-
Features
Multiverse Gravity
- Thread starter Kharakov
- Start date
Wholistic Integrity = Finite Whole. imho
Yes, i.e. within any ideas of Multiverse--- Universe --- or multiple universe's or bubble universe, etc....gravity interconnects them all, even if any of our known forces do not inter-connect/inter-relate them all. imho.
There exists no barriers to gravity. imho
Multiverse's cannot be infinite ergo Multiverse equals Universe, if they exist.
Once I post my cosmic heirachy there is increased chance of understanding where i'm coming from, if not also why. imho.
Yes, i.e. within any ideas of Multiverse--- Universe --- or multiple universe's or bubble universe, etc....gravity interconnects them all, even if any of our known forces do not inter-connect/inter-relate them all. imho.
There exists no barriers to gravity. imho
Multiverse's cannot be infinite ergo Multiverse equals Universe, if they exist.
Once I post my cosmic heirachy there is increased chance of understanding where i'm coming from, if not also why. imho.
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
There could be verses with no spacetime connections to our own.
There's a semantic argument about the words universe and multiverse, if that is what you refer to.
What's with all the colors and bolds? Might tone it down a bit....
Gravity Integrate and Cohere's As Finite Whole. imho
No, there is not. imho
My given comments are agreement with what is known regarding gravity having no barriers. If you have some phenomena observed that some how alludes to my comments in those regards not being valid please share.
Semantics? Maybe, however, I try to be very clear and have little ambiguity to what my comments mean, as stated.
I will try to give you a simple visual example;
O = a finite universe
OOO = multiverses
OOO or OOOO or (O)(O)(O) = finite, occupied space Universe composed of local multiverses
The formatting characterizations--- i.e. color, bold, Italics etc.. --- help to me distingush specific aspects of our finite, occupied space Universe, or any metaphyscial-1 concepts thereof. If you choose to know more specifics of my formatting I can assist you with explanation.
Ex capitallizing "U" and putting in bold Uni and Multi is specifically meant to convey the idea, that, were dealing with a cosmic whole Universe or Multiverse and not some local universe, or some less than the cosmic whole set of multiverses ie. only two universe's instead of finite whole set of of Multiverse's that may be 40 or 100 etc.....and again, it is a finite-- ergo integral ---set.
Universe = Multiverse, however, Universe is more specialized, or discriptive because uses specific colors to associate with other specific components within our cosmic heirarchy.
This has to do with understanding what a hieracrhy is. Again, once I post my cosmic heirarchy there is increased chances of your bettern understanding where I'm coming from with my ideas.
Generally speaking I use blue in association with gravity.
Generally speaking I use red for physical/energy ergo fermions, bosons or any combination thereof.
Hope that helps. Hope to post my cosmic heirachy somewhere eventually as reference place for cosmic beginners.
r6
No, there is not. imho
My given comments are agreement with what is known regarding gravity having no barriers. If you have some phenomena observed that some how alludes to my comments in those regards not being valid please share.
Semantics? Maybe, however, I try to be very clear and have little ambiguity to what my comments mean, as stated.
I will try to give you a simple visual example;
O = a finite universe
OOO = multiverses
OOO or OOOO or (O)(O)(O) = finite, occupied space Universe composed of local multiverses
The formatting characterizations--- i.e. color, bold, Italics etc.. --- help to me distingush specific aspects of our finite, occupied space Universe, or any metaphyscial-1 concepts thereof. If you choose to know more specifics of my formatting I can assist you with explanation.
Ex capitallizing "U" and putting in bold Uni and Multi is specifically meant to convey the idea, that, were dealing with a cosmic whole Universe or Multiverse and not some local universe, or some less than the cosmic whole set of multiverses ie. only two universe's instead of finite whole set of of Multiverse's that may be 40 or 100 etc.....and again, it is a finite-- ergo integral ---set.
