Winter Soldier
Testimonies

Comment on this article 
Email this article 
Printerfriendly version

Hidden with code "Other" () 
physical description 

by m concoyle Ph D Email: martinconcoyle (nospam) hotmail.com 
22 Apr 2013

The propagandaeducation system teaches the public to obey authority, but whatever authority in which a person might believe, the new ideas, based on manydimension being partitioned by a finite set of discrete hyperbolic shapes (and expressed in this paper), describe the stable structures of the very prevalent many(butfew)body systems, and this is something which modern physics, based on (indefinable) randomness cannot do. 
It is only the stable “geometricallyseparable” shapes defined in a linear, metricinvariant context…,
[where the metricspace must also be a metricspace of nonpositive constant curvature…, where the metricfunction only has constant coefficients, and the metricfunction, ie symmetric 2form, is a symmetric matrix]
…., in which
1. stable (math, or physical) patterns exist,
2. measuring is reliable, and
3. there is quantitative consistency,
and where linear metricinvariance implies a need for a separable shape (or a geometricallyseparableshape) ie continuously locally diagonal coordinate transformation relations or locally orthogonal local coordinate relationships.
The stable shapes of the set of discrete hyperbolic shapes can be used to determine subspaces of dimensional levels (where this can be done by partitioning an 11dimensional hyperbolic metricspace with a finite set of discrete hyperbolic shapes) within which:
1. measuring is reliable,
2. stable systems exist,
3. these stable systems can change between different types of stable shapes, or
4. the containing metricspace identifies stable orbits for condensed material,
where condensed material is material components which are too small to be interactive (material) shapes within the containing metricspace, but they are components of a particular dimension which resonate with some aspect of the finite spectra (of the proper dimension), which is defined for the overall 11dimensional hyperbolic metricspace which is the containing space,
That is, some stable material can exist as condensed material in stable planetary orbits.
In a containment context, where measuring is reliable, local linear models of measuring, ie (partial) differential equations, make sense, and stable solution functions are related to resonance of either lowdimension systemshape models, or to the orbits of the containing metricspace’s (orbiting) condensed material (which can often be charge neutral), but the resonant metricspace, and its orbits are actually contained in a higherdimensional subspace.
That (partial) differential equations make sense in a context within which measuring is reliable can be interpreted to mean that because feedback for nonlinear systems…, based on the critical points of nonlinear (partial) differential equations (and an associated limitcycle convergence [or divergence] structure)…, works then this seems to indicate that the context within which we exist is, in fact, a (narrowly defined, or highly constrained) context within which measuring is reliable.
Though this math context is built from the simplest of math patterns,
1. They are stable patterns (shapes)
2. So that measuring is reliable, and that
3. The stable solutions…. to either orbiting dynamics or to stable system component shape, ie the patterns fundamental to existence (or which determine the properties of existence)….. are related to lists of spectralgeometric stable properties (or quantitative sets), which are both microscopic and macroscopic properties, which are defined by resonances with the finite spectra of the overall highdimension containing space.
But
4. The overall highdimension context…., in regard to:
a. metricspaceshape size for the dimensional levels and
b. subspace structure, and/or
c. the (dimensionalsize) treestructures of setcontainment,
(in regard to metricspace shapes which partition the 11dimensional hyperbolic metricspace),
….. can be very complicated, and
5. The relation of a component (or shape) to the containing metricspace…,
… (where the metricspace is also a shape of some size)
[eg a metricspace containing subspaces of particular dimensions (ie contained components within [bounded] metricspaces)]
…, in regard to:
a. infinite extent discrete hyperbolic shapes, eg the infiniteextent neutrino of the electroncloud, contained within a bounded metricspace, as well as,
b. the property of actionatadistance, as well as
c1. the determination as to whether an infinite extent shape of low dimension is either bounded by a higherdimension containing metricspace, or
c2. if it extends out to an infinite subspace,
d. and thus such a shape (defining an infiniteextent subspace) is also relatable to other infiniteextent stable shapes (other 11dimensional hyperbolic metricspaces, within which finite spectral sets define other existences)
…, can be difficult to actually determine.
Though charge is likely not a 1dimensional construct, but rather a set of charged 1flows which fit into (at least) a 2dimensional discrete hyperbolic shape, so as to allow spinrotations of opposite pairs of timestates.
