go, then you are in less danger than if you don’t. Knowing something’s limitations may go hand-in-hand with the potential locations in which the object may travel.
Another aspect of rational thinking is CLUE FITTING. If you ate one calorie of food, this alone couldn’t possibly make you gain one pound of fat non-water weight, since one pound of fat non-water weight due to calories consists of roughly 3,500 calories. Two things cannot occupy the same spot at the same time. An ice cube cannot remain frozen in a hot pan. Etc… .
Yet another aspect of rational thinking is FAMILIARITY. You know that ice is colder than water. Day is brighter than night. Steel is harder than felt.
Yet another aspect of rational thinking is ROLE PLAYING. I don’t mean pretending necessarily that you are everything, yet putting a situation into a scenario to where through familiarity, clue fitting, and patterns, you may estimate an interaction and/or a set of interactions.
Another aspect of rationality is DISTINGUISHABILITY. If you can distinguish similarities, differences, if something exists and where that is, and what it is collecting and/or giving off, then you may become more actively familiar with what you are talking about.
Finally, and aspect of rationale is BOUNDEDNESS AND SENSE OF DIRECTION.
If you know where you are and where you can go, then you are in less danger than if you don’t. Knowing something’s limitations may go hand-in-hand with the potential locations in which the object may travel.
Important Derivation
The potential Chern-Simmons singularity limits associated with the 191 given mini-loops are as shown in the prior document where these were listed. So, all 191 Chern-Simmons singularity limits exist fractorally along a vibratorially perturbated mini-loop right before the first iteration of the Kaeler-Metric converts the Hamiltonian Momentum of such a mini-loop into a hermitian mini-loop of discrete, Real Reimmanian metric-gauge that acts as the physical substance of permittivity.
The hermitian limits of singularity of superstingular mini-loops that have just been realigned and/or formed are as shown in the prior document where these were listed.
These discrete, topological limits of singularity form a twenty-five dimensional two-sided Minkowski hermitian surface that bears a mini-string connectability to the twenty-sixth related Minkowski Dimension by limits of singularity of
10^(-86)meters*((e^(.01)-e^(0))/2i) & 10^(-86)meters*((e^(0)-e(.01))/2i).
This topological set of singularities among those of all mini-loops that are connected into a substance of permittivity, of which vibrate anharmonically toward the most adjacent Gliossi-Sherk-Olive norm related states in such a way so as to form a harmonics of the associated Gliossi-Sherk-Olive ghosts so that the adjacent light-cone-gauge eigenstates may Diracly eliminate over half of their ghosts when such a hermitian group operation interacts with the motion of the Rarita Structure.
The numbers subtracted from “infinity”(e^(387)) need to be discrete, since the quantum world is discrete. There are 96 dimensions in space and time, and each dimension has a general condition of two sides. Electrodynamics is produced multifractorally by the permittivity of superstrings. Electrodynamics involves a charged flow.
For every singularity that bears infinity, there needs to be a singularity that bears zero.
Electricity goes from negative to positive when in the direction of electron holes.
Mini-Loops indirectly produce electron holes.
All substringular mobiaty is virtual, since reality can not spontaneously undo itself.
Four times 48 is 192, and 192-1 equals 191.
This is why the Chern-Simmons limits of singularity when appertaining to the mini-loops of superstrings are as these are.
The hermitian limits of singularity of superstingular mini-loops that have just been realigned and/or formed are as shown in the prior document where these were listed.
These discrete, topological limits of singularity form a twenty-five dimensional two-sided Minkowski hermitian surface that bears a mini-string connectability to the twenty-sixth related Minkowski Dimension by limits of singularity of
10^(-86)meters*((e^(.01)-e^(0))/2i) & 10^(-86)meters*((e^(0)-e(.01))/2i).
This topological set of singularities among those of all mini-loops that are connected into a substance of permittivity, of which vibrate anharmonically toward the most adjacent Gliossi-Sherk-Olive norm related states in such a way so as to form a harmonics of the associated Gliossi-Sherk-Olive ghosts so that the adjacent light-cone-gauge eigenstates may Diracly eliminate over half of their ghosts when such a hermitian group operation interacts with the motion of the Rarita Structure.
The numbers subtracted from “infinity”(e^(387)) need to be discrete, since the quantum world is discrete. There are 96 dimensions in space and time, and each dimension has a general condition of two sides. Electrodynamics is produced multifractorally by the permittivity of superstrings. Electrodynamics involves a charged flow.
For every singularity that bears infinity, there needs to be a singularity that bears zero.
Electricity goes from negative to positive when in the direction of electron holes.
Mini-Loops indirectly produce electron holes.
All substringular mobiaty is virtual, since reality can not spontaneously undo itself.
Four times 48 is 192, and 192-1 equals 191.