Universe = Multiverse, however, Universe is more specialized, or discriptive because uses specific colors to associate with other specific components within our cosmic heirarchy.
This has to do with understanding what a hieracrhy is. Again, once I post my cosmic heirarchy there is increased chances of your bettern understanding where I'm coming from with my ideas.
Generally speaking I use blue in association with gravity.
Generally speaking I use red for physical/energy ergo fermions, bosons or any combination thereof.
Hope that helps. Hope to post my cosmic heirachy somewhere eventually as reference place for cosmic beginners.
r6
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
What measurable effects does gravity have upon 1+1=2?
If there is a universe with disjoint spacetime, distortion of spacetime will not extend into it. That's not to say there are actual universes with disjoint spacetime, but there might be.
Why don't you just use the terminology that others are familiar with? If you want to participate in meaningful discussion, it helps to use terminology and syntax that others are familiar with.
Keep in mind that people write in a single color, and don't use bold or italics often for a reason: it looks nicer, and doesn't distract one from the specific words being said. You aren't the recently UNFROZEN Austin Powers... are you?
That being said, I can consider the case in which you have a peculiar type of synesthesia, in which certain concepts are tied to certain colors for whatever reason. That's the case, carry on, but also use words, because someone who comes on the board, and has never seen your type of communication before, is not going to know what the colors, and bolds mean.
In addition, most of us don't want to look at a cheat sheet to decypher every communication from someone who may be spouting nonsense. There are lots of nonsense spouters on the intertubes.
Gravity Integratse and Cohere's As Finite Whole. imho
"1+1=2" is not in any of your original comments to which I replied too ergo 1+1=2 is mathematically generalized abstraction ergo gravity has no effect with metaphysical-1 abstract concepts of mind/intellect. Why you make such comments is strange and meaningless to me.
First of all, Ive no idea what a "disjoint" spacetime is exactly so cannot address such statements.
What "might be" is limited by a finite set of cosmic laws/principles. imho i.e. what is possible is limited by finite set of cosmic laws/principles. imho
When you can specify which "terminology" or "syntax" you do not understand, I better assist you. I've already made sincere attempts to elaborate and explain some of the colors and character formatting.
I'm one of many peoples on Earth. If you want to address my comments as stated, instead of creating examples that are not specific to my comments as stated, then please do so.
Then they can ignore any significance the colors associate with, or any character formatting such as bold or italics, and just place their attention on the words that are significant to them.
I have not offered any alldeged "cheat sheet" and Ive asked no one to "decypher every communication" altho, that is what humans often do, because humans often do not exactly what another humans means--- and more-so in written text ---in verbal, visual or sound communications.
If you choose to address specific words, terminologies or concepts by me that you do no understand, then I can assist you.
Many of the words I used are words you used, irrespective of any character formatting. Character formatting is more of minor mole hill aside, that, you appear to making of mountain of.
Many of the words I used, are words/terminologies you used.
r6
"1+1=2" is not in any of your original comments to which I replied too ergo 1+1=2 is mathematically generalized abstraction ergo gravity has no effect with metaphysical-1 abstract concepts of mind/intellect. Why you make such comments is strange and meaningless to me.
First of all, Ive no idea what a "disjoint" spacetime is exactly so cannot address such statements.
What "might be" is limited by a finite set of cosmic laws/principles. imho i.e. what is possible is limited by finite set of cosmic laws/principles. imho
When you can specify which "terminology" or "syntax" you do not understand, I better assist you. I've already made sincere attempts to elaborate and explain some of the colors and character formatting.
I'm one of many peoples on Earth. If you want to address my comments as stated, instead of creating examples that are not specific to my comments as stated, then please do so.
Then they can ignore any significance the colors associate with, or any character formatting such as bold or italics, and just place their attention on the words that are significant to them.
I have not offered any alldeged "cheat sheet" and Ive asked no one to "decypher every communication" altho, that is what humans often do, because humans often do not exactly what another humans means--- and more-so in written text ---in verbal, visual or sound communications.
