Postby Bean » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:15 pm
By the way, it is true that you probably shouldn't get quotations from little known websites, blogs, or whatever official name you wish to call this topic. For all you know, I or anyone on here - maybe everyone on this site - is (are) crack-pots. Or, perhaps I'm (we're) from a mental institution where there happens to be a site set up by someone from said institution (this site) such that the majority of posting members of the site are crazed individuals obsessed with Physics/mathematics. There are too many possible issues with trying to get quotations from a blog/topics site to really count on for dissertation work. Your best bet would probably be to go to the closest university library and check out books from both the mathematical view and the (purely) physics view and seek understanding of the mentioned principle from them.
P.S. I just looked through an article on here mentioning Gauge/Gravity duallity which reminded me that the symbol effected frame-work had some interesting takes on what gauge coefficients are and a possible, albeit wierd, explanation for why the gauge coefficents for the forces would go to (or seem to go to) the fine-structure constant. However, as that is not pertinent, I shall not comment; just as that when symbol effects are examined in equations and "formats" of abstract algebra, the symmetry group (not sym on anything, just sym (generally speaking)) appears to be the/a generalization of time and how the special relativistic formula for time -> t' then appears to list 4 symmetries with 1 spot occupied by 1 of 2 possible generalizations (SU(2)xSU(3)xU(1 or 2) [as is probably clear by now I've got a really bad memory so...] x{Symplectic(2n or 4n) or General linear(n, 2n, or 3n)}) when examined after a few symbol manipulations combined with possible generalizations of variables to group (may not necessarily be along the lines of which are elements of which) .... I do believe I've started babbling as it were ... though... since the chances that anyone would look at/read this and think it was worthwhile or sane or true or an accurate depiction of reallity or anything but the "musings of a crack-pot" are probably wonderfully remote, not to mention that even if someone did "beat the chances", as it were, he still wouldn't know my name or anything about me I suppose it wouldn't matter if i rambled on for a bit. So... here goes:
The 4th space coordinate was such that its 2nd derivative with respect to space was mass, and its 2nd derivative with respect to proper time, without making use of technical equivalencies (wierd potentially nonsensical, well somewhat nonsensical from a spatially biased observer's standpoint anyway), was the special relativistic force. [I thought it hilarious at the time that symbols indicated that either the gravitational potential, or the Gravitational flux was the 4th spatial coordinate, but when I later identified that this could, with symbol effects of course, be generalized to the Euler characteristic of the spatial manifold, and thought about how a series of (2D) manifolds with a hole in each could be stacked and the holes might be described by a "function" that resulted in the hole size decreasing as the number of manifolds in series increased away from some specific (perhaps critical) manifold such that the "function" was dependent upon time and how the hole size might be restricted from decreasing beyond some certain point, which of course would mean that the number of holes might be counted as the total number of such manifolds if each manifold were restricted to a single hole per. Then if the size of each such hole were proportional to the relativistic mass present and one mapped each such 2D manifold to a 3D manifold by way of (pictorially) a reversal of the "flattening" (think of the 2D manifolds as flattened 3D manifolds), the total number of holes of the 4D manifold corresponding to the (ordered by time) union of the 3D manifolds would A) correspond to the "total of the relativistic mass" which may be identified with the "total of total mass", and B) correspond to a spatial version of time as long as the mass were "spatial mass", that is, the mass type of the manifold corresponding to the "conceptual group" (with symbols present it turned out that many physicaly different "quantities" were mathematically "exactly the same" (which most likely has something to do with choosing to derive everything from previously existant physics