Finite Reduction 3D > 2D > 1D..STOP

Higher-dimensional geometry (previously "Polyshapes").

Finite Reduction 3D > 2D > 1D..STOP

Postby rr6 » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:11 am

There is no infinite reduction and there is no existence of infinity except as the non-occupied space that embraces our macro-finite occupied space called Universe. This is simple no brainer for those who use logic, rationality and common sense. imho

Finite Reductions = 3D > 2D > 1D..STOP..i.e. not nothing( see 2nd law/priniciple of thermodynamics ) as it is simple not complex.

Following is a simple numerical reduction of a 3D polyhedron called a cubo-octahedron or Vector Equilibrium( VE )--- aka operating system of Universe ---that is based upon 12-around-1 sphericals.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f1603.html
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f6008.html
..{ this link shows the VE as toy model called a jitterbug by R. B. Fuller }....

as it transforms in specific set of configurations that go from a 3Dimensions--- 12-around-1 to a 1Dimensional set of three points / nodal-vertexial events ergo a 1D triangle that has no angles but maintains a set of three numerical identifications with a triangles 3 nodal-vertexial events.

3D = 12-around-1, however if the central, 13th nuclear sphere is removed, then it becomes 12-around-0 and allows for the 3D VE/jitterbug, to transform into a few differrent 2D configurations.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f2230.html

In the link above we can see a 1/half octahedron--- square-based pryamid ---and in the VE there exists three sets of dipolar 1/half-octahedra i.e. they are likened to a di-polar dumb-bell / bar-bell or sand-clock configuration, that appears as only two 1/half octahedra sharing a common nodal vertexial event, tho it is really 4 nodal-vertexial events at at this shared connection location.

From a side view--- aka profile ---we see the aproximated dumbell or barbell-like shape as two triangles !><! where the each of the exclamation symbols is a side view of the square planes. With the VE/jbug these 2D squares collapse to be come 1D line of 4 nodal-vertexial events ex;

o......oo........o...is one of the 1D line of 4 nodal vertexial events
......oooo.............is the commonly shared 4 nodal-vertexial events
o......oo........o...is the other 1D line of 4 nodal-vertexial events.

So here above we have the total 12 nodal-vertexial events we started with as the 3D 12-around-1 then 12-around-0 polyhedron called the cubo-octahedron or VE/jitterbug and has been reduced to a 2D set of relationships.

So here above we the two outer sets--- above and below ---of 4 nodal-vertexial events ergo 8 and we are in 2D configuration both numerically and geometrically with the VE/jitterbug.

In the middle--- shared nuclear ---4 ergo my initial numerical set as and 8-to-4 ratio of outer sets to inner set.

Next we can numerically-- not geometrically --reduce this above set to a 1D line as;

oo.....oooooooo......oo..ergo we still have 12 nodal-vertexial events but have gone from 3D > 2D > 1D, however, we can numerically reduce this set from 8-4 ratio to a;

oo...oo....oo..ergo 4-2 ratio to a;

o..o...o..ergo 2-1 and this is the minimal, rationa,l numerical reduction we can do of the original 12 nodal-vertexial events.

This set of three is likened to 1D triangle i.e. we collapse the 2D triangle to a 1D because we maintain the its numerical three nodal-vertexial events. This is one way to turn a triangle inside-out is by contracting it to 1Dimension, the expanding back on to triangle diametrically opposite to the initial triangle.

The following shows both 2D triangle configurations and the a single 1D set as it turns itself inside-out.

........o........
o.......o.......o
........o.......

There is simple analogy to this phenomena using a 3D tetrahedron, that turns itself inside-out, when its 4th nodal-vertexial event passes through its diametrically opposite opening we have momentarily gone from a seemingly 3D tetrahedron, to seemingly 2D subdivided triangle.

r6
Our conscious existence as reality, along with the conscious comprehension of the existence of a greater finite physical/energetic Universe as reality, is the greatest illusion of reality via those conscious experiences and the associated dreams and recalling of those experiences.
rr6
Dionian
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:27 pm
Location: US

Re: Finite Reduction 3D > 2D > 1D..STOP

Postby wendy » Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:23 pm

Actually, dimensions as low as -2 have been sighted.
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Finite Reduction 3D > 2D > 1D..STOP

Postby Klitzing » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:34 pm

Wendy, just to be honnest, negative dimensions are more abstractly used things.