If you choose to address specific words, terminologies or concepts by me that you do no understand, then I can assist you.
Many of the words I used are words you used, irrespective of any character formatting. Character formatting is more of minor mole hill aside, that, you appear to making of mountain of.
Many of the words I used, are words/terminologies you used.
r6
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
The point is that there are barriers that gravity does not reach across. It's not causing the Peano axioms to change over time. You haven't produced evidence or a reasonable argument that indicates entirely abstract pocket universes do not or can not exist.
That's what happens when we use words in non-standard ways. Anyway, I meant disjunct- separated, or non unitary spacetimes. Spacetimes which are not joined- stuff in one does not affect stuff in the other in any way, they don't affect one another.
I'd like one. A list of color codes that don't change. Keep in mind that colors don't always pop out on some monitors- purple might be semi-useless.
Never mind. I find the idea of colors representing ideas interesting, allowing nuanced communications. I'm totally down with additional encoded information, but the thing is, words can encode the same information: you describe what the colors mean with words.
And everyone understands the words. Your color coding is not commonplace- so someone who joins a conversation with you will not pick up on whatever you mean, because nobody speaks your color language.
In fact, it's a kind of separatist way of doing things- millions understand English. How many speak your specific color language?
No there is not, and I asked you give evidence leading to such and you have not.
This is 2nd time you've brought in irrelevant, metaphysical-1, abstract concepts of mind/intellect into conversation where were disscusing gravity related issues, i.e. your latter comments of "abstract pocket universe" is irrelevant and unrelated to my comments regarding gravity, Universe, Multiverse etc....
You evade addressing my comments as stated. My guess is that you have not any rational, logical or common sense comments, that, would invalidate min,e as stated. ergo your evasion of my comments as stated.
Your exaggerating a mole hill into a mountain. Take a hundred differrent authors analysiing the same topic and you find at least at least 50 differrent ways that they attempt to convey their message. If you dont understand someones comments then you can ask. Simple.
There exists no isolated universes in Multiverse scenario nor an infinite setof universe, and anyone who tells you differrent--- ex Andre Linde --- are lacking in some fundamentally rational, logical and common sense considerations. imho
Here you are still going on about the colors. You need to get beyond your fixation on the colors, and focus on the words as stated. imho When you can show some evidence of comprehension of my ideas as stated then perhaps you can begin to fixate on the color coding that Ive already described somewhat, and for most part consistently done so for a few years now.
YOuve shown no evidence of comprehending much of any my comments as stated irrepective of the associated color coding. You need to get beyond the 2ndary color coding, and begin to focus on primarily on text. imho
And everyone un
I've yet to see much evidence in your comments, that, shows understand little much less a lot of my comments, as stated.
Ditto all of my above.
Youve spent how many posts, words etc...on 2ndary content of my messages, and little to no evidence that you understand any of my comments as stated.
I believe this because, what you do understand of my content, you have no comments that address mine as stated, that, invalidate my comments as stated.
Please share when you have some comments specific to mine, as stated, that, asks a specific non-ambigous{ clearly stated } question, or shows evidence that you understand any of my comments as stated, and invalidates any of my comments, as stated, or validates my statements i.e. you agree, or adds to my ideas, as stated. Thx.
r6
Sure
skepticalbip
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 7,304
- Basic Beliefs
- Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
We have no idea as the whole idea of a multiverse is only a philosophical premise. As philosophy, any assertions stemming from the idea is fair game.
But you can see the result of introducing philosophical questions into the science forum...
bippy
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
Ehh, well, a long time ago, in a forum by another name, I brought up a similar question to one of the above, that introduced testability to the question (which means it entered the realm of science).We have no idea as the whole idea of a multiverse is only a philosophical premise. As philosophy, any assertions stemming from the idea is fair game.
But you can see the result of introducing philosophical questions into the science forum...