Ontheotherhand mass (or inertia) can be 1dimensional, a circle, since a circle’s center is a distinguished point, in regard to position in space, for translations or rotations, but any point on the circle could be a distinguished point for rotations, or a pair of opposite points, a diameter, or two pairs of opposite points so that each diameter is orthogonal to the other diameter, and furthermore, the orthogonal pair identify the circle’s center. Thus, such an orthogonal pair represent both rotation frames (rotating stars) and translation frames (fixed stars).
So that, the circle and its center can be mapped into one another, so as to represent the map between translational and rotational frames of the circle on the plane.
A new context
Though the new descriptive context agrees with particlephysics that the description is unitary, due to metricspace containing opposite metricspace states, these opposite states are related to spin properties of material components, and that the containment space is an 11dimensional hyperbolic metricspace, but that such an 11dimensional hyperbolic metricspace can be related to other such 11dimensional hyperbolic metricspaces, and that the stable properties of “material,” which are contained in each such a space, must be in resonance (and in the correct dimension) with the finite spectral set defined by the metricspace subspacepartition of each of the overall containing 11dimensional hyperbolic metricspaces.
In the new descriptive structure there is a new context for angular momentum.
That is, angular momentum is defined on the various toral components of the stable shapes, which are allowed by the containment set (where the highdimension containment set defines a finite set of stable spectrageometric measures, to which the existing stable shapes must be in resonance), and on possible links, defined by angular momentum, in turn, defined on the various toralcomponents of the system’s shape.
Links
There are unbounded stable discrete hyperbolic shapes, which exist on all dimensional levels, and these unbounded shapes are associated to stable material components, ie stable discrete hyperbolic shapes defined by their being part of the partition of the various subspaces of the containing space
[which is partitioned by (into) a finite set of stable discrete hyperbolic shapes of all the dimensional levels of the overall containment set].
Ontheotherhand the 2, 3, and 4dimensions are relevant to the descriptions of “material“ components contained in hyperbolic 3space, where these stable shapes are also related to both bounded and unbounded, or semiunbounded, discrete hyperbolic shapes, where an example of a semiunbounded shape would be the neutrinoelectron structure of an atom’s (2dimensional) charged components (which is also called an electroncloud of an atom, eg for an atom the nuclei are bounded shapes while the electronclouds are semiunbounded), so that all “material” systems are linked to an infiniteboundary of the overall highdimension containing space. Thus, one can think of angular momentum as a controlled (or controllable) link which can exist between the many different 11dimensional hyperbolic containing metricspaces, due to the existence of such unbounded and associated bounded (angular momentum) links (between 11dimensional hyperbolic metricspaces).
Thus, one can consider a “possible consciousness” for people (or their realm of creative intent) would be related to their ability to examine (perceive) the different creative structures of these different universes, where the individual 11dimensional containment sets, for the different universes (or perhaps different galaxies), might be perceived as intricate bubbles of different types of perceptions, into which our awareness can enter, and within which we can control our journey, since we are in touch with the infinite reaches of these various types of separate existences. (see below for a highdimensional model of lifeforms, eg models which allow all lifeforms to possess a mind)
Is this the true context within which the human lifeforce is to develop knowledge, and to intend a creative
expansion of such a context?
To reiterate
Though charge is likely not a 1dimensional construct, but rather a set of charged 1flows which fit into a 2dimensional discrete hyperbolic shape, so as to allow spinrotations of opposite pairs of timestates.
Ontheotherhand mass (or inertia) can be 1dimensional, a circle, since a circle’s center is a distinguished point, in regard to position in space, for translations or rotations, but any point on the circle could be a distinguished point for rotations, or a pair of opposite points, a diameter, or two pairs of opposite points so that each diameter is orthogonal to the other diameter, and furthermore, the orthogonal pair identify the circle’s center. Thus, such an orthogonal pair represent both rotation frames (rotating stars) and translation frames (fixed stars).
So that, the circle and its center can be mapped into one another so as to represent the map between translational and rotational frames of the circle on the plane.
That is, the different 11dimensional “bubbles of hyperbolic metricspaces,” ….
…., between which human life might be able to enter (or exist) so as to travel between [or link between] these different 11dimensional bubbles of different perceptiontypes, so as to do this with an intended purpose, that is, if one’s higherdimensional structure is understood and/or perceived,
…., seem to depend on sets of 2planes which can carry the essential “inertial orbitalstructure” for the various bounded regions of an 11space, wherein (on these 2planes) the pairs of opposite states on inertia (matter and antimatter) which can be defined
[for each of these particular regions sliced by 2planes which determine the organization of inertial properties of the region (or for these particular bounded regions)].