Dimension -1, the nulloid, is used in the series of subelements of polytopes just for the very purpose, that this additional thingy makes some furmulas more easy.
Dimension -2: I cannot remember to have stumbled upon so far. But I suppose the same holds true here as well.

Or could you attach any non-abstract essence to those?

Zero dimensional elements on te other hand for sure are elemental: those are the points.
Geometry is based on their existance.

--- rk
Klitzing
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:16 am
Location: Heidenheim, Germany

Re: Finite Reduction 3D > 2D > 1D..STOP

Postby rr6 » Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:02 pm

The minimal, 3D geometric point is a tetrahedron and has 4 triangular openings and 4 nodal-vertexial events( OO OO )

The minimal, 2D, geometric point, is a triangle( ^ ) ergo three nodal-like( nodalistic ) events( ooo )

The minimal, 1D point, is never less than a set of two, 2D geometric points( oo ).

3D, and 2D geometric point can turn inside-out whereas a 1D point cannot turn inside-out.

r6


rr6 wrote:There is no infinite reduction and there is no existence of infinity except as the non-occupied space that embraces our macro-finite occupied space called Universe. This is simple no brainer for those who use logic, rationality and common sense. imho

Finite Reductions = 3D > 2D > 1D..STOP..i.e. not nothing( see 2nd law/priniciple of thermodynamics ) as it is simple not complex.

Following is a simple numerical reduction of a 3D polyhedron called a cubo-octahedron or Vector Equilibrium( VE )--- aka operating system of Universe ---that is based upon 12-around-1 sphericals.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f1603.html
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f6008.html
..{ this link shows the VE as toy model called a jitterbug by R. B. Fuller }....

as it transforms in specific set of configurations that go from a 3Dimensions--- 12-around-1 to a 1Dimensional set of three points / nodal-vertexial events ergo a 1D triangle that has no angles but maintains a set of three numerical identifications with a triangles 3 nodal-vertexial events.

3D = 12-around-1, however if the central, 13th nuclear sphere is removed, then it becomes 12-around-0 and allows for the 3D VE/jitterbug, to transform into a few differrent 2D configurations.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f2230.html

In the link above we can see a 1/half octahedron--- square-based pryamid ---and in the VE there exists three sets of dipolar 1/half-octahedra i.e. they are likened to a di-polar dumb-bell / bar-bell or sand-clock configuration, that appears as only two 1/half octahedra sharing a common nodal vertexial event, tho it is really 4 nodal-vertexial events at at this shared connection location.

From a side view--- aka profile ---we see the aproximated dumbell or barbell-like shape as two triangles !><! where the each of the exclamation symbols is a side view of the square planes. With the VE/jbug these 2D squares collapse to be come 1D line of 4 nodal-vertexial events ex;

o......oo........o...is one of the 1D line of 4 nodal vertexial events
......oooo.............is the commonly shared 4 nodal-vertexial events
o......oo........o...is the other 1D line of 4 nodal-vertexial events.

So here above we have the total 12 nodal-vertexial events we started with as the 3D 12-around-1 then 12-around-0 polyhedron called the cubo-octahedron or VE/jitterbug and has been reduced to a 2D set of relationships.

So here above we the two outer sets--- above and below ---of 4 nodal-vertexial events ergo 8 and we are in 2D configuration both numerically and geometrically with the VE/jitterbug.

In the middle--- shared nuclear ---4 ergo my initial numerical set as and 8-to-4 ratio of outer sets to inner set.

Next we can numerically-- not geometrically --reduce this above set to a 1D line as;

oo.....oooooooo......oo..ergo we still have 12 nodal-vertexial events but have gone from 3D > 2D > 1D, however, we can numerically reduce this set from 8-4 ratio to a;

oo...oo....oo..ergo 4-2 ratio to a;

o..o...o..ergo 2-1 and this is the minimal, rational, numerical reduction we can do of the original 12 nodal-vertexial events.

This set of three is likened to 1D triangle i.e. we collapse the 2D triangle to a 1D because we maintain the its numerical three nodal-vertexial events. This is one way to turn a triangle inside-out is by contracting it to 1Dimension, the expanding back on to triangle diametrically opposite to the initial triangle.