The gist was that 4 dimensional matter (matter with hypervolume instead of volume) would not directly interact with matter because of quantum uncertainty in position.
The idea was that if there was 2 dimensional matter, it would have 0 thickness, so 3 dimensional matter would be likely to be on either side of it due to uncertainty in position (do you recall the articles a few years back about how particles could "teleport" to the other side of a thin sheet of metal due to uncertainty in position?? With a sheet of 0 thickness, the uncertainty in position would virtually guarantee a particle would be on one side or the other).
I extrapolated this idea up to 4 dimensional matter being likely to be on either side of the origin of the w axis, with 3d matter being at position 0 of the w axis and having 0 w size, so 4 dimensional matter was almost infinitely unlikely to interact as if it was located at such a precise location (much like I could imagine 2d neutrinos, shaped like 0 thickness coins flipping end over end, would rarely interact with 3d matter).
So 4 dimensional matter would potentially orbit around the matter in our 3 dimensional space, our 3 dimensional matter would align itself with matter in a 2 dimensional plane, the 2 dimensional plane matter would align itself around a singularity, and all the singularities would be weirdos who loved anyone they could get their grubby little 1 dimensional h and s on. Or I'm joking on a bit.
Anyway, DrewJMore replied (to my post):
He pretty much got it, come to think of it.drewjmore said:
If dark matter is simply matter than doesn't interact with "normal" matter as you approach the center of the gravitational field you should have a steady drop in acceleration due to gravity (like you would observe if you could travel in a vacuum bubble towards the center of the Earth: in the center, there is no acceleration in any direction, and very little acceleration until you get some distance from the center).
If the mass of the DM is offset orthogonally then one would still expect a non zero acceleration pulling towards a center point in our 3d- space. At the exact point, there would still be pull towards the point, but there would be no event horizon there. Say it was a field that was strong as the Earth's towards a central point, but you found no 9 mm black hole (Earth's mass
Schwarzschild Radius is ~9mm), and there was still ~ 9 m/s^2 acceleration towards the central point from all directions, it would imply that the mass that caused the acceleration was offset some distance from the point in 3d-space.In other words, if we find locations with gravitational anomalies in space, in the very lucky case in which regular matter has not already been attracted to the attraction point, we would find evidence for this. It would be pretty interesting.
There might be some DM interacting with the Earth right now, as part of its total mass, just tagging along for the ride. I've no idea how to picture it at this point in time, but it would be fun to think of a way it could work out.
skepticalbip
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 7,304
- Basic Beliefs
- Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
I don’t think I follow your reasoning. In a 3D universe any 4 dimensional matter would be seen as a 3D slice through the 4D matter. That 3D slice would appear and act like 3D matter though, if it were moving with respect to the 3D universe, then what was seen would be changing unexplainably.Ehh, well, a long time ago, in a forum by another name, I brought up a similar question to one of the above, that introduced testability to the question (which means it entered the realm of science).We have no idea as the whole idea of a multiverse is only a philosophical premise. As philosophy, any assertions stemming from the idea is fair game.
But you can see the result of introducing philosophical questions into the science forum...
The gist was that 4 dimensional matter (matter with hypervolume instead of volume) would not directly interact with matter because of quantum uncertainty in position.
Actually, if the sheet of metal were thin enough, then the Schrodinger wave equation would predict the probability of a particle tunneling through it. With a sheet of 0 thickness (if such a thing is possible anywhere other than on a mathematician's sheet of calculations), the particle could be on both sides simultaneously.
My understanding of the philosophical reasoning is that there are isolated universes (the multiverse) that have no interaction with each other except for “gravitational leakage”. If one of those other universes is close enough (whatever that means in a higher dimensional multiverse) then one universe can have gravitational affects from another universe. I think here they veered off into branes (4D sheets) rather than what we normally think of the universe so are postulating parallel branes that some areas come “close” to each other.I extrapolated this idea up to 4 dimensional matter being likely to be on either side of the origin of the w axis, with 3d matter being at position 0 of the w axis and having 0 w size, so 4 dimensional matter was almost infinitely unlikely to interact as if it was located at such a precise location (much like I could imagine 2d neutrinos, shaped like 0 thickness coins flipping end over end, would rarely interact with 3d matter).