These sets of 2dimensional regions are bounded since inertia is defined in relation to only the bounded shapes of discrete Euclidean shapes, where Euclidean space is the space of position and spatial displacement, ie Euclidean space is the space in which inertial properties are contained.
That is, these sets of 2dimensional regions could be used to map the different 11dimensional “bubbles of hyperbolic metricspaces.”
Life
There are natural stable shapes, those of odddimension (3,5,7,9) and with an oddgenus (where genus is the number of holes in the shape, eg the torus has onehole, or a genus of one, ie the genus is the number of toral components of a discrete hyperbolic shape) which when fully occupied by its orbital charged flows are charge imbalanced and thus would begin to oscillate, and thus generate their own energy. This would be a simple model of life.
Thus such a shape which possesses a higherdimension could cause the lower dimensional components to, in turn, possess an order which can be controlled by a higherdimensional shape, through angular momentum states (properties).
Down in 3dimensions this control by a higherdimensional structure could be the complicated microscopicandmacroscopic structure of life, which appears to be run by complicated molecular transformations, eg relations between the structure of the livingsystem and enzymes, proteins, and DNA.
This is simply about considering the results in regard to assuming that stable shapes determine the underlying order and stability which is observed, and the fact that these stable shapes (mathematically) have a dimensional structure associated to themselves.
However, according to the currently accepted laws of physics both the stable properties of quantum systems, eg nuclei atoms molecules etc, and the stable control which is possessed by life, are unexplained (or unexplainable within the currently accepted descriptive constructs).
The patterns of stable physical systems are unexplainable within the current dogmas about the material world, since the current dogma is based on the dimensionallyconfining idea of materialism, and within such a confinement, descriptions seem to be based on indefinable randomness and nonlinear systems (or nonlinear patterns which are quantitatively inconsistent) defined on a (quantitative or coordinate) set which is assumed to be a continuum.
Such indefinably random and nonlinear patterns are fleeting and unstable, though their decay times can, sometimes be of relatively long duration.
Suppose human life is associated to a 9dimensional shape of an oddgenus, then such a shape is an unbounded shape (noted by D Coxeter), and thus it could well be relatable to many such 11dimensional hyperbolic metricspaces (bubbles within which perception and action might take place) (ie why should an unbounded 9dimensional stable shape, generating its own energy, be confined to any particular unbounded 11dimensional containing space?) wherein (each different bubble of perception) the living system’s lower dimensional (material) structure may be quite different (in the new containment structure), and thus the living system’s perceptions and interactions could also be quite different within the other (different) 11dimensional containing spaces.
There can be many of these 11dimensional hyperbolic metricspace containing spaces in regard to a stable reliably measurable set of experiences.
These 11dimensional sets could
either
be in the same space, so as to be organized around different sets of finite spectralgeometric sets,
or
they could be related to a set of fibergroup conjugations, which could be defined between these different 11dimensional (hyperbolic metricspace) sets (or spaces).
This second construct would be similar to a model of conjugations between (say) galaxies so that the galaxies drift apart due to the structure of the groupconjugation.
This would be an account of (a new interpretative context for) the, so called, expanding universe. This structure, which focuses on galaxies actually being 11dimensional spaces, would be organized around a primary 2plane for the galaxy’s inertial properties (but this primary structure would only be) in regard to our planet’s (or our galaxy’s) inertial structure.
Elementary considerations
Consider the observed patterns of the physical world which have been associated to sufficiently precise descriptions so that other systems can be built by using reliable measuring processes associated to a system’s properties, and the system placed within a describable context, so as to be related to practical useful creations.
Or
Such precise descriptions fitting into some type of descriptive context, thus forming an informative descriptive context.
Classical physics
Thermal descriptions associated to closed systems composed of a particular number of components and associated to thermal properties, eg temperature, pressure, volume, componentnumber, energy, entropy, etc, of a closed system, where differentialforms can be used to define thermal equations.
