Winter Soldier
Testimonies

Comment on this article 
Email this article 
Printerfriendly version

Simple 

by annonymous Email: pcoatimundi (nospam) hotmail.com 
25 Jan 2013

A reasoned voice is drownedout by a bamboozled public, who because of the media, support those ideas which oppress them, the public, (eg they place themselves in wageslavery) and the indymedias are part of the problem, all, but one, actively supports opposing freespeech and they oppose equal expression. The public is not to be blamed, rather the system which destroys its own public is to be blamed. The media confuses authority with truth.
This is an expression about truth, and the relation of truth to (practical) creativity. 
In regard to a measurable description of observed stable physical patterns there is a partition of both distinct subspaces and the dimensional levels of an 11dimensional hyperbolic metricspace, so that all such components of these discrete hyperbolic shapes within the overall 11dimensional containing space are contained in the differentsized discrete hyperbolic shapes… of the proper dimension (onedimension more than the components)…. of the (given dimensionalsubspace of the) partition (which) where these “smaller components” are the “material” components, which are in resonance with the stable finite spectra which the partition’s finitespectralset defines. They are the material components (or metricspaces) which can exist within such a containment construct, and this construct allows stable patterns to exist and to be described.
Order and stability of fundamental material systems comes from (or exists within) nondecreasing spectral sequences defined on subspacedimensional levels, which are nondecreasing sequences (in size) of metricspaces defined as the dimension of these metricspaces increases.
This nondecreasing sizesequence allows orbits to be defined, by means of small (material) components which exist within the higherdimension (ie larger) discrete hyperbolic shapes, in the spectraldimensional sequence defined on some subset of subspaces within the partition.
This newly considered space is discontinuous in regard to higher dimensions when the measurable properties of the (smaller) components are observed inside any one of the discrete hyperbolic shapes of the partition. That is, the properties of higherdimensions are difficult to detect. Note: Frames of reference are best defined in relation to these stable components.
The current basis for measurable descriptions of physical systems is mostly concerned with wild speculations within a descriptive context wherein no stable patterns can be described (within the authoritative descriptive contexts now used) which the experts and their dotingmedia passoff (these speculations) as high intellectual value (one must remember the descriptions of Ptolemy were measurably verified, ie measurable verification is a weak basis for distinguishing science as opposed to dogmatic authority [or authoritative religion]).
These speculations based on dogmas “as is everything about the propaganda system” are a fraud presented to the public and backedup by the compliant (and true believing) authoritative experts, who are people who are willing to compete within the narrow context of authoritative dogma.
This is a manipulation of personality by the administrative managers of these institutions (mostly controlled by the forces of wageslavery, as well as a propaganda system which is the sole voice of authority for all of society) thus turning science back into an authoritative religion.
Descriptive truth is best related to precise measurable sets of many different such languages, which are defined by their assumptions and interpretations etc. so that the different languages are to be associated to practical creativity, while socially everyone is an equal creator.
The issue (whose fundamental context is “What is existence?”) is really about the “true” range and capacity for the human lifeform to create, as opposed to creating and managing an elite, dominant socialclass, based on control of material and property, wherein knowledge and creativity are subservient to this dominating social structure.
The most extreme vision concerning descriptive truth and its relation to creativity, (the vision which might well be the correct vision concerning life) is that human life is about creating existence itself, but this is not domination but humbly accepting the actual structure of existence, as opposed to the adherence to the idea of materialism, adjusting to the scientific context of dealing with the true structure of existence.
One presents this idea which contrasts the basic distinction between science and religion, or materialism and “seeing the world as it really is,” where (to state the obvious) a many dimensional construct transcends materialism, yet it contains materialism as a subset, and it solves the most basic problem facing physics and math today, namely, being able to describe the very stable patterns of material systems which exist at all size scales: nuclei general atoms, the stable solar systems etc and it is a context which is consistent with a locallydimensional idea about materialism, and all of the randomness and nonlinearity associated to the idea of materialism.
In the new descriptive context there are two new types of ways by which these fundamentally stable systems come into being: (1) is a local resonance which is locally related to the material containing metricspace and the other (2) in regard to collisions of material components whose dimension is onedimension less than the dimension of their containing metricspace where the energycollision structure becomes resonant with the global spectral set of the overall containing space.
Furthermore, the descriptive structure also shows randomness and nonlinearity to be the prevalent context for the material contained in each dimensional level.
That is, it is a descriptive context which is both measurable, verifiable, and geometric, thus, very useful in regard to practical creativity (the true test of a valid scientific descriptive language), yet it places the context of existence again within a mysterious context of “What is existence?” where there is now a new map (or context of inquiry) leading into a higherdimensional context, which is modeled with the simplest of geometric shapes and in a (stable, or limited) quantitative structure which can be defined on a (very large, but) finite set.
That is religious discovery and scientific discovery are back in the news.
To use arrogance and authority so as to confuse “authority (and social standing) with truth,” seems to be the main media strategy, which business interests employ, as they have turned the media into an advertisement for themselves (or their selfish interests), where within the propaganda system (the media) the monopolistic business interests only allow the advertisements which support their business interests to be heard by the public.
The reason this new math construct seems so “simple” (its context is by no means simple) is that the very stable math patterns, upon which it (as a descriptive language) depends, are very simple.
[In math one often partitions regions in order to measure (or limit) them, but this partition allows the quantitative sets to be defined by a finite set of values, and it defines bounds for metricspaces (smaller material components) and it defines bounds (or boundaries) for metricspaces, which (nonetheless) are difficult to see within a metricspace.]