This is why the Chern-Simmons limits of singularity when appertaining to the mini-loops of superstrings are as these are.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
PART 3 OF SESSION 2 OF COURSE 1
What we are about to discuss is BOUNDEDNESS & SENSE OF DIRECTION. Let's consider a ball in a tube. The ball may move throughout the tube, yet the transversel movement of the ball is limited to the path of the tube. This is because the sides of the balls are touching the inside part of the tube. Through familiarity, it can be perceived that what is termed the sides of the balls is arbitrary and may vary, since if the ball has enough slack to roll throughout the tube, then the ball may roll or spin in multiple directions -- given whatever force is causing that ball to roll.
The ball above is bound in a tube. The physical constraint governing the ball that it cannot roll outside of the tube may be termed a Neumman condition. That is to say, if you were to call the ball being in the tube a function, since Neumman conditions are boundary conditions of a function. Constraints as to the type of motion of the ball in the tube would be the balls Derichlet conditions. Derichlet conditions are the boundaries of a function's gradient, and the types of motion of an object is a gradient of the position of an object. Furthermore, if you were to consider an object's condition during static equilibrium as a function, then its radial and transversely motion of its kinematic component and velocity (directorially here as an acceleration) may be viewed as its gradient. Boundaries show where an object may or may not go, how it may roll or spin, and how it may move along in space transversely with a velocity and/or acceleration. There are boundaries to static objects (you may call any "happening" a function), electric fields, magnetic fields, and moving objects. When different things work together, their boundaries change. Look at synergy. People working together may do more than their summed efforts.
If you know where something is, you've increased your chances of finding it. If you are precise, and the object has detectable size, you may at least surmise with clarity where the object is and what it is giving off at the same time. If you cannot detect something, yet you know it is there, you may use multiple bases to determine with certain probability where the phenomenon is and what it gives off at the same time. The more of a history that you know of something, the better able you tend to be to predict its future outcome.
Mapping an object should not just determine where things are at, yet also how the object changes its boundary conditions each time t hat you are able to detect it. If you can't detect it, you may extrapolate information from phenomena that you can detect, and use this to determine the objects status as both as a phenomenon at a spot, and how this phenomenon's boundaries are changing after each locus of transformation.
The ball above is bound in a tube. The physical constraint governing the ball that it cannot roll outside of the tube may be termed a Neumman condition. That is to say, if you were to call the ball being in the tube a function, since Neumman conditions are boundary conditions of a function. Constraints as to the type of motion of the ball in the tube would be the balls Derichlet conditions. Derichlet conditions are the boundaries of a function's gradient, and the types of motion of an object is a gradient of the position of an object. Furthermore, if you were to consider an object's condition during static equilibrium as a function, then its radial and transversely motion of its kinematic component and velocity (directorially here as an acceleration) may be viewed as its gradient. Boundaries show where an object may or may not go, how it may roll or spin, and how it may move along in space transversely with a velocity and/or acceleration. There are boundaries to static objects (you may call any "happening" a function), electric fields, magnetic fields, and moving objects. When different things work together, their boundaries change. Look at synergy. People working together may do more than their summed efforts.
If you know where something is, you've increased your chances of finding it. If you are precise, and the object has detectable size, you may at least surmise with clarity where the object is and what it is giving off at the same time. If you cannot detect something, yet you know it is there, you may use multiple bases to determine with certain probability where the phenomenon is and what it gives off at the same time. The more of a history that you know of something, the better able you tend to be to predict its future outcome.
Mapping an object should not just determine where things are at, yet also how the object changes its boundary conditions each time t hat you are able to detect it. If you can't detect it, you may extrapolate information from phenomena that you can detect, and use this to determine the objects status as both as a phenomenon at a spot, and how this phenomenon's boundaries are changing after each locus of transformation.
PART 2 OF SESSION 2 OF COURSE 1
What we are about to discus now is DISTINGUISHABILITY. Let us say that you had ten thousand golf balls. Each of them were identical to one another. Let's say that each of the golf balls were placed with the exact same orientation in terms of where their up, down, and side-to-side were. Let us now say that the golf balls were evenly spaced into five rows and two columns. Let us say that each of these balls rested in their hollows, respectively. Choose any two golf balls. Switch their spots. You would not be able to tell that they were now in a different arrangement, except that you were the rearranger. Now, choose any number of golf balls and switch their spots. You still will not be able to see a change in how these appear. This is considering that you obeyed the initial rules. Yet, the fact of the matter remains, each golf ball is a different golf ball, even though these all look the same. Now, if the golf balls were not of themselves completely homogeneous in appearance, or, in other words, smooth and evenly spread in arrangement, and you did not position all of the golf balls in the same relative orientation per spot, where these balls were in their respective hallows, you would be able to distinguish a difference in how the golf balls appeared. Thus, the array of ten thousand golf balls would not be homogeneous, and you would notice differences in parts of the array. Thus, in this case, switching where the golf balls would be would certainly be able to alter the appearance of the array. If this type of orientation per spot in the array were maintained, then, although the array wouldn't be homogeneous, the appearance of the array would appear the same no matter which golf balls were switched. Now, if you didn't switch which hollows the golf balls were in, yet you were to alter the orientation of some of the golf balls, then the appearance of the array were to alter.