So 4 dimensional matter would potentially orbit around the matter in our 3 dimensional space, our 3 dimensional matter would align itself with matter in a 2 dimensional plane, the 2 dimensional plane matter would align itself around a singularity, and all the singularities would be weirdos who loved anyone they could get their grubby little 1 dimensional h and s on. Or I'm joking on a bit.
Anyway, DrewJMore replied (to my post):
He pretty much got it, come to think of it.drewjmore said:
If dark matter is simply matter than doesn't interact with "normal" matter as you approach the center of the gravitational field you should have a steady drop in acceleration due to gravity (like you would observe if you could travel in a vacuum bubble towards the center of the Earth: in the center, there is no acceleration in any direction, and very little acceleration until you get some distance from the center).
If the mass of the DM is offset orthogonally then one would still expect a non zero acceleration pulling towards a center point in our 3d- space. At the exact point, there would still be pull towards the point, but there would be no event horizon there. Say it was a field that was strong as the Earth's towards a central point, but you found no 9 mm black hole (Earth's mass
In other words, if we find locations with gravitational anomalies in space, in the very lucky case in which regular matter has not already been attracted to the attraction point, we would find evidence for this. It would be pretty interesting.
However, recent findings suggest that possibly the dark matter may be ionized haloes of hot normal old gas around galaxies. I don’t remember the exact details of the article but seem to remember that the temp. of this ionized gas halo that was found was something like 5,000K.
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
I can't give you evidence of a disconnected spacetime, because if it exists, it has no measurable effect upon our spacetime geometry. Likewise, you cannot give evidence that disconnected spacetimes do not exist, because you can't detect that something you cannot measure does not exist.
In addition, you requested information: "If you have some phenomena observed that some how alludes to my comments in those regards not being valid please share."
"My given comments are agreement with what is known regarding gravity having no barriers."
The observed phenomena of a barrier that gravity does not cross is gravity does not cross the "metaphysical-1 abstract concepts of mind/intellect" barrier if the products of specific inputs to the axioms of arithmetic are not affected by gravity. Following the axioms 2+2 will always equal 4, gravity doesn't affect this.
This is evidence that there are things within the universe which are not directly affected by spacetime. Even within the universe, there are obviously things which are not effected by gravity directly (the rules will always produce the same results, although spacetime could potentially prevent us from doing math, which would eliminate the rules being non-affected by spacetime- however spacetime can never eliminate the fact that following certain rules, one will arrive at certain results).
Umm, the multiverse scenario is not defined by what you imagine it is, unless you are omniscient.
I wasn't aware that your color coding is something that others are familiar with. Like I said, I find it interesting, but it seems strange to me, although I can see it being useful, and kind of cool.
DBT
Contributor
There are several multiverse models being kicked around, each model having its own features and attributes:
''American theoretical physicist and string theorist Brian Greene discussed nine types of parallel universes:[36]
Quilted
The quilted multiverse works only in an infinite universe. With an infinite amount of space, every possible event will occur an infinite number of times. However, the speed of light prevents us from being aware of these other identical areas.
Inflationary
The inflationary multiverse is composed of various pockets where inflation fields collapse and form new universes.
Brane
The brane multiverse follows from M-theory and states that our universe is a 3-dimensional brane that exists with many others on a higher-dimensional brane or "bulk". Particles are bound to their respective branes except for gravity.
Cyclic
The cyclic multiverse (via the ekpyrotic scenario) has multiple branes (each a universe) that collided, causing Big Bangs. The universes bounce back and pass through time, until they are pulled back together and again collide, destroying the old contents and creating them anew.
