Michael Faraday

Michael Faraday (September 22, 1791 – August 25, 1867) was a British scientist (a physicist and chemist) who contributed significantly to the fields of electromagnetism and electrochemistry.

While it is always nice to see history in it’s developemental stages, it is also nice to see this segment of the developemental process encoded in GR developement. Some take offence to this as well, but the beginning geometric design had to have it’s basis in how such logic could extend through this process. This is a important feature of how develoepment could have been mapped.

Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions


Who would imagine that this simple law [constancy of the velocity of light] has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?

—Chap. VII.

If, in pursuance of our habit of thought, we now supplement the propositions of Euclidean geometry by the single proposition that two points on a practically rigid body always correspond to the same distance (line-interval), independently of any changes in position to which we may subject the body, the propositions of Euclidean geometry then resolve themselves into propositions on the possible relative position of practically rigid bodies. 1 Geometry which has been supplemented in this way is then to be treated as a branch of physics. We can now legitimately ask as to the “truth” of geometrical propositions interpreted in this way, since we are justified in asking whether these propositions are satisfied for those real things we have associated with the geometrical ideas. In less exact terms we can express this by saying that by the “truth” of a geometrical proposition in this sense we understand its validity for a construction with ruler and compasses.

You have to forgive my awkwardness and juvenile attempts at understanding, how I ever entered the non-eucldean world and became familiar with expressionistic attempts of defining that particular world is beynd me. It’s all through my writing here, is this blog as I continue to find the wording for what a “banana tastes like,” yet having words at the tip of the tongue would have asked that all mathematcial interpretation be expressed in the universal language of math.

While we deal with the physics aspect of reality we can as well see the “world of vision” that is needed in context of this “geometrical design” to know that what is unseen, can also be mapped in this process. Simple experimental processes are good indicators of this vision that is needed and applied in our daily lives.

While such a simple experiment would have found that views in physics considerations would have limited some of the brane world happenings to such expression, this points to what is held to the brane. It would have been a good comprehension that such views are not like what could have left the brane and entered the bulk, but having udertsood well, that such calorimetic designs have been encapsulated. What was left as signatures, Sean Carroll demonstrated to us, in the Cern Public Relations and trigger responsiveness, that many are trying to comprehend.

I understood this well already. That any design through out this understanding of physics, would have realized, that the comprehension of GR would have lead us through to the understanding of what had left that brane, and Gia’s example of the metal plate suits me well sometimes in this regard. But also, to understand that the resonance of being, would have understood also, that such gravitonic expressions moved beyond what had been held to in our standard model of expressions?

So coming back to the physics applications I wanted to undertsand this relation, so being part of this overall process, how would geometries express themselves? A parallel process was being developed in my mind in the way process was being developed in strings? So such a method brought to bear with GR views needed to understand that the inception of developing topological views, would have found it’s history, in how we see this geometrcial process developed right from the euclid’s postulate to topological views now held. How could this be accomplished? Had there ever been such a thought to map this process right from the instigation of euclidean postulates, to now?

It was thus I found such consistancies, in that such hierarchy of our geometers of our past, would lead us to understand our relation with a world that although is unseen has been very important in physics relations, to what is happening consistant with the way the we measure with the world of GR.

We indeed had to understand that GR was lead to a understanding in Riemann’s world to know that such cosmological curvatures would have exemplified our greater undertanding of this inherent feature of geometry beyond the eucldeean world of straight lines and billiard ball tragetories.

Thus we know then, that Gaussian curvatures could have been exemplified in Maxwell’s attempt at joining the views of Faraday, in a process, that is part and parcel of the work Einstein did.

So such views beyond the idealization of what could have existed in the gravitonic perception, needed to understand well, that such features would have been exemplified beyond the standard model as a carrier. That it could exist beyond the curtailments of brane world happenings, and be part of a bulk.

So what vision would apply then to such a world, if such consistancy were to apply itself as part and parcel of the view of euclidean demonstration? That such a geometrical process could have been seen right from the brane to it’s fruitation as a model of greater possibilties? Steinhardt and Turok were very helpful here in a greater view. But stil this did not exemplify the understanding that such “a point” could be significant in the developing view of a cosmological expansionistic sense, and reval that such spheres as they develope also reveal the history of a liminocentric view of reality seen in our Calorimetric view of the trigger?

How ever difficult it is to accept this developing view, it is not without merit that such a process that is hidden in our human makeup, would also direct our view to what is most desirous in this wholeness that needs to be establised in our sciences.

Although it is urecognized by a lot of people, the layered plates and the deeper integrative views we have of our reductionistic processes, are viable means to interpretation and coming to terms with the greater comprehension of a world that is very dynamcial at that level. Can exist around us now.

That how simplistic to me, that such examples of the collider ad the arrow of direction loop de loop might have revealled a greater boson construct of a circle to sphere, as child’s play. But if such a process were to begin, how would we ever see this line, develope into a circle, and the greater context of Gr seen in how the trigger is realized?

Gluonic perception is ever pointed towards the reductionistc view, but where shall such a limit exist, if the energy had moved beyond the confines of the collisions?

This entry was posted in CERN, Einstein, Faraday, geometries, Liminocentric, Mathematics, Non Euclidean, Standard model. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s