In the prior paragraph, the golf balls were said to be "indistinguishably different" when switched with no apparent change. In the next circumstance described above, in certain circumstances, it would cause the golf balls to be indistinguishably different, while certain related circumstances would cause noticeable differences when the golf balls switched places. The last incident described is one where there is distinguishable difference, even though the balls were not relocalized to different hallows.
Inside of an atom, and throughout our planet, electrons are switched in a process that is indistinguishable different. When two identical atoms switch positions, the difference is not one that you can detect a difference from unless you were analyzing those atoms right as they switched places through the extrapolation of physical evidence. Furthermore, if a molecule had a certain polar bond, and there was another molecule of the same type nearby, and the two molecules had reverse orientation, it would be easier to distinguish these when these were in the process of switching location.
In the prior paragraph, the golf balls were said to be "indistinguishably different" when switched with no apparent change. In the next circumstance described above, in certain circumstances, it would cause the golf balls to be indistinguishably different, while certain related circumstances would cause noticeable differences when the golf balls switched places. The last incident described is one where there is distinguishable difference, even though the balls were not relocalized to different hallows.
Inside of an atom, and throughout our planet, electrons are switched in a process that is indistinguishable different. When two identical atoms switch positions, the difference is not one that you can detect a difference from unless you were analyzing those atoms right as they switched places through the extrapolation of physical evidence. Furthermore, if a molecule had a certain polar bond, and there was another molecule of the same type nearby, and the two molecules had reverse orientation, it would be easier to distinguish these when these were in the process of switching location.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
PART 1 OF SESSION 2 OF COURSE 1
We will now focus on ROLE PLAYING. Two baseballs are shot at each other. Let us say that these balls go in a straight line and thus do not drop significantly. If you are familiar with projectile motion, you will know that if the balls were at any significant distance from each other, they must have been shot at a pretty fast rate of speed. The balls also must have struck each other soon after these were shot out. Otherwise, you would know from your familiarity, the balls would have dropped significantly. From clue fitting, you know that the balls would have to collide, since there was no information about any anomalous interference. And, through familiarity and patterns, you would know that when two of such objects collide at such a rate, hitting fast and in a straight line, these will rebound and/or be knocked further along. Through experimentation, you would see that, yes, if both baseballs struck at the same speed on their white parts, had the same solidity, had the same weight, and had the same roll and spin, these would rebound back in the same direction that these came from. Yet any alteration in these circumstances would probably effect this. In physics, one takes an ideal situation, considers the effects of common actual events in order to know what happened/happens/or is going to happen to whatever venture you are going to consider, in order to hopefully and theoretically do something of practical worth. If this is theory alone, you are talking plain physics. If this is applied you are talking engineering. College courses on physics generally talk a lot about math. Math interrelates concepts logically so as to come up with a solution that fits the need. Sometimes, the solution may indicate the simplicity of meeting that need -- or even that the need is immaterial. Equations have their place, yet this is not my focus. Math may be totally used without gorging on equations. The important part of math is the general order of magnitudes, directions, and tenses, along with other aspects, that describe the contexts and environments that issue a basis to answering whatever problem it is that you need to solve. The more that you understand physics, the more you will see that there are many things to the simplest thing, but that even complex issues may be solved by patterns.
This may seem odd, yet picturing yourself as the physical scenario may make it easier to understand the interactions involved. Getting your mind off of the words you are saying and onto a vision of what is actually happening may facilitate your understanding, and thus solidify your knowledge. Words with no pictures in mind not only means little, yet it is harder for others than to help you improve your conception. Yet, pictures without words may be helpful. If you try to explain the picture in your mind to someone, they may be able to help formulate what you are saying with appropriate words.
This may seem odd, yet picturing yourself as the physical scenario may make it easier to understand the interactions involved. Getting your mind off of the words you are saying and onto a vision of what is actually happening may facilitate your understanding, and thus solidify your knowledge. Words with no pictures in mind not only means little, yet it is harder for others than to help you improve your conception. Yet, pictures without words may be helpful. If you try to explain the picture in your mind to someone, they may be able to help formulate what you are saying with appropriate words.
Monday, November 23, 2009
PART 4 OF SESSION 1 OF COURSE 1
We will now focus of FAMILIARITY.: In order to know anything, you must be at least familiar with something -- anything at all -- first. Being familiar with one set of things may be most beneficial for knowing one other thing, while being familiar with another set of things may be more beneficial for knowing yet another thing. This is because one may only know things if one understands them, and understanding is the way the mind takes in information in such a way so as to conceptualize it. In order to conceptualize anything, the mind must envision thoughts and feel the information that they are given. Thus, understanding is a perceptive relation. Understanding thus is best derived by identifying with a given set of information, and putting this given identity of information into a perspective that they can relate to.