Landscape
The landscape multiverse relies on string theory's Calabi–Yau shapes. Quantum fluctuations drop the shapes to a lower energy level, creating a pocket with a different set of laws from the surrounding space.
Quantum
The quantum multiverse creates a new universe when a diversion in events occurs, as in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Holographic
The holographic multiverse is derived from the theory that the surface area of a space can simulate the volume of the region.
Simulated
The simulated multiverse exists on complex computer systems that simulate entire universes.
Ultimate
The ultimate multiverse contains every mathematically possible universe under different laws of physics.
Cyclic theories
Main article: Cyclic model
In several theories there is a series of infinite, self-sustaining cycles (for example: an eternity of Big Bang-Big crunches).'' - Wikipedia.
''American theoretical physicist and string theorist Brian Greene discussed nine types of parallel universes:[36]
Quilted
The quilted multiverse works only in an infinite universe. With an infinite amount of space, every possible event will occur an infinite number of times. However, the speed of light prevents us from being aware of these other identical areas.
Inflationary
The inflationary multiverse is composed of various pockets where inflation fields collapse and form new universes.
Brane
The brane multiverse follows from M-theory and states that our universe is a 3-dimensional brane that exists with many others on a higher-dimensional brane or "bulk". Particles are bound to their respective branes except for gravity.
Cyclic
The cyclic multiverse (via the ekpyrotic scenario) has multiple branes (each a universe) that collided, causing Big Bangs. The universes bounce back and pass through time, until they are pulled back together and again collide, destroying the old contents and creating them anew.
Landscape
The landscape multiverse relies on string theory's Calabi–Yau shapes. Quantum fluctuations drop the shapes to a lower energy level, creating a pocket with a different set of laws from the surrounding space.
Quantum
The quantum multiverse creates a new universe when a diversion in events occurs, as in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Holographic
The holographic multiverse is derived from the theory that the surface area of a space can simulate the volume of the region.
Simulated
The simulated multiverse exists on complex computer systems that simulate entire universes.
Ultimate
The ultimate multiverse contains every mathematically possible universe under different laws of physics.
Cyclic theories
Main article: Cyclic model
In several theories there is a series of infinite, self-sustaining cycles (for example: an eternity of Big Bang-Big crunches).'' - Wikipedia.
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
It looks like you get my reasoning down here (perhaps I should have started with the following?):
Ok, now imagine a sheet of 2 dimensional particles (the sheet has zero thickness, and the particles in the plane are moving around as well). With this 0 thickness sheet of particles, a particle could be on both sides simultaneously.
The particle will be in the plane for exactly zero seconds, unless it somehow manages to travel along the plane for a very small very period of time (deflected by gravitation, or whatever), which might under some very rare circumstances allow it to interact with one of the 2d particles.
A particle that travels in 4d spacetime, might or might not be at our w coordinate. For it to be at our exact w coordinate would require it be impressively aligned with our spacetime. It would be equally likely to be on one or the other side of our w coordinate. To reiterate, our 3d space has 0 thickness along the w axis, any particle traveling in 4d space is likely to be on both sides of the w slice our 3d particles reside within, like a particle with 3 dimensions of freedom is likely to be on both sides of a 0 thickness 2d plane.
The particles just don't have times to send gluons, virtual photons, and stuff to interact with one another, since they are only in proximity for 0 seconds.
Then again, this requires many different spacetimes that are overlaid on one another, which.. well, hasn't really been tested for.
I think there has to be at least one branch of multiverse theory that encompasses universes that are totally disconnected from other ones. Too late to search tonight.
I'm not familiar with the newer articles about DM, although I do recall reading about and mentioning ionized plasma around galaxies (in galactic clusters, and the like) recently.
The surface area of of a spherical cubo{6]-octa{8}hedron is equal to the surface area of the four great hexa{6}gonally circular planes that define stated polyhedron.