The following shows both 2D triangle configurations and the a single 1D set as it turns itself inside-out.

........o........
o.......o.......o
........o.......

There is simple analogy to this phenomena using a 3D tetrahedron, that turns itself inside-out, when its 4th nodal-vertexial event passes through its diametrically opposite opening we have momentarily gone from a seemingly 3D tetrahedron, to seemingly 2D subdivided triangle.

r6
Our conscious existence as reality, along with the conscious comprehension of the existence of a greater finite physical/energetic Universe as reality, is the greatest illusion of reality via those conscious experiences and the associated dreams and recalling of those experiences.
rr6
Dionian
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:27 pm
Location: US

Re: Finite Reduction 3D > 2D > 1D..STOP

Postby wendy » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:15 am

The minimum point in any dimension is zero-dimensional. There is no such thing as a 'three-dimensional point'.

Ergo means 'therefore'. I really can't follow any logical connection between the elements ye connect by 'ergo'.

Meta means 'in the midst of'. Beyond is only of our comprehension, not of space. You can't assume because some translation works, that every meaning of 'beyond' falls into 'meta'.

Figures of -1 and -2 dimensions have been recorded, but as means to bring together things. I'm still thinking that 'nulloid' is probably not the right word for it, since it is a sense of belonging that is to be meant here.
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Finite Reduction 3D > 2D > 1D..STOP

Postby rr6 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:07 pm

The minimal 3D point is a tetrahedron. People use various 3D mediums-- ink, lead, pixels ---to create points/dots and connect them together as line(s) and the lines to enclose areas etc.....

All mediums are at minimum 3D and the minimal 3D is the tetarhedron, geometrically speaking of course. These are simple facts ergo you therefore/ergo you are not following the facts.

Meta = beyond and so say some dictionaries ergo/therefore more facts that appear to allude your intelligence fact searches for your replies to me.

I agree that you "can't follow any logical connection" ergo my repeating of the simple facts for you.

3D, 12-around-none ergo 3D 8-4 > 2D 8-4 > 2D 4-2 > 1D 2-1

oo..ooooooo..oo.....linear 1D set

oo...oo...oo....linear 1D set

o..o...o...1D triangle collapsed to a 1D line.

The 1D triangle reduces to a 1D point as;

..oo....1D point ergo a point has at minimum two aspects/characteristics and these two may translate as having 'V'iewpooint or, point of 'V'iew where a 'V' is representative of a point that is never less than on angle composed of a minium, one piece of incoming information and one piecs of outgoing information and that defines a point of 'V'iew or 'V'iewpoint. imho.

Any alledged non-dimension is non-occupied space, that exists beyond our finite occupied space called Universe.

These are simple concepts that easily are conveyed using Fuller VE/jitterbug, not to mentioned the other the 6 fundamental motions, 5 or more exotic shapes/patterns associated with spatial dimensions and three and only 3, primary, regular/symmetrical shapes of Universe;

tetra(8)hedron,
octa(8)hedron,
and a semi-icosa(8)hedron.

The VE/jitterbug also contains the basic quadra-pedic body plan for fish, cetacceans and all animals with four priamary appendages used for motion.

See tetrahedron does 3D collapse to 2D subdivided triangle as follows;

.....o.....
o...o....o

Above is 4 nodal vertexial events of tetrahedron

> > >

o..o..o..o...2D subdivided triangle contains the same 4 nodal-vertexial events as the tetrahedron.

Simple, not complex.

To arrive at the minimal 1D point we reduce the 1D

It is for all of these reason above, if not many more, that Fuller realized the significance of the VE/jitterbug as the Operating System of Universe.

For some 10 years or more, I have been asking others to show us toy-like model, that does more--- or even as much ---as the VE/jitterbug does, with its many transformations of shape/patterns that all are associated with our finite occupied space as fermions, bosons and any collection thereof.

