proof that our physical space is Riemannian geometry proof or disproof of Riem geom + Loba geom = Eucl geom

**a_plutonium@hotmail.com**

wrote:
Dik Winter wrote:

...
Another question: do some of the "more points" disappear, say in
5-adics when we apply other powers and not confined to just the 5th
power. So that applying other powers we end up with only the ...000,
....0001 and idempotents and no other points of convergence?

I thought I already had answered that. In the p-adics whenever you use
any power other than p you will find there are numbers that do *not*
converge, except when that power is of the form p^k for any integer k.

Basically
I am asking if we apply all powers to a p-adic the only points of
convergence are ...000, ...001 and idempotents. Is that true?

I do not think it even does make sense. How do you *apply* all powers
to a p-adic? If you start with squaring and wait until convergence
is there you will never finish it for some numbers. So you must mean
something else. Moreover, in the p-adics the only idempotents are 0
and 1.

And in the n-adics (n not prime or a prime power) as a corollary of
my statement above and the fact that they are a direct sum of
p_i-adics,
with different primes p_i, there is *no* number k != 1 such that
succesive powering will yield convergence in all cases.

A.P. writes:

Dik, I need to show that the Adic-Rationals with a negative sign in
front of them, similar to the negative-Reals, yields a circle that is
tangent to another circle at a point which is the Adic-Integers.

Visualize a torus that is sliced into infinite number of circles. Like
a donut cut by a knife infinitely many times leaving an infinite number
of circles. Now the hole of the torus is filled by a sphere.

So the sphere is represented by the Adic Integers as points on the
sphere surface. The points of the torus are represented by the Adic
Rationals with a negative sign.

So the sphere can be the 2-adic Integers, and the torus is the 2-adic
Rationals all with a negative sign.

Dik, does the 2-adic Rationals all with a negative sign have a
mathematical reality? Does it make any kind of sense? Of course the
torus and the torus hole filled with a sphere makes all the sense in
the world, and now where I am trying to find the native-numbers of that
torus and sphere has alot of work to do.

I am going to give an outline of a proof that our physical observable
Universe is that of the surface of Riemannian geometry such as the
lobes of atoms (lobes for p, d, f, and a sphere for s orbital).

In old times we thought this proof would come only after diligent
measurement of a large triangle to see if the angle sums was greater
than 180 degrees because in Riem geom it is greater than 180 degrees.

My proof relies on no measurement of faraway stars or galaxies for
triangles. It relies on a simple fact that the speed of light is the
fastest speed in the Universe and is a Universal Constant delivering us
Special-Relativity. By simply going on those two facts constant speed
and fastest speed, logically implies that the geometry of our
observable physical universe is the surface of a sphere or lobe which
is Riem geometry.

Only Riem geometry allows for a Universal constant speed which is the
fastest speed. Loba and Eucl geometries do not allow for this and it is
intuitively seen in that a sphere has a constant parameter of its
radius or diameter or the great-circle which translates into both the
fastest and constant. In Eucl or Loba geometries, neither of which
allow for a fastest yet constant parameter because both of these
geometries are open and infinite in parameters; only is Riem geom
closed to permit a parameter that is simultaneously the "fastest and
held constant".

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

**Howard**

wrote:

I am going to give an outline of a proof that our physical observable
Universe is that of the surface of Riemannian geometry such as the
lobes of atoms (lobes for p, d, f, and a sphere for s orbital).

Only Riem geometry allows for a Universal constant speed which is the
fastest speed.

Couldn't the universe be some other geometry, say one with completely
different axioms from all 3 (Euclidean, Loba and Reim)?

**a_plutonium@hotmail.com**

Howard wrote:
wrote:

I am going to give an outline of a proof that our physical observable
Universe is that of the surface of Riemannian geometry such as the
lobes of atoms (lobes for p, d, f, and a sphere for s orbital).

Only Riem geometry allows for a Universal constant speed which is the
fastest speed.

Couldn't the universe be some other geometry, say one with completely
different axioms from all 3 (Euclidean, Loba and Reim)?

I would think those three geometries may become more refined in the
future. Perhaps they are too crude at this moment in history. Much as
the Atomic theory of Democritus in ancient times was too crude and took
some 2,000 years later to refine into quantum mechanics.

In the history of all ideas ever thought by humanity only one stands
out from all others-- all things are made up of atoms and the history
of humanity has been a continual refinement of that one great idea and
every other idea has been secondary.

The fact atoms are numerous creates arithmetic. The fact atoms have
shapes gives rise to geometry. The Atomic theory creates all the
sciences.

Everything is made up of atoms and the Universe itself is just one big
atom. So in a sense, the only things or thing that exists is atoms.
Life is just a tiny tool for atoms to make more atoms in
nucleosynthesis.

So the fact that atoms have Riem geometry of s, p, d, f electron
orbitals means the universe is shaped like an electron orbital of the
5f6 of 231Pu which has 6 lobes. The future will probably refine that
Riemann geometry, but basically it is here to stay. There maybe a
refinement in the sense that probabilities may be an axiom. There maybe
a refinement in that you could have hybrid geometries where they fade
from Riem into Eucl.

But when one gets so close to the basic foundation of all intellectual
thought-- the Atomic theory, so close with geometry, then the geometry
changes only when changes come within Atomic theory itself. Because
Atomic theory creates geometry, then only changes come to geometry if
changes come to Atomic theory.

Same thing with the forces of physics since they are so close to Atomic
theory also. We cannot understand forces of physics in isolation of the
Atomic theory, because Atomic theory creates the forces of physics,
especially considering that the entire cosmos is just one big atom.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Adics the native numbers of Riemann geometry; Eucl = Riem append Loba	a_plutonium@hotmail.com	Physics - General Discussion	122	November 26th 05 11:23 PM
using Maxwell Equations to define Riem, Loba, and Eucl geometry	a_plutonium@hotmail.com	Physics - General Discussion	0	November 17th 05 08:06 PM
How to make n-adics a Field; Riem geom + Loba geom = Eucl geom	a_plutonium@hotmail.com	Physics - General Discussion	102	November 5th 05 01:14 AM
Error in Matt Visser's Diff Geom Notes on line?	Jack Sarfatti	Physics - General Discussion	0	January 3rd 05 09:59 PM
Is Riemann Hypothesis more of a geometry proof or algebra?	Archimedes Plutonium	Physics - General Discussion	0	February 6th 04 01:57 PM