Archimedes was first known to discover this.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/figs/f5511.html
http://11011110.livejournal.com/94274.html
If we find that, what is inside 3D volume of space, is actually these four hexagonal planes, then that can equal the surface area of that 3D volume.
Consider this, if you take one vertex of a tetra{4}hedron, and move it on a trajectory toward the opposing triangular face of the tetra{4}hedron, at some point, that vertex is in the exact plane of that triangle ergo 3D becomes 2D if only superficially.
Above I say hexagonal, because if we were to construct the 4 planes of spherical, or Euclidean cubo-octahedron, it will require folding of four great hexagonal planes Euclidean or circular.
B Fuller refered to this model as the Vector Equlibrimue. It is equlibrious in other respects;
24 chords - 24 radii
24, 60-degree surface angles - 24, 90-degree surface angles
If were to have the 24 radii inside-out, through the surface triangles, each of those triangle would be come subvidided into 24 right-angle triangles temporarily. Then the radii move on out, they become 8 tetrahedra attached to the 8 surface triangles.
The since the squares are not stablized by the internal radii anymore the cubo-octahedron collapases into self i.e. the 8 tetrahedral move to common central place, however, where the 8 tetrahedra are attached to the 8 surface triangles, either the 8 triangle bases or the 8 surface triangles collapse inward to an octahedral configuration with the stellation of 8 tetrahedron.
https://www.google.com/search?q=stellated+octahedron&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=_U9RVfm0FYnYtQWnhoG4Cg&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1139&bih=563
This is also known as two tetrahedron sharing a common gravitational center.
This may be one way viewing a black hole that has inside-outed itself.
Here is another possiblity of bringing volume to zero yet maintaing some sort of integral somethingness.
Just a thought of surface equal to whats inside.
r6
Last edited:
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
Left object is a cube-octohedron (with volume approaching 0), right is a stellated octohedron (with volume that also approaches zero), the middle is a combination of the 2 shapes, with a name that I do not know, that probably has a volume that does not approach zero.
You mentioned the shapes in your posts, so I assumed you were familiar with them.
Equlibrious Holography Models
Yes I'm familiar with the shapes I mentioned and gave links too.
Your given shapes are difficult to discern what is what. Now that youve identified them I can sort of see what your saying and left and right but cannot discern any approach to zero volume.
The zero volume of the tetra{4}hedron I linked too, becomes a quasi-stellated cubo-octahedron and is easy to discern the four planes of the tetrahedron going to zero.
Maybe your graphics could be spun it would make it easier to discern some shrinking volume. I dunno.
That is still an aside to Archimedes discover of surface of the sphere being equal to the four great bisecting planes that define stated spherical.
This is closet example of holography that is easy to grasp and Ive shown 8 - 16 years old how to construct these quasi-holographic, equlibrious, shapes of space models.
I'm hoping to find torodial examples of this type of equlibrium, however, since geometry is basically differrent it is easy to transfer equlibrious aspects of stated spherical as a torus, tho Ive been moving to find a way.
r6
Yes I'm familiar with the shapes I mentioned and gave links too.
Your given shapes are difficult to discern what is what. Now that youve identified them I can sort of see what your saying and left and right but cannot discern any approach to zero volume.
The zero volume of the tetra{4}hedron I linked too, becomes a quasi-stellated cubo-octahedron and is easy to discern the four planes of the tetrahedron going to zero.
Maybe your graphics could be spun it would make it easier to discern some shrinking volume. I dunno.
That is still an aside to Archimedes discover of surface of the sphere being equal to the four great bisecting planes that define stated spherical.
This is closet example of holography that is easy to grasp and Ive shown 8 - 16 years old how to construct these quasi-holographic, equlibrious, shapes of space models.
I'm hoping to find torodial examples of this type of equlibrium, however, since geometry is basically differrent it is easy to transfer equlibrious aspects of stated spherical as a torus, tho Ive been moving to find a way.
r6