If one knows something, then they can be taught anything. If you were to interrelate a person's knowledge of one thing to a separate concept in such a way so as to bring in a position to tinker with the concept by using whatever logic they have. If you were to provide at least three clues of such that would solve the situation that they are trying to solve through the process of elimination, then the student would have a basic understanding of how the concept works. Using three sets of three clues, one may make the original understanding crisper. Using three sets of those clues, one may teach how this knowledge that you conveyed works in the real world.
Remember the movie "Mask?" The blind girl was taught blue and red when the boy said that hot was red and cold was blue. What the boy was doing was making the blind girl begin to understand colors by relating these to heat, which she already knew. Likewise, one may not always be able to convey an exact analogy as to show the basics of a concept, yet, a close analogy may make an important concept better understood.
If I were to tell you that it takes light about one nanosecond to travel one foot, this might not mean much to you. Yet, if I were to tell you that light, via refractors, can circle the earth a number of times in one second, you would see more clearly that light travels at a tremendous rate. Likewise, if I told you that an electron is about 9.11*10^(-31)kilograms in terms of rest mass, this might not mean much to you. Yet, if I told you that it would take over one million trillion trillion electrons at rest mass to weigh one kilogram, you would probably have a better understanding of what I am talking about. This is because most people are accustomed to knowing that the earth is big, what a million is, and what a trillion is. Yet, most people are not so familiar with the import of terms like "nanosecond" or "10^(-31)."
Familiarity draws together sources of experiences that people have in order to better understand a concept that initially appears bleak and abstract. By using familiarity, one may have a better start at being familiar with unknown ground. Through more familiarity with different things, one may be able to multiply one's knowledge and logic base.
If one knows something, then they can be taught anything. If you were to interrelate a person's knowledge of one thing to a separate concept in such a way so as to bring in a position to tinker with the concept by using whatever logic they have. If you were to provide at least three clues of such that would solve the situation that they are trying to solve through the process of elimination, then the student would have a basic understanding of how the concept works. Using three sets of three clues, one may make the original understanding crisper. Using three sets of those clues, one may teach how this knowledge that you conveyed works in the real world.
Remember the movie "Mask?" The blind girl was taught blue and red when the boy said that hot was red and cold was blue. What the boy was doing was making the blind girl begin to understand colors by relating these to heat, which she already knew. Likewise, one may not always be able to convey an exact analogy as to show the basics of a concept, yet, a close analogy may make an important concept better understood.
If I were to tell you that it takes light about one nanosecond to travel one foot, this might not mean much to you. Yet, if I were to tell you that light, via refractors, can circle the earth a number of times in one second, you would see more clearly that light travels at a tremendous rate. Likewise, if I told you that an electron is about 9.11*10^(-31)kilograms in terms of rest mass, this might not mean much to you. Yet, if I told you that it would take over one million trillion trillion electrons at rest mass to weigh one kilogram, you would probably have a better understanding of what I am talking about. This is because most people are accustomed to knowing that the earth is big, what a million is, and what a trillion is. Yet, most people are not so familiar with the import of terms like "nanosecond" or "10^(-31)."
Familiarity draws together sources of experiences that people have in order to better understand a concept that initially appears bleak and abstract. By using familiarity, one may have a better start at being familiar with unknown ground. Through more familiarity with different things, one may be able to multiply one's knowledge and logic base.
PART 3 OF SESSION 1 OF COURSE 1
We will now focus of CLUE FITTING.: Pretend that you are in an elevator that only went up. Even if you never used an elevator before, you would know that there would be stairs to let you back down. If there weren't, the people who owned the building that had the elevator would be sued. You know this, because it is the only way people could otherwise get down from the top of the top of the building. So, if you went up in such an elevator, you would look for stairs leading down to where you could leave the building when you wanted to leave. Even if you were an Aborigine with no familiarity with anyone, you would probably look for this.
If a rod has length, it must also have thickness and width. Otherwise, the stuff that would make up its length would be infinitely thin and skinny, and anything with zero size in thickness and width has no reality in length in our three-dimensional perspective. Even if something was a certain length and width, yet was infinitely skinny, it couldn't exist to our perspective, since eliminating one dimension here would phantomize the other dimensions. Even one-dimensional superstrings have a width and thickness, yet, these parameters
are on a pointal level that are discrete although extremely small.