None exist and that is why few have tried to show another toy-like model that does so much and all of failed to produce any such models. This should be a no-brainer for those who actually have owned a VE/jitterbug and operated it. :nod:
r6
wendy wrote:The minimum point in any dimension is zero-dimensional. There is no such thing as a 'three-dimensional point'.
Ergo means 'therefore'. I really can't follow any logical connection between the elements ye connect by 'ergo'.
Meta means 'in the midst of'. Beyond is only of our comprehension, not of space. You can't assume because some translation works, that every meaning of 'beyond' falls into 'meta'.
Figures of -1 and -2 dimensions have been recorded, but as means to bring together things. I'm still thinking that 'nulloid' is probably not the right word for it, since it is a sense of belonging that is to be meant here.
Our conscious existence as reality, along with the conscious comprehension of the existence of a greater finite physical/energetic Universe as reality, is the greatest illusion of reality via those conscious experiences and the associated dreams and recalling of those experiences.
rr6
Dionian
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:27 pm
Location: US

Re: Finite Reduction 3D > 2D > 1D..STOP

Postby wendy » Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:43 am

rr6 wrote:The minimal 3D point is a tetrahedron. People use various 3D mediums-- ink, lead, pixels ---to create points/dots and connect them together as line(s) and the lines to enclose areas etc....


It's actually 'media'. Mediums are women in contact with the spiritial world. In any case, the minimum object created by ink, lead, etc, is not a simplex (triangle, tetrahedra), but a sphere or circle.

rr6 wrote:All mediums are at minimum 3D and the minimal 3D is the tetarhedron, geometrically speaking of course.


Mediums are people who talk to ghosts. So i suppose, at the very least, they are three dimensional, but not tetrahedral. The minimal 3d figure is not necessarily the one that most naturally forms. Most shapes that form are circular or spheric, not polyhedral.

rr6 wrote:These are simple facts ergo you therefore/ergo you are not following the facts.


They're actually opinions, which are not facts. The conclusions don't follow from the statement. Lawyers are quite apt at picking up this distinction. A fact is something that might be captured on a video camera, for example, as in He came to the shop or the circumference is 2 pi of the radius. Items that follow a "because", or "thus", or "therefore" are items of reason or opinion. Been on juries often enough to know.

rr6 wrote:Meta = beyond and so say some dictionaries ergo/therefore more facts that appear to allude your intelligence fact searches for your replies to me.


To the extent that i extensively research a good deal of etymological and language dictionaries, i am indeed pretty versed in (a) that words have several meanings, and (b ), that a connection by an idiom from an english meaning to a greek meaning, is not an excuse to fully substitute every possible use of the english word into the greek word. The extent of the overlap between meta and beyond has been fully expanded in this discussion.

rr6 wrote:3D, 12-around-none ergo 3D 8-4 > 2D 8-4 > 2D 4-2 > 1D 2-1


One might suppose this makes sense. It's an unconnected set of symbols bereft of explaination.

rr6 wrote:..oo....1D point ergo a point has at minimum two aspects/characteristics and these two may translate as having 'V'iewpooint or, point of 'V'iew where a 'V' is representative of a point that is never less than on angle composed of a minium, one piece of incoming information and one piecs of outgoing information and that defines a point of 'V'iew or 'V'iewpoint. imho.


Rendering a line to a pair of adjacent points is what is implied by 'r'. r3o is a similar feat done to a triangle, and r3o3o to a tetrahedron. In every case, the surrounding symmetry is kept. On the other hand, a point is orthogonal to all space, and thus presents spherical symmetry. Our experience is that things like water or ink flowing over paper adopts spherical patterns. Something that has an internal set of bonds might grow shapes as crystalography shows, but this is not the sort of media that people use.

Playing word games, such as highlighting letters in words, do not translate from language to language, even from american to english. A point of view, and a viewpoint, are different things. In any case, they have nothing to do with information but rather interpretations. As you said 'in your humble opinion'


rr6 wrote:Any alledged non-dimension is non-occupied space, that exists beyond our finite occupied space called Universe.

These are simple concepts that easily are conveyed using Fuller VE/jitterbug, not to mentioned the other the 6 fundamental motions, 5 or more exotic shapes/patterns associated with spatial dimensions and three and only 3, primary, regular/symmetrical shapes of Universe;


Yeah, that's one of the elements of snub symmetry, specifically variations of the edge /a2 in "/3 /3 /a2" in my decorated form of the Conway-Thurston orbifolds. You probably won't find shapes to do that in four dimensions or make the 'exotic' shapes in 3d, simply because it handles a very small range of shapes.