If the stable math patterns used in this descriptive context were identified by their math contexts (or math properties) and if these properties are represented by means of (partial) differential equations (or operators applied to function spaces) they would be linear, metricinvariant (ie related to the classical Lie groups), (geometrically) separable, commutative everywhere (globally commutative), ie the locally measurable properties (identified by derivatives defined on functions which represent system properties) of coordinates and shapes in the domain space are orthogonal (or independent) at each point in the containing domain space. That is they would be the solvable math patterns which can be controlled by controlling boundary or initial conditions of the system.
[Furthermore, the functions in the function spaces would also be these same types of stable discrete shapes.]
The simple stable shapes (or coordinate structures) whose fundamental domains would be relatable to “rectangular simplexes” ie thus they are either the tori or the shapes built from toral components (as well as the possibility of “cylindrical shapes”)
These are the discrete (discontinuous) subgroups which are associated to the classical Lie groups SO and SU, including the SO(s,t) or SU(s,t) Lie groups, as well as the symplectic Lie groups.
The exotic Lie groups may have some importance but this would be a distant idea, since the real geometry and the relation between shape and interaction need to be workedout in the low dimension (five and less) metricinvariant geometric case, first, including the determination of an actual finite spectral set for an (or for our) existing world.
This is basically a descriptive context about real geometries which possess local oppositestates, so that global real geometry, but also Hermitian geometry, ie the geometry of the complex variables, seems to be the correct path to explore. Note: It is difficult to envision the shapes of things whose dimension is more than three, yet we may be 5dimensional entities. That is, it is a true mystery in which everyone is invited to explore, since the basic math constructs are simple and geometric.
The only valid criticism of these ideas must provide
Either
a complete answer as to the structure (or cause) of physical stability, since the new construct accounts for both randomness and pointlike interactions, and it provides a new descriptive context within which answers concerning stable physical systems are given,
Or
criticisms must identify logical or containment errors within the new language (that is, Copernicus cannot be criticized because he did not begin with the assumptions of Ptolemy [these new ideas cannot be criticized because they do not agree with currently accepted dogmas, and this is because the current scientific dogmas and this new language are built on different sets of assumptions])
or
provide an alternative complete answer concerning physical stability
That is one cannot claim the new context is wrong because of the authority of the old (or currently accepted) contexts, since these old constructs have not provided any answer as to “why stable systems possess the property of stability.”
That is, the old (or current) construct cannot answer the fundamental questions about the stability of the fundamental physical systems.
We are at a time during which our social institutions are failing, so what are some alternative models of society?
Now the social structure is based on the law of:
property rights and minority rule,
where contracts (as well as fortunes) of those in the higher socialclasses will be upheld (or maintained), but the contracts of the people in the lower socialclasses usually are not upheld by the justice system.
There is the other social construct of basing law on equality (this is what the US Declaration of Independence proclaims, but it has never been upheld by the ruling uppersocialclasses).
This is often placed, by the media, in a context of
Competition vs. equality
Where competition is defined by very limiting sets of authoritative laws. However, the upper socialclasses have used laws to support their monopolistic businesses and to destroy their competitors, where implicit in this sentence is the idea that “the politicians are easily controlled in a society whose laws are based on minorityrule.”
The distinction between current social laws and “new” laws (rather laws of equality which are begging to be acknowledged and enforced) can also be represented as:
Narrow dogmas vs. build many (measurable) languages at the level of assumption
Where the intellectual elites can be defined by narrow authoritative dogmas within a context of competition and in highly managed educational institutions, where these intellectual elites have been managed to serve the interests of business monopolies (apparently strong minds but weak backbones).
Or
Dogmatic elitists tied to a fixed social order (defined economically, or monopolistically) and a fixed relation between the knowledge of the culture and creativity which only serves monopolistic business interests, eg oil military, banking.
vs.
Freeinquiry based on equality (each person being an equal creator) where knowledge is tied to practical creativity and a truly equal freemarket
Or
Elitist, wageslaves
vs.
Equal people who possess a wide range of practically creative possibilities
The media is all about fraud, it lies and misrepresents information to serve its few paymasters.
Even the alternative outlets depend for funding, in order to have a voice, so the main idea expressed by all of the media is that “people are not equal,” and “the learned ones with superior intellects are to guide the masses,”
But the masses are in such a bad way (easily led, and quite confused) because of the media.
For example, in the media science is an authoritatively based form of personalitycult.
Furthermore, the media (ever) continues its incessant repetition about inequality, and a very restricted idea about identifying highvalue, (highvalue is about the creative capabilities of each individual of a society, it is not to be based on an extreme violence needed to maintain inequality based on property rights, ie based on materialism)
The essential model of truth which is presented by the media is that “authority is the same as truth.”
This, of course, is also the basis for repressive religions.
However, the scientific authorities have failed to provide answers to the most fundamental of physical questions “why is physical stability so very prevalent.”
But the public has been bamboozled, by the media, into supporting the narrow authority of science as if they are protecting highintellectual and cultural value the value they are protecting is narrow and directed at maintaining inequality and a fraudulent idea about value.
All of the US institutions, except the military, which are based on highvalued intellectual knowledge and intellectual capacity are failing, and this is because the basis for the fundamental knowledge of our culture…., where the military is not failing because all of science is based on developing military instruments (and with all the money the politicians give to the military monopolies, “How can they fail?”)…., has become too narrowly defined and far too controlled.
It seems that the main social failure is supporting:
inequality over equality,
narrowness vs. wide creative range,
extreme violence vs. equality,
but alas, the elitists have the capacity to scare the public, unless “we, the people,” redefine law, to be based on equality (as the US really claims law should be sobased). 
This work is in the public domain 