If something has one side, it has another. In order for something to have even a sense of three-dimensions or more, it must have another side. Look at a wall. You see it has height and width. If you can see the entire wall from inside of a building, it is obvious that the height and width both have two sides. Yet, you may wonder, what if there was nothing on the other side of the wall? If the wall had no other side, it would have to be infinitely thin. If it were infinitely thin, it would have no thickness. Only nothingness is infinitely thin. If the wall were nothingness, then it would not exist. If the wall did not exist, then it wouldn't be there to see in the first place. So, whether a phenomenon is one-dimensional up to 96 dimensional, the basis of dimensionality is a three-dimensional basis. Thus, as I will further explain in a later course, a "Mobius Twist" needs a second side that it exchanges with in order to complete the action of its torque. Suppose you put a pizza on your table, your dog is near the table, and you go upstairs for 10 minutes. You come back downstairs to eat the pizza, yet the pizza is gone. The dog is licking its chops, and there is pizza sauce on the dog's lips. From these clues, you know that the dog ate the pizza. Likewise, if you had a diamond in your bedroom, it was later strangely missing, and the mirror in that room was scraped, you would know that somebody stole your diamond as well as wanting to let you know that they stole it. This, too, is discovered through clue fitting. Piecing together obvious circumstances that come together to form a complete picture may be used as a vanguard for any extrapolation in science.
If a rod has length, it must also have thickness and width. Otherwise, the stuff that would make up its length would be infinitely thin and skinny, and anything with zero size in thickness and width has no reality in length in our three-dimensional perspective. Even if something was a certain length and width, yet was infinitely skinny, it couldn't exist to our perspective, since eliminating one dimension here would phantomize the other dimensions. Even one-dimensional superstrings have a width and thickness, yet, these parameters
are on a pointal level that are discrete although extremely small.
If something has one side, it has another. In order for something to have even a sense of three-dimensions or more, it must have another side. Look at a wall. You see it has height and width. If you can see the entire wall from inside of a building, it is obvious that the height and width both have two sides. Yet, you may wonder, what if there was nothing on the other side of the wall? If the wall had no other side, it would have to be infinitely thin. If it were infinitely thin, it would have no thickness. Only nothingness is infinitely thin. If the wall were nothingness, then it would not exist. If the wall did not exist, then it wouldn't be there to see in the first place. So, whether a phenomenon is one-dimensional up to 96 dimensional, the basis of dimensionality is a three-dimensional basis. Thus, as I will further explain in a later course, a "Mobius Twist" needs a second side that it exchanges with in order to complete the action of its torque. Suppose you put a pizza on your table, your dog is near the table, and you go upstairs for 10 minutes. You come back downstairs to eat the pizza, yet the pizza is gone. The dog is licking its chops, and there is pizza sauce on the dog's lips. From these clues, you know that the dog ate the pizza. Likewise, if you had a diamond in your bedroom, it was later strangely missing, and the mirror in that room was scraped, you would know that somebody stole your diamond as well as wanting to let you know that they stole it. This, too, is discovered through clue fitting. Piecing together obvious circumstances that come together to form a complete picture may be used as a vanguard for any extrapolation in science.
PART TWO OF SESSION 1 OF COURSE 1
We will now focus of PATTERNS.: When you propel a solid object up on earth, what happens? It goes up while yet slowing down until it stops. Once it stops, it starts falling. The object then speeds up toward the earth until it either reaches terminal velocity (if it went way up) or hits the ground or anything else that would break its fall. The object propelled would not in this case glide or hover in the air like a glider or a feather. Each time the solid object would be propelled up, it would do the same general thing unless it was engineered in a special manner so as to hover or fly. You could do this as many times as you want, and you get the same results. This, being a proven pattern, is a law. This is the law of gravity. Gravity is the constituent force that objects bind one toward another. So, the more massive an object is, the stronger is its gravitational field. Yet, any solid object that is small enough to fall by the earth's gravity is going to basically fall toward the earth at the same rate. Did you know that the sun has more mass than anything else in our solar system? it bears the most gravity in the solar system, too. This works to confirm the definition of gravity that I said above. Black-Holes are formed from super massive suns that have collapsed. Black-Holes suck up many stars (suns). Black-Holes have a very massive gravitational fields. All of this fits a pattern. That pattern is that the more massive an object is, the more gravity it tends to have. Actually, every phenomenon has some gravity associated with it. Yet, from observation, massive phenomena bear the most gravity. The fact that only stars form a solar system proves this.
When you see fire, you see light. Fire is basically a form of high infrared light (heat) that also contains other light and some chemical give off. When an element burns, it gives off a distinct coloration of light. If a certain element burns, it will always flare the same coloration. If one element burns, it will always emit a certain smell. If another element burns, it will always emit a different smell. Such colors and smells may likewise indicate the sought after elements, respectively. This is a pattern.
If you have to go to work at a place that is 20 miles away, and the next day you have to go to work at a place that 40 miles away, think of this.: If it takes 32 minutes to go to the first place, you should give yourself at least 64 minutes to get to the next place. This is what I mean by patterns.
When you see fire, you see light. Fire is basically a form of high infrared light (heat) that also contains other light and some chemical give off. When an element burns, it gives off a distinct coloration of light. If a certain element burns, it will always flare the same coloration. If one element burns, it will always emit a certain smell. If another element burns, it will always emit a different smell. Such colors and smells may likewise indicate the sought after elements, respectively. This is a pattern.