Actually, there are five primary regular/symmetric shapes in every dimension, but if you don't want to count two, it don't help your theory.

[quote="rr6]For some 10 years or more, I have been asking others to show us toy-like model, that does more--- or even as much ---as the VE/jitterbug does, with its many transformations of shape/patterns that all are associated with our finite occupied space as fermions, bosons and any collection thereof.[/quote]

Supposing so. A fermion is a particle that obeys fermi-dirac statistics. He_3 is a fermion. A boson is a particle that obeys bose-einenstein statics. Plenty of them about. Oxygen and Nitrogen are bosons. Our physics is not based on cheap parlour-games of the kind that the "jitterbug" is. All space is not fully occupied, most of it is empty. Some so empty that a cubic km might hold a single photon.

The current thinking that the primary discription of the world lies in the GUT, a break-down of geometries of a group in eleven dimensions, with assorted weightings. Yes, there are novels on the subject, such as 'the Anthromorphic principle', by Barrow. It's pretty heavy stuff, and it does not rely on the sort of games that you are playing with highlighting parts of words, and arts more associated with scrapbooking than science.
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Finite Reduction 3D > 2D > 1D..STOP

Postby rr6 » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:37 pm

WDY] It's actually 'media'. Mediums are women in contact with the spiritial world. In any case, the minimum object created by ink, lead, etc, is not a simplex (triangle, tetrahedra), but a sphere or circle.


Here is one dictionary definition and my use of the word has to with something like or similar to "a(1)" as follows below.

1
a : something in a middle position
b : a middle condition or degree : mean
2
: a means of effecting or conveying something: as
a (1) : a substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect (2) : a surrounding or enveloping substance (3) : the tenuous material (as gas and dust) in space that exists outside large agglomerations of matter (as stars) <interstellar medium>


WY] Mediums are people who talk to ghosts. So i suppose, at the very least, they are three dimensional, but not tetrahedral. The minimal 3d figure is not necessarily the one that most naturally forms. Most shapes that form are circular or spheric, not polyhedral.


See above defintion Wendy. Any substance is physical/energy. Dirt or water or air-molecules and act in a" transmmison of force or affect"

All physical/energy has shape/pattern. All of those patterns associated with tetrahedra, octahedra, icosahedron and any combinations thereof including deriviatives of those three in combinations.

They're actually opinions, which are not facts. The conclusions don't follow from the statement. Lawyers are quite apt at picking up this distinction. A fact is something that might be captured on a video camera, for example, as in He came to the shop or the circumference is 2 pi of the radius. Items that follow a "because", or "thus", or "therefore" are items of reason or opinion. Been on juries often enough to know.


Some oppinions are based on some facts. I offer oppinions based on my experience and information I believe to be fact, sometimes i make speculations based on same or similar criteria. Just like and yourself and all humans do.

rr6 wrote:3D, 12-around-none ergo 3D 8-4 > 2D 8-4 > 2D 4-2 > 1D 2-1


One might suppose this makes sense. It's an unconnected set of symbols bereft of explaination.

Some if not all of this is touched upon in other of my emails posts

3D = 3 dimensional Duh!! :roll:

12-around-1 equal radius sphericals > 12-around-none i.e. the nuclear spherical is removed ergo none.

This is what Fullers Jitterbug is based upon, and I believe that was in original post if not others. Cubo-octahedron/Vector Equilirbium/Jitterbug is the toy-like model of these that is called a vector flexor as transforms into so many shapes/patterns of occupied space.

3D 8-4 is the jbug collapse to a semi-3D phase--- see barbells/dumbell-liek shape --- with three levels i.e. top level 4, botton level 4 and middle level 4 8-4 and this ratio stays this way even when this phase/configurations collapse's to 2D with the toy-model.

4-2 is the next reductionof the ratio 8-to-4 but only numerically and not with the Fullers toy-model jbug.

2-1 is the final numerically linear reduction of 4-2 to 2-1. this is relatively simple childs play or maybe at average 8th grader should have no problem understanding a ration or a reduction.


