QuoteOriginally posted by: doreillyQuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: zetawithout the benefit of seeing broad grins or lack thereof on peoples faces, I'm never 100% sure who's serious and who the trolls are, but John Snygg (for serious posters/readers) makes a good case for gravity being Yang-Mills in form, like the electroweak and strong forces (er sorry TJ, 'interactions' ). He gives a modified form of E's field equation in clifford parlance:There's some mileage there, if we want to have a serious conversation (anyone).I prefer the Seiberg-Witten equations on Kahler surfaces myself but, hey, there's room to manouvre here.The Seiberg-Witten Equations and Applications to the Topology of Smooth Four-Manifolds.And why would that be, toeJam ?It's to instigate conversation doreilly. any comments?

QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: doreillyQuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: zetawithout the benefit of seeing broad grins or lack thereof on peoples faces, I'm never 100% sure who's serious and who the trolls are, but John Snygg (for serious posters/readers) makes a good case for gravity being Yang-Mills in form, like the electroweak and strong forces (er sorry TJ, 'interactions' ). He gives a modified form of E's field equation in clifford parlance:There's some mileage there, if we want to have a serious conversation (anyone).I prefer the Seiberg-Witten equations on Kahler surfaces myself but, hey, there's room to manouvre here.The Seiberg-Witten Equations and Applications to the Topology of Smooth Four-Manifolds.And why would that be, toeJam ?It's to instigate conversation doreilly. any comments?And it worked, since I conversed "so why do prefer the Seiberg-Witten equations on Kahler surfaces yourself, toeJam

QuoteOriginally posted by: doreillyQuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: doreillyQuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: zetawithout the benefit of seeing broad grins or lack thereof on peoples faces, I'm never 100% sure who's serious and who the trolls are, but John Snygg (for serious posters/readers) makes a good case for gravity being Yang-Mills in form, like the electroweak and strong forces (er sorry TJ, 'interactions' ). He gives a modified form of E's field equation in clifford parlance:There's some mileage there, if we want to have a serious conversation (anyone).I prefer the Seiberg-Witten equations on Kahler surfaces myself but, hey, there's room to manouvre here.The Seiberg-Witten Equations and Applications to the Topology of Smooth Four-Manifolds.And why would that be, toeJam ?It's to instigate conversation doreilly. any comments?And it worked, since I conversed "so why do prefer the Seiberg-Witten equations on Kahler surfaces yourself, toeJamYou got a problem doreilly?

QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: doreillyQuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: doreillyQuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeQuoteOriginally posted by: zetawithout the benefit of seeing broad grins or lack thereof on peoples faces, I'm never 100% sure who's serious and who the trolls are, but John Snygg (for serious posters/readers) makes a good case for gravity being Yang-Mills in form, like the electroweak and strong forces (er sorry TJ, 'interactions' ). He gives a modified form of E's field equation in clifford parlance:There's some mileage there, if we want to have a serious conversation (anyone).I prefer the Seiberg-Witten equations on Kahler surfaces myself but, hey, there's room to manouvre here.The Seiberg-Witten Equations and Applications to the Topology of Smooth Four-Manifolds.And why would that be, toeJam ?It's to instigate conversation doreilly. any comments?And it worked, since I conversed "so why do prefer the Seiberg-Witten equations on Kahler surfaces yourself, toeJamYou got a problem doreilly?I might pose a problem later, but first lets get the question out of the way, ok toeJam

I prefer the Seiberg-Witten equations on Kahler surfaces myself but, hey, there's room to manouvre here.That's actually very funny TJ. Kahler manifolds are the intersection of symplectic manifolds and Riemannian manifolds. Nothing's there except eigenvectors.

