Gottlike said:
Maybe this "inversed gravity" is the creative principle of gravity, as opposed to the usual geometrical representation of gravity, which binds things and forms black holes, if overabundant. It could have something to do with the scientifically hypothesized "dark energy", which supposedly counteracts gravity. Like a flame it emits energy (because of merging/reacting "things" and the radiation of excessive inter"molecular" binding energy [like what happens when molecules react and a flame appears] ??). The keyword "zero-point energy" comes to my mind.. (which is also related to "dark energy", as I just read in
Wikipedia).
Given the reference to "pyro" and "inverted geometry" I suspect it may be referring to this 12-26-98 session:
Q: Okay, I am done. (A) I was trying to put together things related to research on UFT, and the questions I have asked
recently. After a time of being quite desperate, because I could not put these things together, I could finally see some dim
light. So, I would like to ask. But, please do not reassure me if what I think is wrong... just tell me it is wrong, and I will
look for something else. I came up with the idea that we should model our space time on a kind of a surface embedded in
a higher dimensional flat space. This would account for several things that you have told us. At some point you said the
following: 'Old makes new again,' which suggested that we should come back to what Einstein was thinking, and then you
said 'equilateral versus hypotenuse.' I didn't have a clue, but then I got an idea that it is related to different kinds of tensors
with three indices, rather than to geometrical features. Is this guess correct?
A: Partly, but geometric figures provide a third density guide for visualizations of field concepts.
Q: (A) Hmmm....
A: Pyramids inverted upon one another.
Q: (A) Where to put these pyramids?
A: Hexagonal representaion of flat plane...
Q: (A) What is hexagonal representation?
A: What does a hexagon look like when converted to three dimensional represention?
Q: (L) Well, a 'flat pyramid' is a triangle, and a triangle has three points, and two triangles inverted becomes a sort of Star
of David, and that has six points and is a sort of hexagon... (L) Well, this hexagon business... two dimensional inverted
pyramids make a Star of David. But, what if these pyramids were really tetrahedrons? They LOOK like a hexagon in a
plane, but in 3 dimensions... (A) They are octohedrons... Octonions... hmmmm....
A: Vortices... this is what your "wormhole" would look like.
Q: (A) Now, we have a problem here, because you speak in terms of features, geometrical features, and I would like to
convert this to equations which...
A: Okay, what is the problem?
Q: (A) I want to describe gravity, and to describe gravity I must have some geometrical quantity which describes this
gravity, so my idea is that gravitational field is described by the bending of our space time in a higher dimensional flat
space...
A: Yes...
Q: And that this bending would describe both gravity and electromagnetism.
A: Yes...
Q: (A) In all this I do not see a place at all for tetrahedrons. What do they have to do with a bent surface?
A: Maybe you do not see yet.
Q: (A) But, still I want to understand what was all this talk about tetrahedrons. So, I thought about tetrahedrons that I
have worked with and met in my research. There were several occasions. First, there are tetrahedrons which we need if
you build a continuous theory of completely discrete elements. Then we do the triangulation of the surface, or we need
tetrahedrons to triangulate space, so let me call it Place One. Place Two: tetrahedrons I understood as symbols because
tetrahedrons have three edges from each vertex, so I thought this three should represent third order differential equations.
Place Three: I use tetrahedrons for describing magnetic monopoles, but they were not necessary, and I have no other
way to put tetrahedrons into the idea to bend geometry. If things are fluffy, what are tetrahedrons doing there? I have no
clue at all! So, I want to ask about a possiblity of describing different densities. It came to my mind that perhaps Einstein,
when you spoke about variable physicality, that Einstein was afraid when he understood that in his work. I thought about
this and I think that Einstein determined that the future must be determined from the past and present, and when he found
that he had a theory where the future was open, he dismissed it and was afraid. Is this a good guess that variable
physicality, mathematically, means a theory where there is a freedom of choosing the future when past and present are
given?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Is it related to the fact that we should use higher order differential equations, not second order?
A: Yes. Einstein found that not only is the future open, but also the present and the past. Talk about scary!!
Q: (A) All you have said so far points to an idea by a Swiss guy named Armand Wyler. This Wyler found a way to
compute from geometry so-called Fine Structure Constant, which is a number and can be found experimentally. Then, of
course, he was invited to Princeton to explain how he did it, and apparently he failed to explain himself, and he ended in
an asylum for the mentally deranged. The question is: if I follow his way of thinking, can I succeed in deriving and
understanding the nature of this Fine Structure Constant?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Well, if I do it, should I keep it a secret so that I won't end up in an asylum?
A: The problem with Wyler was with the audience, not the speaker.
Q: (A) What does that mean? (L) I guess it means that the people he was talking to couldn't grasp it, not that he couldn't
explain it. Did he really lose his mind, or was he sort of 'helped' to go crazy?
A: He suffered a "breakdown."
Q: (A) Now, let's change a little bit. BRH sent me an e-mail where there was a discussion between Sarfatti and a Russian
physicist who was working with Sakharov by the name of Ryazanov, at Moscow University. He says he can do
derivation of quantum mechanics from electro dynamics with two signs of time. He is speaking about possible reversing of
causality. On the other hand, he is saying that it is the sin of physicists that they believe in the power of mathematics. Part
of what this Ryazanov is saying seems to correspond to what I think also. Does he really have a theory which explains
quantum mechanics?
A: Yes, but he made an omission.
Q: (A) What omission?
A: Calculating the frequency constant.
Q: (A) Okay, I will try to get his paper. In looking for this Ryazanov on the web, I have found the pages of a Polish
Medical Doctor who is making all kinds of funny experiments, including parapsychological, being, at the same time,
director of the University Clinic. I had the idea that I should get in contact with him. Who is he? Can I have a clue?
A: Who is he?
Q: (A) His name is Brodziak. He is in contact with Sarfatti, Pitkannen, Deautsche, and so on. Should I become more
active in these discussions, these mailing lists?
A: Sure, but you will need to separate the "wheat from the chaff."
Heim and his 6-dim spaces, Wyler and his complex space volumes, Sakharov and his zero point fluctuation gravity, and Ark and his conformal structures are all related and might make "wormholes" all the way down to the electron/quark level. As for what the inverted pyramids/octahedrons might be, the only think I know is this and I don't understand it much at all other than it tiles 3-dim space:
From http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/clcroct.html
In a paper astro-ph/9801276 (written in the context of large-scale structure of our universe) E. Battaner shows how such a non-filling tiling by octahedra can be subdivided into a similar non-filling tiling by smaller (1/3 length scale) octahedra, with 7 small octahedra within each larger octahedron, as shown in this image from his paper:
The octahedral fractal structure of E. Battaner also forma an onarhedral fractal structure. Just as the faces, etc., of the onarhedron correspond to the 7 octonion imaginaries, the 7 subonarhedra (one at each vertex plus one in the middle) also correspond to the 7 octonion imaginaries. Further, the 3 smaller subonarhedra on each axis of a larger onarhedron correspond to an associative triangle. Within each large onarhedron, in addition to the 7 small onarhedra, there are 8 small cuboctahedra. The 7 small onarhedra correspond to the 7 octonion imaginaries, and the 8 small cuboctahedra to the 8 additional sedenion imaginaries. They are related to the last Hopf fibration of spheres:
S7 to S15 to S8