Rendering a line to a pair of adjacent points is what is implied by 'r'. r3o is a similar feat done to a triangle, and r3o3o to a tetrahedron. In every case, the surrounding symmetry is kept. On the other hand, a point is orthogonal to all space, and thus presents spherical symmetry. Our experience is that things like water or ink flowing over paper adopts spherical patterns. Something that has an internal set of bonds might grow shapes as crystalography shows, but this is not the sort of media that people use.


A conceptual point, like a conceptual line, is not physically/energetically existent of course. I was follow a linear, numerical, reductionary pathway/trajectory and that led to o...o....o as the primal linear( 1D set of three nodal events of 2D triangle that has become 1D.

I gave the the 3D to 2D analogy of that using the 3D tetrahedron whose 4th nodal-vertexial event moves into the same plane of one of the triangles ergo momentarily the 3D tetrahedron has become 2D subidivided triangle. More childs play. imho simple not complex concept.

So to remain with rational whole nodal vertexial events, the next reduction to a "point" would either be two nodes( oo ) or one node( o ). I chose two because....well maybe best to save that disscussion for another time.

I'm using words and texti-cons to express specific geometric and numerical phenomena. I began with a 3D geometric aspects-- 12-around-1 nodal-vertexial events ---and it associated them with numbers. I reduced to a linear set of of three and then pondered on what a was next proper association of conceptual point in regards to my methodolgy.

The only question in my mind, which is more correct, one node( o ) or two( oo ) for the geometrically arrived at through halving reduction process. Half of three nodes would have be irrational 1.5. I choose to be more inclusive rather than less inclusive.


Yeah, that's one of the elements of snub symmetry, specifically variations of the edge /a2 in "/3 /3 /a2" in my decorated form of the Conway-Thurston orbifolds. You probably won't find shapes to do that in four dimensions or make the 'exotic' shapes in 3d, simply because it handles a very small range of shapes.[/quote

The VE/jbug is a truncated/snubbed cube. All the others I mentioned the many differrent shapes/patterns the flexible toy-like jittebug model will fold into as welll as teh ability to express all 6 fundamental motions. Again, I've been asking for some 12 years or so, for anyone to show a toy-like model that does as much as the VE/jbug does.

Actually, there are five primary regular/symmetric shapes in every dimension, but if you don't want to count two, it don't help your theory.


I don't consider cube and pentagonal dodecahedron primary, and I left out the word stable by baccident. The cube and Ped.Dod. are not primary not stable because they are not triangulated. Any stable structure requires triangulation aka diagonal brace. Any fundamentally primary, structural shape/pattern of Universe, must be triangulated.

The operating system of the Unvierse i.e. the Vector Equlibrium/Jitterbug has both stable structuralization and squares that allow for transformation between all of its many exotic and fundamental--- and in some cases primary because stabilised by triangular shapes/pattern of spac.e

[quote="rr6]For some 10 years or more, I have been asking others to show us toy-like model, that does more--- or even as much ---as the VE/jitterbug does, with its many transformations of shape/patterns that all are associated with our finite occupied space as fermions, bosons and any collection thereof.[/quote]

Supposing so. A fermion is a particle that obeys fermi-dirac statistics. He_3 is a fermion. A boson is a particle that obeys bose-einenstein statics. Plenty of them about. Oxygen and Nitrogen are bosons. Our physics is not based on cheap parlour-games of the kind that the "jitterbug" is. All space is not fully occupied, most of it is empty. Some so empty that a cubic km might hold a single photon.


[quote]
The current thinking that the primary discription of the world lies in the GUT, a break-down of geometries of a group in eleven dimensions, with assorted weightings. Yes, there are novels on the subject, such as 'the Anthromorphic principle', by Barrow. It's pretty heavy stuff, and it does not rely on the sort of games that you are playing with highlighting parts of words, and arts more associated with scrapbooking than science.[/quote]


Irrespective of how others choose to label my explorations and expressions thereof, much of it is fact. Some of it is oppinions based on experience and facts. Some of it is speculations based same or similar experience and facts.

Those who to understand will make attempts to do so. Those who want to have troll-like attitude will attempt to do so.

I was open to corrections of ,y grammar or facts any some degree of argument, as long as it has a rational and logical basis.

Trolls rarely use much rationality or logic, except to tear others apart by constant dismissing or attacking of their ideas.