If you have to go to work at a place that is 20 miles away, and the next day you have to go to work at a place that 40 miles away, think of this.: If it takes 32 minutes to go to the first place, you should give yourself at least 64 minutes to get to the next place. This is what I mean by patterns.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Some More About "mini-loops"
There are to be up to 191 "mini-loops" localized along the topology of a superstring. From 101 mini-loops along the said topologies up to 191 mini-loops along the said toplogies, the Clifford parameter of the distribution divergence of the said mini-loops is to be maintained. There is no multiplicative factor in the scalar amplitude of this distribution divergence from the existence of 101 of such mini-loops to 191 of such mini-loops.
The first Laplacian instanton of the Kaeler Metric upon the Schotky Interaction reiterates the condition of one mini-loops existence within the Neumman topological boundary of a given superstring by converting Chern-Simmons Hamiltonian momentum within the said locus of the associated mini-loop into a hermitian metric-gauge eigenstate. This rearranges the topology of this said mini-loop into a discrete unit of permittivity by converting Njenhuis norm conditions of that said mini-loop into Real Reimmanian norm conditions to where the limit of virtual mobiaty along the topological surface of the said mini-loop becomes discrete and without spuriousness. (The perturbation of the topologies curvature settles (resettles) into a Real Reimmanian locus whose limits are Ward discrete throughout the topological redistribution of its Laplacian setting.) From the second iteration of the Kaeler-Metric to the 99th iteration of the Kaeler-Metric, the distribution divergencies of the described mini-loops gradually decreases, yet such distribution divergencies bear more scalar amplitude than that of a superstring that has full permittivity. The 100th iteration of the Kaeler-Metric barely (by about .999950349) decreases this scalar distribution divergence for the mini-loops of one-dimensional superstrings, while decreasing the dot product associated parameterization of one of the two spatial parameters that are Neumman Ward associated with the mini-loops of two-dimensional superstrings, while allowing for a euclidean increase in the alterior spatial parameter of the other scalar index involved with the distribution divergence of two-dimensional superstrings. From the 101st iteration of the Kaeler-Metric to the 191st iteration of the Kaeler-Metric, the distribution divergencies of one and two-dimensional strings maintain the same scalar amplitude. This happens over the course of any superstring's Kaeler-Metric as the said superstring regains the permittivity that these need to be the energy that it needs to be so that energy may exist.
The first Laplacian instanton of the Kaeler Metric upon the Schotky Interaction reiterates the condition of one mini-loops existence within the Neumman topological boundary of a given superstring by converting Chern-Simmons Hamiltonian momentum within the said locus of the associated mini-loop into a hermitian metric-gauge eigenstate. This rearranges the topology of this said mini-loop into a discrete unit of permittivity by converting Njenhuis norm conditions of that said mini-loop into Real Reimmanian norm conditions to where the limit of virtual mobiaty along the topological surface of the said mini-loop becomes discrete and without spuriousness. (The perturbation of the topologies curvature settles (resettles) into a Real Reimmanian locus whose limits are Ward discrete throughout the topological redistribution of its Laplacian setting.) From the second iteration of the Kaeler-Metric to the 99th iteration of the Kaeler-Metric, the distribution divergencies of the described mini-loops gradually decreases, yet such distribution divergencies bear more scalar amplitude than that of a superstring that has full permittivity. The 100th iteration of the Kaeler-Metric barely (by about .999950349) decreases this scalar distribution divergence for the mini-loops of one-dimensional superstrings, while decreasing the dot product associated parameterization of one of the two spatial parameters that are Neumman Ward associated with the mini-loops of two-dimensional superstrings, while allowing for a euclidean increase in the alterior spatial parameter of the other scalar index involved with the distribution divergence of two-dimensional superstrings. From the 101st iteration of the Kaeler-Metric to the 191st iteration of the Kaeler-Metric, the distribution divergencies of one and two-dimensional strings maintain the same scalar amplitude. This happens over the course of any superstring's Kaeler-Metric as the said superstring regains the permittivity that these need to be the energy that it needs to be so that energy may exist.
More About the Higgs Action
The Higgs Action moves through a Minkowski plane that bears a Fourier tensed Schotky Construction of non-trivially isomorphic group-metrics that involve Ward Conditions of bimorphological distribution indices due to the wobble of the Klein Bottle, that allows the associated superstrings that are to enter the physical Neumman parameters of the said Klein Bottle to obtain (reobtain) the permittivity that these said superstrings are to receive so that these superstrings may remain as the discrete energy that these are to be so that energy and reality may continue to exist. When considering the wobble of the Schotky Construction to be a Njenhuis Tensor, the given planar group-action that I described is a group integrand of the whole Schotky Interaction involved is to be considered as one Real Reimmanian integrable surface, then the Ward Conditions of the said Schotky Interaction is said to bear a Hilbert integrable surface. The Higgs Action itself, although much smaller than the whole Schotky Construction, is Diracly differentiable through the described Fourier Transformation in a majorized Hilbert Space as compared to the Real Reimmanian Surface that the Schotky Interactioin as a whole, is differentiable in only a Minkowski Plane that bears a Njenhuis wobble. When considering the raising of the Klein Bottle to be in the norm to holomorphic direction, the dot product of this directoralization acts as a Minkowki holonomity that is binarily Lagrangian. Each individual group metric directoralization of the described binary Lagrangian acts as a unitary Lagrangian. When considering the Njenhuis indices of the Real Reimmanian perturbation of the norm Fourier Translation of the said Schotky Interaction, as the Klein Bottle is transferred through the holomorphic directoralization in a norm manner relative to the raising of the Klein Bottle, the angling of the Higgs Action is a unitary Hamiltonian operation that integrates between the said binary Lagrangian Fourier Transformation of the Schotky Construction as a multiplicit Hamiltonian Operator. The subsequent antiholomorphic, and norm to antiholomorphic, redirectoralizations of the Schotky Interaction that proceed after this Schotky Interaction kinematically differentiate first norm to holomorphically, then holomorphically, through the associated binary Lagrangian Plane, acts with a non-trivially isomorphic redistribution of the angling of the Higgs Action by an initially Minkowski antiholomorphically realigning of forty-five, unperturbated in vibrational index, degrees, allows for the Klein Bottle to then move to the relative right and then to the relative downward to complete the oscillation of the said Schotky Interaction. When the Schotky Interaction moves from the relative "upward" to the relative left, the Higgs Action initially has a reallignment of its angling by a holomorphically Minkowski, unperturbated in vibrational index, degrees of 22.5. The interconnection between the Higgs Action and the Klein Bottle exists due to the "velcro-like" interactions of the mini-string (substringular field) of the Higgs Action and the mini-string (substringular field) of the bottom of the Klein Bottle's surface.
Listing of Chern-Simmons and Hermitian Limits
The 191 Chern-Simmons "Mini-Loop" Limits of Singularity are (spurious mini-loops):
10^(-86)meters* ((e^(387-1))/2i, (e^(387+1))/2i, (1/(e^(387-1))/2i),
(1/(e^(387+1))/2i)...(e^(387-47)/2i),(e^(387+47))/2i, (1/(e^(387-47))/2i),
(1/(e^(387+47))/2i), (e^(387-48))/2i, (e^(387+48))/2i, (1/(e^(387-48))/2i),
(1/(e^(387+48))/2i)).
The 52 Hermitian "Mini-Loop" (topologically discrete mini-loops) Limits of Singularity are:
10^(-86)meters*((e^(1)-e^(.01))/2i, (e^(.99)-e^(.02))/2i,...(e^(.51)-e^(.5))/2i), with integrating factors of 10^(86)meters*((e^(.01)-e^(0))/2i) &
10^(-86)meters*((e^(0)-e^(.01))/2i) which also act as topologically discrete mini-loop limits of singularity.
10^(-86)meters* ((e^(387-1))/2i, (e^(387+1))/2i, (1/(e^(387-1))/2i),
(1/(e^(387+1))/2i)...(e^(387-47)/2i),(e^(387+47))/2i, (1/(e^(387-47))/2i),
(1/(e^(387+47))/2i), (e^(387-48))/2i, (e^(387+48))/2i, (1/(e^(387-48))/2i),
(1/(e^(387+48))/2i)).
The 52 Hermitian "Mini-Loop" (topologically discrete mini-loops) Limits of Singularity are:
10^(-86)meters*((e^(1)-e^(.01))/2i, (e^(.99)-e^(.02))/2i,...(e^(.51)-e^(.5))/2i), with integrating factors of 10^(86)meters*((e^(.01)-e^(0))/2i) &
10^(-86)meters*((e^(0)-e^(.01))/2i) which also act as topologically discrete mini-loop limits of singularity.
Post Two on More About Orbifolds
Consider the only homeomorphic paths that may hyperbollically intertwine through the stratum of an orbifold that has eigenstates of other universes within the general locus of a given orbifold. This may only be done with waves that do not have a supplementally direct wave-tug. Thus, the eigenbasis of such an orbifold's interior will always be nonabelian, in spite of whatever the abelian nature of the respective light-cone-gauge's respective eigenstates are. The tendency here is of a Yang-Mills topology that has the potential of producing Gaussian Transformations that may alter where certain universes are localized in which sections of the given orbifold. If the light-cone-gauge of such an orbifold is Yang-Mills, the arrangement of universes will form plane energy, such as the motion energy of an electron. If the light-cone-gauge of such an orbifold is Kaluza-Klein, the arrangement of universes eigenstates will form a mass. The Fujikawa Coupling of the correlative plane energy will form a photon. A Hilbert torroidal disc is like a torroidal-disc-shell except that it bears interialized Gliossi-Sherk-Olive norm states as ghost anomalies that may involve up to six more spatial dimensions than a "maxed-out" multiplicit torroidal-disc-shell. A Hilberst torroidal sphere is like a torroidal spherical shell, except that it contains interialized Gliossi-Sherk-Olive norm-states as ghost anomalies that may involve up to six more spatial dimensions than a "maxed-out" multiplicit torroidal-spherical-shell. Torroidal-spherical-shells and torroidal-disc-shells that are not Hilbert based are multiplicitly Minkowski based. A Hilbert Space may contain a "maxed-out" multiplicit Minkowski Space, yet "maxed-out" multiplicit Minkowski Space may only be contained within a Hilbert Space.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Post One of More About Orbifolds
An orbifold may act as a toroidal-disc shell, an orbifold may act as a toroidal-spherical-shell, an orbifold may act as a Hilbert-toroidal-disc, or an orbifold may act as a Hilbert-Toroidal sphere. An orbifold toroidal disc shell is an orbifold that consists of one-dimensional superstrings that involve one universe within its Ward boundaries. Such an orbifold has a gauge-field Njenhuity that is directoralized of cohomological mini-strings that "yarn" together between opposite subtended relative poles based on a translation of theta to Phi multidimensional polar radial delineations, so that the associated orbifold bears an incomplete mobiaty. A complete mobiaty here would undo space-time-fabric, and is impossible here because the given interialized directoralization of these substringular gauge-fields here will always bear an abelian eigenstates no matter whether the associated superstrings along the periphery of this orbifold have a non-abelian or an abelian light-cone-gauge topology in and of themselves. A non-abelian gauge-field eigenbasis at geometrically euler positioning taken Laplacianly, with a partially abelian geometry "welding" the abelian and nonabelian eigenbasis of such to form a stratum that may be interacted upon via the Ricci Scalar with the proper Ante-De-Sitter/De-Sitter mode of operations. This webbing is a translational group operator of gauge-action that hyperbollically transfers point-fill to the operand of the Fourier Series that defines the refurbishment of the space-time-fabric of the periphery of such a toroidal-disc-shell, taken as a regulation group action of the only intertwining that an Imaginary charge under the given Ward conditions may effect to allow for such a Conformally Invariant Series commutation. Such activity also happens with toroidal spherical shells, yet only non-abelianly with toroidal discs and toroidal spheres of the kind that define their respective orbifolds.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
More About Orbifolds & Gauge Fields
An orbifold exists as a set of superstrings that exist as an organized unit with a first-ordered magnetic eigenstate associated with it. The spin-orbital field delineation of the superstrings of an orbifold act as second-ordered magnetic eigenstates of the substringular condition. The orbifolds of an orbifold eigenstate integrate through first-ordered magnetic eigenstates to form the magnetism of an orbifold eigenstate. This magnetism bears a gauge-field that induces an electrodynamic group gauge-action of Majorana-Weyl covariance between D-fields and F-fields in the environment of P-fields. The shell-like structure of an orbifold bears a periphery of substringular fields and gauge-fields that bear a norm Ward relationship in terms of the unborne tangency of Fadeev Popov Traces, along with the Yakawa and Heisendorf cohomological and nonabelian interactions that allow the superstrings of the correlative Fadeev Popov Traces to bear a tense of group harmonics, which via gravitational interaction included, draws among and upon the associated superstrings a set of Klein-Kaeler-Higgs impulses that allow the substringular forces to bear an interactive relationship with each other that is global yet discrete. The interior of the interactive stratum shell of an orbifold often has an interactive shell that is Chern-Simmons bound to the stratum of one parallel universe eigenbasis as another stratum of parallel universe. This causes all mass index shells to have a core density that integrates all of the interior of such a potential shell when there are interactive parallel universes in an orbifold. The Fadeev Popov Traces, as said before, are norm relative to one another if these are of the same universe with a wobble of ~1.104735878*10^(-81)i degrees. The more remote a universe is relative to a given universe, the more off the unborne tangency of the respective Fadeev Popov Traces are in terms of the cross-sectional geometric Laplacian taken at BRST. The gauge-fields of these discrete substringular Planck related phenomena of different universes relative to one another in certain orbifolds are interbound with a tendency to bear some field cohomology. The differing norm conditions of these associated gauge-fields causes the correlative second-ordered light-cone-gauge eigenstates to remain abelianly for Kaluza-Klein topology and non-abelianly for Yang-Mills topology unscaffed yet interactive via the Yakawa-bound norm state fields that, are commutative via the Cassimer Invariance that indistinguishably differently recycle the norm states to ground states, and the ground states to norm states, after a successive set of iterations that are based on a Fourier sequential series that transforms the substringular and gauge-fields one eigenlocus at a time into a fresh substringular and light-cone-gauge eigenstate field. The case of an orbifold region that is completely of one univerese will be Laplacianly conditioned as a majorized stratum that bears an internal charge density, and is of a Hilbert structure that bears multiplicit eigenstates of Minkowski based Majorana-Weyl magnetic eigenstates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)