Newtonian
Material components of mass or charge contained in space and/or time with positions in space or measurable properties of the systemcomponent which can be associated to measurable displacements in space, in turn, related to a causal materialgeometric relationship (or changes of state) or pattern sufficiently precisely related to spatial displacements (or changes in state) of position in space and time. This is the ma part of Newton’s F=ma definition of either force or mass.
And then there is the relation of material geometry and material motions surrounding a material component and its relation to force, ie the F part of F=ma equation.
These ideas are developed in both the forces (or forcefields) of gravity and electromagnetism.
In inertial systems there are the conserved systems of a spherically symmetric forcefields constrained to a plane associated to planetary orbits for a twobody system transformed into a centerofmass coordinates so as to identify elliptic orbits, but for the 3body system, the equations are nonlinear and there are no stable solutions, and “why is a spherically symmetric forcefield constrained to a plane?” yet the solarsystem has, apparently, been stable for billions of years, why?
Faraday’s model
For charged systems it is electromagnetic waves (hyperbolic waveequation) and currents defined in linear circuits, as well as motors, where solutions to solvable equations allow for a great deal of control over system properties, and thus being able to use these properties.
There are also the relatively still charged systems which have spherically symmetric forcefields, as well as some simple, usually cylindrical geometric, geometries associated to currents, wherein the forcefields define useable relatively stable properties.
Often these systems of waves and circuits deal with oscillatory signals (or coupleable properties).
These descriptions of forcefields depend on local linear relations which exist between local geometric measures, ie alternatingforms (or differentialforms), and (of) a charged system’s (or charged component and current) geometric properties.
But, accelerated charges imply the emission of electromagnetic radiation and the charged system’s loss of energy, ie such a system would be unstable. This would mean that bounded interacting charges would define an unstable system unless the system was actually an internally closed metricspace which confines the charged components.
Thus consider atoms:
These are considered to be quantum systems, where a quantum system is characterized as small components composing a stable system where the small components (or particles) are related to random spectralparticleposition events in space and time (or in spacetime). Thus a quantum system becomes a function space represented in a spectral construct (or system wavefunction) associated to sets of linear differential operators, eg waveoperators (or energyoperators) and the point is to find the operators associated to the quantum system’s spectra, or to diagonalize the function space, ie give the function space a spectral representation by applying sets of operators which commute. The spectral functions of the function space are supposed to represent the probabilities of random spectralparticleevents.
But
One cannot find such diagonal operatorfunctionspace constructs for general quantum systems, ie there are no valid measurable descriptions of general quantum systems, eg nuclei, general atoms, molecules, crystals etc.
It is assumed that quantum systems reduce to particlecomponents governed by (probabilityenergy) waves in a context of stable spectral (wave) properties of quantum systems.
Quantum interactions are descriptions based on particlecollisions, which are highdimensional, nonlinear, and unitaryinvariant.
Particlecollision experiments in particleaccelerators find many unstable particles and a few stable particles eg electron, proton, etc, where it is assumed that these particles are associated to the quantum system’s reduced particlecomponents, which are assumed to compose a quantum system.
Is it valid to assume that unstable particles are a part of a stable systems component structure? [No! This implies higherdimensional macroscopic metricspace structure]
Then model the wavefunction with internal particlestate properties associated to a nonlinear (wave) equation representing the particlecollision interactions, where the interactions perturb (or alter) the particlestates of the wavefunction, where the resulting perturbation series is summed to identify the stable systems new properties dependent on the new interaction structure brought about by particlecollisions and changes in the internal states of the (assumed) quantum system’s composing particles. This adjusts a wavefunction, where the wavefunction is now divided into particlestates if the original wavefunction is close, but virtually no original wavefunctions are close to the system’s spectral properties which have been observed.
It is claimed to perfectly adjust one of the energy levels of a Hatom’s energy structure. Such a claim, where the answer is based on subtracting infinity, is a dubious claim, especially since there are so few contexts within which the particletheory is relevant.
The containment space of quantum physics (there are various ideas about this(?)) is a noncommutative functionspace, along with a nonlinear, but unitaryinvariant, and higherdimensional equation (or operators) of quantum interactions, ie particlephysics ensures that there will be noncommutativity, and thus the spectral identifications of any quantum system is impossible.
In fact, the math structure of particlephysics only identifies the properties of unitary invariance and the possibility that highermacroscopicdimensions exist, since unstable particles can be best interpreted to mean that higherdimensions exist, and these higherdimensions would have a macroscopic structure. 
This work is in the public domain 