- GrenvilleCroll
**Posts:**357**Joined:**

QuoteOriginally posted by: NKaluza Klein theory is incorrect, but I does give you the general idea of what's going on. I should also point out that the curvature equations for general relativity are also incorrect but again give the flavor of the exact dynamics. It's clear to me if Einstein had decent math skills, this would have been settled theory long ago. If only cuch were around to help Einstein with Cayley maps for PDEs...This is ok for me....I photocopied a paper this week by [anon] setting out the mathematical limitations of SR. I have other peer reviewed papers by other authors expressing their related concerns. I sincerely value N's articulation of the a priori reason for the separate existence of Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac Statistics - his/her answer matched my a prior expectation. N's other posts suggest a deep insight into the mathematics of reality, which appear to closely match my five year reading of [anons] work.The issue that seriously interests me is the equivalence of lower and higher order mathematical spaces with the classically understood physical "particles", an interest also articulated by N in the post relating to the relationship (coverage) between manifolds and fermions. My interest goes further in that I believe that the geometry of higher order spaces explains chemical, biological and physiological properties.The herd instinct has led conventional physics to where it is today. There are however at least a few scientifically based people who think alternatively, of whom I am one, most sincerely.May we please proceed creatively!

U Conn Physics Prof Predicts Human Time Travel This Century

I'm puzzled why we've flip flopped from algebraic topology to number theory (ala Langlands).N, why does that form for the field equation give no insight? The spaces associated with the clifford numbers have a very distinct geometry. Is it just because it clashes with your intuition (guess) for the form of the geometry? You don't like the anti-commutative nature? A helical structure sounds suspiciously solitonic. I suggested a cylindrical geometry in another (infamous) thread and this gives the appropriate form for the interaction. So why helical?????people, lets have a)references b)formula c)pictures, if possible

QuoteOriginally posted by: zetaI'm puzzled why we've flip flopped from algebraic topology to number theory (ala Langlands).N, why does that form for the field equation give no insight? The spaces associated with the clifford numbers have a very distinct geometry. Is it just because it clashes with your intuition (guess) for the form of the geometry? You don't like the anti-commutative nature? A helical structure sounds suspiciously solitonic. I suggested a cylindrical geometry in another (infamous) thread and this gives the appropriate form for the interaction. So why helical?????people, lets have a)references b)formula c)pictures, if possiblez,Algebraic topology and number theory are the same as far as I can tell, or at least that's the way I view manifolds.Clifford numbers are associated with projections of the geometry, not the actual geometry, which has a Hamiltonian flow, no torsion (zero Jacobian) and is commutative. (Taken right from classical mechanics)A cylinderical geometry is 'obviously' impossible since it's diffeomorphic to the Riemannian manifold -- which we all know, again from classical mechanics, has torsion and therefore cannot be stable.I know from number theory (or solvable Lie groups) that the action of gravity must produce a map from the manifold of a photon back to a manifold with torsion. The only way I know that can be done is with a helix onto Sp(8).Pretty simple...N

QuoteOriginally posted by: NI prefer the Seiberg-Witten equations on Kahler surfaces myself but, hey, there's room to manouvre here.That's actually very funny TJ. Kahler manifolds are the intersection of symplectic manifolds and Riemannian manifolds. Nothing's there except eigenvectors.That should answer doreilly's question then .

QuoteOriginally posted by: doreillyQuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeI prefer the Seiberg-Witten equations on Kahler surfaces myself but, hey, there's room to manouvre here.The Seiberg-Witten Equations and Applications to the Topology of Smooth Four-Manifolds.And why would that be, toeJam ?Calabi-Yau Space.QuoteA Calabi-Yau manifold is a compact Kähler manifold with a vanishing first Chern class. He of Chern-Simons class, Simons of RenTec.Chern-Simons Form.Chern-Simons theory.James Harris Simons.QuoteJames Harris (Jim) Simons, Ph.D. is a cryptanalyst, mathematical physicist, academic, investment advisor, billionaire and philanthropist. In 1982, Simons founded Renaissance Technologies Corporation, a private investment firm based in New York with over $4 billion under management; Simons is still at the helm, as president, of what is now one of the world's most successful hedge funds. Simons earned $670 million last year, according to an industry source.Simons' most influential research involved the discovery and application of certain geometric measurements, and resulted in the Chern-Simons form (aka Chern-Simons invariants, or Chern-Simons theory). In 1974, his theory was published in Characteristic Forms and Geometric Invariants, co-authored with the differential geometer Shiing-Shen Chern. The theory has wide use in theoretical physics, particularly string theory.In the meantime, you might like to brush up a little on your topological QFT.uantum_field_theory">Quantum Field Theory.Take care of yourself,TJ .

Better link:uantum_field_theory">Quantum Field Theory.

GZIP: On