So Wendy, I may be get busy as I'm going on vacation for a week. I dunno how in touch i will be.

r6
Our conscious existence as reality, along with the conscious comprehension of the existence of a greater finite physical/energetic Universe as reality, is the greatest illusion of reality via those conscious experiences and the associated dreams and recalling of those experiences.
rr6
Dionian
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:27 pm
Location: US

Re: Finite Reduction 3D > 2D > 1D..STOP

Postby wendy » Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:08 pm

You seem to be facinated by the idea that if you submit a precis of your theory, that all and sundry ought take the time to understand the matter. You might present an idea for a listener, but it is for the listener's courtesy whether he ought entertain your ideas. Making it hard for him is not going to help your endeavour, unless you show some obvious benefit for the work. Most of us have survived quite long enough without your theory, and your discordant presentation of it would suggest that not much has been missed.

You can't really take a general dismissal of your presentations as the others being trolls. In practice, there are those who get a fair bit of 'troll-traffic' on the supposition that 'some hair-brained theory would work'. So if your work is percieved as troll-traffic, it is dealt with accordingly. It's not our role to suppose that your presentations are not troll-traffic - it's yours.

Doing things like highlighting random letters of one word to support an argument (except where to highlight its origin or meaning), does not help the case. It does not translate well, and people think in terms of letters or sounds or ideas, may fail to grasp the idea at hand. Simply supposing that things derived from facts are themselves facts, is also wrong. They're generally opinions, and the further away from the facts they come, the more unstable they are.

In practice, it does not do well to throw an unsorted mass of ideas at a person, and then accuse them of troll-like behaviour because they do not really want to take the effort to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It's really your place to rough out the stuff in private, and then come with some sort of presentation that is either easy to understand, or leads to useful statements. It's not ours.

A statement along the lines of 'X ergo Y', is in the form of logic, in the same way that '2+2=5' is in the form of mathematics. It does not make the statement either logical or true. The reader needs to see how X becomes Y. That's why mathematicians write proofs out. For example, consider

Meta = beyond and so say some dictionaries
ergo/therefore
more facts that appear to allude your intelligence fact searches for your replies to me.

  • Meta = beyond, and so say some dictionaries. In translation, one tries to 'spotlight' the meaning of words by shining different unrelated words to enhance the meaning. A search of dictionaries will show that 'meta = beyond' is some one's selection of a word in an non-literal sense, and the choice of words is considered wrong. In any case, it does not mean that in the literal meanings of either words.
  • more facts that appear to allude your intelligence. First, the statement before the /ergo/ is not a fact, and secondly, facts are not handled by intellegence. Idiot savants are quite good at remembering fact: intellegence is a presence of mind for reducing facts to some underlying rules.
  • fact searches for your replies to me.: What this means entirely alludes me.

Confusing 'opinion' and 'fact' does not help either. For example, one might note that a cluster of n points forming a zero-edge solid, is indeed a fact. I have special symbols for writing such things, such as to use the proto-edge 'r' for these figures: an r3o is a set of three points making a zero-edge triangle.

Claiming that these figures represent 'three-dimensional points' etc, is an opinion, which is not universally supported. For example, people with a chemical or physics background, are more likely to suppose a small sphere of N dimensions is the representive N-dimensional point, since this is the general form that an N-dimensional figure represents.

Also, even though the simplex is the simplest polytope in N dimensions, the first introduction to N dimensions is the measure-polytope: point, line, square, cube, tesseract, etc. These are generally the only polytopes that do not have a face-count name.
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Finite Reduction 3D > 2D > 1D..STOP

Postby rr6 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:05 pm

Wendy, you need to get beyond "meta". The simple facts regarding "meta" I've given seem to go in one ear and out your other with only brief acknowledgement of such facts as given and used by me.

Come back and talk to me when you can get beyond facts and uses of "meta" as given by me.

Then, if you have a s comment that addresses a specific comment by me that is incorrect, or you have a question about, please address it as stated.

Thx R6
Our conscious existence as reality, along with the conscious comprehension of the existence of a greater finite physical/energetic Universe as reality, is the greatest illusion of reality via those conscious experiences and the associated dreams and recalling of those experiences.
rr6
Dionian
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:27 pm
Location: US


Return to Other Geometry

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron