naturephysic2345

Calling all proponents of all models.. to the debate! Reference: “Can String Theory be tested?” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/09/can-string-theory-be-tested/ <-----Andrew Zimmerman Jones is a known member of organizations such as American Mensa and the National Association of Science Writers. Having earned a degree in physics from Wabash College and a master's degree in Mathematics Education from Purdue University, he has gone on to such disreputable activities as becoming the Physics Expert at About.com Physics and co-authoring String Theory For Dummies, and occasionally publishing works of philosophy, reviews of board games, and other leisurely activities. Quote: “It sounds great, but there’s a problem: No one can really figure out a way to test string theory.” Me: Is this a true statement? “The ideal experiment would provide direct evidence of these strings behaving in ways uniquely predicted by the theory, but that’s not as easy as it sounds, for two reasons.... On the tiny scale of string theory, these limits may make it impossible to point at data and declare, “Right there, that’s a string!”..” Me: Have there been any ideal experiments? Are their any direct evidence? If no evidence then, is the model behaving in a predictive way? Is there any data to point at? Is it impossible to show a model that can point to data and declare, “Right there, that's a string!”. If you say no..then you have not paid close attention to the Recursion Scenario that I have been trying to show. “.. string theory has so many variants that there are very few unique predictions from the theory, so scientists don’t even know what to look for." Me: “varients” not reflecting virtually any observational or measureable proofs. I propose that there is a “unique prediction” as well as descriptive-model, that is both simple and elegant as well verifiable through observation, measuring and experiment. Are the moderators going to give me the time I need to introduce it? “Still, there are three fundamental pieces of the theory that could be put to the test in the near future. These results would not “prove” string theory, but could certainly be claimed as successes by many string theorists—...” Me: Translation: Coulda-shoulda-woulda been put to the test. Presently untestable! Why should we consider as relevant so called 'results' that 'do not “prove” a theory. Why should we accept claims from theorists who 'claim success' but have 'no proof.' “Actually, we may already have our first evidence that can lead us toward confirming supersymmetry, with the potential discovery of the Higgs boson.” Me: .. “may have” and have(proved!) are two different things. A 'potential' discovery represents a future(tense) as opposed to a present tense -HAVE discovered. “String theory also claims that the universe contains extra dimensions, curled up on the same very tiny distances at which the strings exist—and subject to those pesky uncertainty principle limitations.” Me: Sigh! Another 'claim.” The “strings” are not observed nor measured to “exist” until they are proven as so extant. Presently- there is no proof they exist. Why are 'pesky” established laws trumped by inferior no laws as observed or measured-(string theory). Can string theory explain the “observer effect” appropriately. Or gravity? I propose that a 'new model' can do just that, and as either showing that the string theorists were on the right track or; that they were going about it the wrong way. Will you give me the opportunity (fair shake) to present this model-Recursion Scenario? “ In 1998, a group of string theorists put forth the bold idea that these extra dimensions may not be so minuscule after all. They suggested at the time that they could potentially be as large as a millimeter! At this size scale, the LHC might have had a chance of exposing them despite the uncertainty principle. Me: A bold idea is not a proven idea (it is a bold idea lacking proof). Are suggestions -proofs? Does ' having a chance of exposing' something the same as exposing that thing? “If discovered, the properties of these extra dimensions could help narrow in on the correct version of string theory.” Me: Is there presently a 'correct versio'n' of string theory? If so, what would it be called? I propose it would be called the.......................................... Recursion Scenario!” I would call it The Recursion Law!.. and as derived from a myriad of recursive principles. “The holographic principle basically tells us that the description on the two-dimensional surface can contain all of the same information as in the whole three-dimensional universe itself. There is a perfect correspondence between these two models.” Me: I have tried to present this relationship relative to a few of my own (“personal”) threads and as well posts to other threads. It seems that bias has prevented me from doing so. I have described that reflection and recursion (of necessity recursion-- contingent upon reflection) express these holographic principles explicitly and completely. Namely, that a horizon reflects information, and if one or more reflective horizons are relative to each other, the process of recursion occurs; whereby information on the 'two-dimensional surface can contain all of the same information as in the whole three dimensional” space-matrix. This is proven as observed and measured relative to placing real objects between mirror surfaces. It is recursion that explains any or all holographic or string definitions! I am trying to articulate and prove that this Recursion model is a/the “perfect” model that string theorists and holographic scenario proponents (Erik Verlinde- very insightful ) are failing to realize. “And that just goes to show how little “anyone” knows when predicting the future course of science.” Me: What goes to show that “little” is occurring with the progression of the standard model and the string/holographic models-- is staunch predisposition(s) that are either invalidated, cannot be observed or measured, as well that the proponents of these models, due to such bias will not consider anything else. This is elitism! As it goes, elitist, in the end, usually are proven inferior, and thus exposed through observation, measuring and experimentation to be so exposed as incorrect or inferior. I do not refer to persons I refer to a mode of thinking that is both complacent and arrogant. “But, although the experiments produced a lot of information, we hadn’t the faintest idea of how to describe this phenomenon.” Me: I encourage all those who didn't derive the correct information from the experiments (thus still not 'having the faintest idea of how to describe the phenomenon') to debate me in this thread. I ask for all those in control of this forum to give new models the “time of day” to respectfully challenge those who make unverified claims. I plead with the moderators, egged on by the string theorists, (duped into following their dictate) to stop sending my descriptions to the trash bin and stop locking my threads. This represents extreme intellectual dishonesty and bias. “Even if, ultimately, the results of these experiments do not support string theory, they will have proven something important: That the pursuit of an interesting idea—even a wrong idea—can yield amazing insight into how the universe works.” Me: The wording of this sentence,.......( not dissimilar to those who, with no solid proof- perpetuate string ideas,and the guild of moderators that see to it in subtle ways that the string theorists have their say ,while others are relegated to 'shutting up' or 'putting up.' Translation: Shut up and agree with them and us)........is intellectually, as well as scientifically and mathematically, dishonest. Should we accept that a “wrong idea” that does NOT support string theory, nor provide any reconciliation or transparency, should be described as “something important.” The modem of operand of this room, and those who hold the reigns, are not dissimilar to religious leaders, standing upon the pulpit and dogmatically condemning other views and statements as wrong or deficient while not acknowledging there own deficiencies. As it is, in the end, theses scientific clerics will be exposed through proofs and axioms! What can expose these deficient models (as so, obviously, deficient)? The Recursion Scenario that I wish to present(jeez) will categorically do so! ( Though, despite the passion of my statements resulting from being unyeildingly bulied, I do not wish to dogmatically contradict any proposals, rather to extract from those proposals what is correct and relegate those aspects that are not so observed/measured.). Yes- we equate correct science to those aspects that are observable and measurable and can be experimented with. Or have we forgoten these fundamental "rules" of science so as to perpetuate our own "rules" and moderate others algorytmically derrived other principles and rules and.....(LAWS-cosmological constant(s)!) And yet, much like the parishioners sitting in the pughs, I will predict (based upon a knowledge of a recursive algorithm as evidenced as well within psychology/spiritualism and pseudo-science) that I will be told to sit like a “good little Indian” -or- “shut-up”..and that, any contesting of the leaders is treason and represents 'hijacking.' What am I turning against or hijacking (though you presume falsely though conveniently) if not unproven and not observed or measured "doctrines." Either I will be booted or I will accept that the 'recursion of thought' (I am not joking around when I say the recursion phenomenon controls every aspect of the human experience and systems-including those mechanisms of thought) evidenced in the room, is deliberately and methodologically non-conformal to others models ( staunchly oposed to). The recursive aspect of the propagation of information (negative /positive-entropic) is mathematically sound and, though it 'can' be changed for the better, In this case: I will try to change the bias of this room one more time, and seek to respectfully and sincerily disagree and debate the issues. If I am met with the same recursive scorn and bullying I will eventually “leave this church-forum.” Moderator: “If you don't like following our rules, you have the option of just not coming to this site. Banning takes place for failure to follow the rules.” Me: I have tried to post in speculations, and have tried to follow ( verses circumvent or cause dissension as you impute to me) “your rules” as best I can. Is this really possible when bias is introduced into the recursive-reflective discussion(s)? Can a mere unknown theoretical physicist and higher mathematical “nerd” stand up to a group of bullies? I have not in any deliberate way neglected to follow the rules. I am a respectful person and do not usually allow inferior models and unproven 'hype' to ruffle my feathers. I have maintained this overall disposition my entire life, as it relates to science have did so for upwards of two decades. 'You'... have not allowed me the proper time nor space to present my views to ANY sufficient degree. You started out doing so---> until a few particular people <----imposed there way/will into MY thread and manipulated you to stop doing so. In that sense, while they may have proven they are superior to you(worked a special and witty type of psychology on you) through there models and empty statements; they have not in any way invalidated my proposals. As I said, and though I realize that the recursive principles that I have discovered can undergo change from bad to good (if there is a unified effort) , for the most part, the recursion Scenario states that-- the recursion of predisposition as reflected in this room will continue on its course. Either Boot me, or hear me out. Your call! (I do not wish to be booted..only heard). “We do occasionally ban on request, but since you've put conditions on it, I'm afraid I can't comply with it at this time. IOW, I don't care how you feel about your model. What I care about is whether it can be discussed with some amount of rigor, and that you don't hijack other threads to talk about it. That's described by some of the rules we have in place. It's not elitism or bullying.” Me: I do not know if you are being truthful when you imply that you have ever had a poster that feels so bullied that he creates a thread asking the moderators to boot him. My knowledge of recursion suggests that perhaps the converse is true<---0---> that you have never had this happen. (correct me if I am wrong- by linking me to that thread). I would not be so persistent , nor annoyed, if I didn't feel confident that I have something important to explain in this forum. As well , while you 'don't care” to hear my model, and have presumed prematurely that it has no merit, you do NOT “not care” for other models that in the strictest sense (and really in most ways) are neither scientifically nor mathematically proven. Do you “care for” these inferior models proportional to 'not caring' for others that are either equally devoid of proof (you infer)or considerately unproven either more or less than the ones you hold dear. This type of misplaced sentimentality is dangerous to science. I did not intentionally hijack any thread. No matter what I said or did, or where I went, or whatever statements I made----> certain moderators, as well as particular other 'senior members' (qualitatively “senior”) followed me. With a view toward not being able to contradict my proposals ( however I invite such dialogue and am not afraid of it) but to bully me!

So that you can go about playing Elitest bullies to others who feel inferior enough about themselves and their models to take it.

Mordred” I have never said that you came up with this model personally. However it is clear that you seem to have a “personal preference” for this model. This is my working assumption arrived at by perusing your posts in my room as well as others. Do you deny that I am correct in my assumptions? Please do not continue saying that I have said anywhere, that.. you- mordred ...are personally and solely responsible for such vast and insightful things as we are discussing.

Sunshaker: Can you explain how something is a ' reasonable working assumption.. if it is untestable?' This is like saying..I work at assuming things that do not work. It seems that the only thing working is the process of assumption. As well, why would one not throw away a model that “does not work?.” Eventually one must abandon ship if it is sinking..verses thinking that by staying on the ship they can keep it from sinking. May I agree with you that we should examine other 'structures' or even models, if we find over and over that a present model does not 'fit' In science we could equate "fitting" with able to observe and measure as well as experiment with. Why have these 3 fundamental precepts of science been almost completely abandoned in favor of working assumption-ing? Beats me. I would suggest dropping any model that doesn't work so as to favor those that do. I believe that this is a purely logical conclusion! I would further say that, it is the recursion of disposition ( from predisposition(past) to present disposition to future disposition) that makes this virtually impossible. By considering the recursion scenario that I speak upon, perhaps we can understand this recursive mechanism in a way that would allow us to remove all aspects of the system that 'do not work.' This is stating the principles of the second law of thermodynamics, whereby we can choose what information to add or delete from the system so as to bring a state of equilibrium..or continue to bring it to a state of so-called 'disorder.' When we look at the universe we see order on a great scale (where, relative to the whole universe (infinite right?), supernova explosions and any other small percentage of perceptions of disorder do not affect at all the order we witness)..and despite definitions of entropy, this order is not diminished at all by calling it a 'random proclivity toward disorder.”(<--- ooooh scary!). I would propose that a better understanding of entropy will serve to change this.. perceptual mentality.. verses real observable and measurable accuracy. I would propose that the only way to discern these more refined understandings is to examine the mirror to mirror relationships evidenced throughout nature and the cosmos.

“the later model is the SO(10) MSM which is essentially the standard model with the standard model Higgs added. The model is still waiting for sufficient supportive evidence from the various LHC,s CERN included..here is a lengthy review paper on the SO(10) models.”<-- Quote Mordred ---> “When your answering someone elses questions it is not the time to push personal models.” Mordred: It is clear that your personal model represent SO(10) -(the GUT/SUSY ). It is also clear that the preceding quotes from you , as well your “pushing” of your personal model(s) in other rooms (including mine- that I was bullied out of) , represents blatant hypocrisy. Jacques: The antimatter represents the invisible dark energy (quantum). The “matter” represents the reflected wave forms of this particle information. We can say that light is particle and that wave is reflective of particle. In this sense the particle is the anti (inverse of) the wave as the wave is inverse (anti) to the particle. The big bang represents the first event that represented invisible Euclidean information when it first began to reflect to dark matter reflective planes/branes. This/these reflective horizon(s) as relative to one another resulted in recursion. This recursion of information “condensed” the particle information into a wave matrix whereby the particle was further propagated resulting in the inflation /expansion of the physical universe ( Ie, reflected universe). You raise an important issue with those models that are less efficient in answering questions. It seems that these models and those who perpetuate them as “word” fail to answer the questions inherent to physics. You are correct that there had to be a preexisting condition (from which to project from) - from which the expansion and condensing occurred. There was an encounter that took place. I propose that a former unreflected condition/state encountered reflective planes and therefore birthed a reflected system that can expand as well as contract through virtual recursion. Dark matter..meet...Dark Energy! You can see this principle of something coming from nothing by placing two mirrors on a table with nothing in between them. Then..add an object between them and you will see an instantaneous emergence of information that can now be observed and measured. This represents a 'big bang' of sorts (no “object” between mirrors... to... “objects” between the mirrors= something from nothing/everything from nothing). Unless light reflects/refracts it cannot be observed or measured. Will anyone in the room contradict this statement. If light does not exhibit any wavelike behavior it cannot be observed or measured. If light is reflected and refracted through a medium it exhibits all the necessary surface-recursion wave behaviors to now be observed and measured. If light cannot reflect and refract by means of the eye, or if a person is blind, he cannot observe - light waves. If people are blinded by models that do not answer these questions they cannot answer these questions. I will not refer you to any particular model other than to ask you to examine any portions of my responses by experimenting with mirror to mirror reflection. I need not refer you to a link or any vast statements of jargon and terminology to answer these questions. Simply- experiment with the mirror to mirror relationships and the principles lying therein just waiting to be articulated by ones who have studied the phenomenon. These are optic principles as much as they are verified through observation and measuring. These principles extracted from the mirror to mirror model are scientific ones proportional to be mathematical ones.

I believe that the “coherent oscillations” represent the recursion of reflective information. These recursive rows as well as the phase space between them move back and forth proportionate to one another and proportional to the movement of a real object toward or away from its reflective counterpart existing on a reflective surface. The various magnitudes (strong and weak forces) and positions of stages within recursion are always proportional to all other changes in phase space and all other changes to each layer or membrane of reflection. This recursive system represents a spring, where if stretched or contracted all points on the spring move relative to all other points of the string. And where the strongest point on the string is in the middle of the spring verses the ends f the string. From this center of the spring, each perspective ring gradually decreases in energy and strength toward the ends. This recursive system represents all variations or fluctuations between stages as well as the changes in the relativity of a manifold surface relative to the quantum energy it reflects. This surface reflection represents the strong magnitude and all other variations or positions represent the recursive mechanism that , of necessity, changes proportional to the central point-surface, as well as the true central point, defined as the relationship between real energy (Quantum) and reflected energy ( surface wave.). Obviously , given this model (mirror to mirror relativity reflection=recursion)...the first “inhomogenity” represents the reflective surface. All other stages away from this surface represent the “seeding effect” as well dictate the expansion or inflation of the system. Expansion/inflation= Recursion!

The Feynman-Stueckelberg diagrams are a pictorial way of expressing the principle of recursion. It is the recursion principle that propagates quantum information. If we imagine that information is propagated by means of reflective surfaces, and if these surfaces are relative to other surfaces, then the phenomenon of recursion emerges. If we view a surface reflection as a beginning of information (origin point of information- past) and we view the recursive stages that follow as the continuation of this beginning (present and future stemming from the past(beginning)..starting at a certain point and continuing along a time line )-( spacetime continuum)..then we see an arrow of time has emerged. One end of the line represents the past and the other end of the line (seemingly infinite) represents the future. If we reverse all recursive stages back to where they were first introduced (the horizon of information) we arrive at the quantum reality that exists outside the reflective plane. We will arrive at the singularity between all quantum points to all.. mass points-( reflected wave forms of particle). However, we must go beyond this horizon (exit the reflective/recursive system) to enter into the Dark energy reality. Imagine that a real object between two mirrors represents the particle. This particle is transformed/transmuted to the planes and undergoes further reproduction through the recursive mechanism. We can predict that, if we move the real object (particle) all the way to the mirror surface , with no space between ( contract fully the distance between the real object and the virtual reflective matrix/system) then all recursive rows will intersect at the surface of the plane, and therefore, we have went back in time and arrived at the singularity of the particle to the wave forms(mass objects and systems). In other words, by conducting this experiment, we see that all recursive rows would disappear or contract toward the surface reflection or toward the horizon. This horizon represents the singularity of real energy to its dual form surface reflection. We would view the existence of the recursive rows as the expansion of time and space (reflective addition of information into to the system). We would deduce that when the real object moves closer, to or to the exact point where the surface exists, (surface= Dark matter medium) that all recursive information is being deleted from the system, and thus predict that all mass objects and system reflected into existence would contract back to the point of origin. When particle information ceases to reflect to surfaces, as well ceases to be represented recursively, then no observations or measurements can be made any longer.. as the matrix system has contracted or returned back to its original state. This original state represents the higher dimensional Euclidean condition and as not reflecting itself ( its quantum information) any longer. This would describe the “discrepancy between matter and antimater as attributable' to.. simply.. the process of reflection. We can describe this demarcation as but a thin Planks length, and as representing a thin reflective surface or horizon that separates the real information reality from any or all reflective membranes of this information. This can be observed, measured and experimented with if one conducts these experiments using real object-and-space as existing between two or more mirrors. This would state that the CP violation is defined exclusively as occurring due to recursion. The strong sector represents the surface, where the energy is stronger than that energy dissipated over the volume of phase space existing within the recursive matrix and between the stages. This would explain all forces existing in the system as either stronger or weaker relative to where any particular layer or membrane exists in the system as either farther or closer to the energy intensity or frequency as existing on the surface of the plane. This indicates that the CP -symmetry on the surface is invariant relative to any or all CP transformations (the recursive “operation”). This states that there is a 'hidden mirror sector (sector -recursion) that exists 'in which parity is violated in the opposite way.” “Simply speaking, charge conjugation is a simple symmetry between particles and antiparticles, and so CP-symmetry ..(=) true symmetry between matter and antimatter. In other words a process in which all particles are exchanged with their antiparticles was assumed to be equivalent to the mirror image of the original process.” Recursion is quite literally representative of a system of equivalencies to the original process. The original process, and that which must come before any recursion emerges, is the original point of reflection of the particle. This special point represents a reflective surface. We can refer to this recursive sector (comprised of symmetric copies or vectors self -similar to the surface symmetry) as the hidden phase space of our universe. We can see that these long rows (strings) of recursive reflections are manifestations of the symmetry existing on the surface. The surface symmetry would represent the true symmetric ½ of the whole reflective relationship between a quantum bit of information and its dual form (½) surface wave representation. This describes not only a relationship between a particle and a surface reflection, but as well that the same particle is propagated to an infinite amount of points through the virtual recursive matrix. All of these principles can be deduced by simply examining the relationships (Model= mirror to mirror reflection of real objects) that I have herein indicated. AS well, in principle, these deductions agree with the wording of the SUSY model.

Many people seek to find solutions to problems by searching for patterns as well finding associations between disparate things. I would like to show very interesting relationships between nature, language, human anatomy and geometry. I believe that these relationships between things can be described as expressing a recursive principle and thus if applied further could represent an algorithm that could explain everything. This post is accompanied by an image. I would like to ask what those visiting this thread think the geometry looks like. I will begin this topic with this image and will post many more strange geometries as found in nature. The reason for doing so is to draw attention to phenomenal and anomalous relationships that exist all around us if and that can be discerned if one changes there way of observing and measuring information.

Moderator: I have not contradicted that sypersymmetry has a specific meaning any more than I ignore the reality that within this so called 'specific' meaning the definitions and descriptions are not identified clearly and definitely, nor can this ( or at least ,,has this) definition of supersymetry been proven factually. Not to mention that , and as also indicative of the standard model, the present supersymmetric definitions obviously have not provided enough clarity and transparency to prevent 'competition'(contradiction) among supersymmetric models. When one wins a race one wins a race..with no need for any more competition. Furthermore, that these definitions (verses the principles implied- as superiorly relevant) have not met the 'requirement(s) clearly and precisely...so as to embody GUT. In the issue of the later, these definitions have not been proven or verified through observation, measuring or experimentation. These three fundamental requirements are what result in clear and precise scientific and mathematical statements. Or to put it another way: The Final Contradiction - Caltech Theoretical Particle Physicstheory.caltech.edu/people/.../str115.ht... California Institute of Technology “When a new theoretical edifice is proposed, it is very desirable to identify distinctive testable experimental predictions. In the case of superstring theory there have been no detailed computations of the properties of elementary particles or the structure of the universe that are convincing, though many valiant attempts have been made. In my opinion, success in such enterprises requires a better understanding of the theory than has been achieved as yet. It is very difficult to assess whether this level of understanding is just around the corner or whether it will take many decades and several more revolutions. In the absence of this kind of confirmation, we can point to three qualitative "predictions" of superstring theory. The first is the existence of gravitation, approximated at low energies by general relativity. No other quantum theory can claim to have this property (and I suspect that no other ever will)....(My Recursion model does) The second is the fact that superstring solutions generally include Yang--Mills gauge theories like those that make up the "standard model" of elementary particles. (My Recursion Scenario describes this mechanism-Yang—Mills gauge) The third general prediction is the existence of supersymmetry at low energies (the electroweak scale). (Equally explained in depth by the Recursion Scenario) I do not state that my model (Recursion scenario) in any way is associated with any string model. I state that that my model is a clearer and more precise (thus “specific”) definition of what supersymmetry IS. When I refer to the recursion phenomenon as embodying the principles of supersymmetry I merely show that my model extends the definitions of string theory and as well introduces a new cosmological constant. The proposed cosmological constant is recursion. In principle, and what one can determine if they really read my posts, examine the picture equations and experiment with the model (Reiterate: Place object(s) between mirrors and simply observe, measure and experiment with the model) is that the relationship between the standard supersymmetric model(s) and my recursive model can be expressed simply/principally as: 'adding another (other-infinite) class(es) of symmetries.” I believe that the principle to be derived from “adding” symmetry to any system is a recursive principle. This recursive “function,” is embodying all aspects of both the Lagrangian as well as the Hamiltonian. (Note: I will propose that the symmetry added is not just “any” symmetry but self-replicated symmetry from a surface reflection. Within this amended definition, I believe it is fair to say that if a sole symmetry is infinitely reproduced and infinite amount of directions and distances, and all symmetries are existing within a matrix or system, that we are describing a state as “exhibiting the characteristics of its type to an extreme or excessive degree.” This definition of “super” combined with symmetry would tweak the specific definition of supersymmetry to read: Symmetries- exhibiting the characteristics of its type to an extreme or excessive degree.=Supersymmetry. This being stated: I stand by “my” definition of supersymmety as well cannot accept anything else but recursion as producing this supersymmetric effect/phenomenon. Though within that statement I do not in any way invalidate that the overall principle meaning(s) being expressed in SUSY. If I did seem to contradict those principles (verses specific definitions) I would be contradicting my own model. If given the time and ability to highlight this relevant recursive phenomenon I believe that any who consider it will see how effective it is toward a Unified field Theory. Unfortunately (or fortunately- we will see) I am at the mercy of the moderators as it comes to being given the necessary time to present axioms and proofs to verify the model I am presenting. On that note: If your patience runs out this will not invalidate the recursion scenario nor will I feel that my endeavors on this forum were a waste of my time. As far as predictions. I have stated a few directly. I'm confused as to why the moderator implies that I have not. I will introduce more predictions that can be observed, measured and experimented with if given the opportunity. I will show that this model has a superior predictive quality and will demonstrate this with regard to many disparate areas of the sciences as well as mathematics. The following represent statements I have made in the body of my posts: “ This new model.. predicts.. that information can be observed and measured as being the same at all points, and that the physical universe (and every mass object dwelling therein) is expressing supersymmetric relationships.” “ Further.. predictions.. are expressed through holographic principles as well as the abstract strings(theories). We can ..predict.. that the strings represent both the distancial branches between disparate things (space between mass objects) as well as the mass objects themselves. We can describe the system as ..information...that serves to link all things, and as depicting both symmetric parts as well as a supersymmetric whole system. It.. predicts.. that the full sum of mass objects (reflected information) is derived from the volume of information existing on horizons, that subsequently undergo replication through the scientifically relevant/significant process of recursion. This would.. predict.. that the sum of all geometry (sum of reflected information) that exists in nature and the universe is expressing the infinite rotational sum of A/The geometry dwelling on the surface of a/the screen.” “It predicts that recursion molds all perceptions of time, the speeding or slowing of time (the refractive association to recursion) as well the concept of and experience of the time phenomenon. This model predicts that the past, present and future lie upon the same line and are only separated by thin membranes relative to a surface screen.” “We can read the information and any or all changes in the information along a time continuum. We can do so explicitly through geometry.” (<----prediction.) “This principle possesses all the necessary ingredients to embody a Unified field theory.” -( -predictive) There are many more predictive statements found within my posts. I do not discern your meaning when you say that I have 'continually eschewed” math, unless of course if you are referring to not making formalistic mathematical statements. However, I will say that if it appears that I have eschewed math it may be for relevant reasons and only concerning those mathematical aspects that are not fully right or proper when trying to formulate a language relative to highly abstract concepts. On this note I will remind one that mathematics is an expanding phenomenon proportional to the need for it. Many times, and as the history of math verifies.. new forms of logic and deduction (mathematics), as well as mathematical constructs have had to be devised to bring solutions to problems that former mathematical standards were not efficient in dealing with. As well , may I respectfully and appropriately extend the definitions of mathematics to include such disparate areas as the following” Model theory; Catagorical logic; mathematical logic; intuitionistic logic; reverse mathematics; recursion theory, etc.. When I refer to a New Mathematical Language i articulate such terms, symbols, sentences and euations using these higher mathematical frameworks of logic. Such mathematically logical approach in no way has been prooven as ineffectual or so inferior throughout the evolution of mathematics. No! The reverse is true- in many ways and relative to many progressions in mathematics. However, if this room, or moderators or anyone else requires or mandates that only first order logics be utilized, and that all axioms or proofs be stated in this language, then perhaps this forum is not geared toward nor aligned with these relevant and effective “other “ logics. In that case , either I will decide to depart from the forum or my model will be placed in the trash and we all will move along to other mathematical and scientific venues. Suffice ....Any new proposal represents specualtion (most of the string model is considerately speculation not disimilar to the present standard model) untill given enough time to be validated or not. G H Hardy-”It is never worth a first class man's time to express a majority opinion. By definition, there are plenty of others to do that.” G H Hardy- “mathematician, like a painter or a poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs,(recursion scenario) it is because they are made with idea.” - Parenthesis added

Ajb: "So, my question to naturephysic2345 is not to necessarily show the MSSSM or something similar fits into his description, but something much simplifier we can easily discuss. Thus I suggest just looking at quasi-classical supersymmetric mechanics.” As I have,... and therefore propose that ..you... consider less passively the much more simple and elegant descriptions I am presenting. Or ignore what I am explaning and just conduct the experiments yourself and see the descriptions are verifiable on every point. However , I will tell you, that as you may have studied your model for many years and thus can speak on it due to such scrutiny..you will be hard pressed to speak on my model even after discerning that it is genuine scientific and mathematic. I have worked with this model for more than a decade. As I have given the necessary attention to your model's. I have looked at “quasi-classical supersymmetric mechanics”..and such perusal has further non-trivialized my model. You see, I have no problem with dividing my time between others proposals and my own model. (this seems contrary to others approach). I have taken this approach for more than 2 decades and such open-mindendness to others, in many ways, symmetric to mine and not so opposed, has increased my ability separate the wheat from the chaff. "So Modred has asked you to look at something quite technical and complicated.” Yes. And after having done so to the proper degree (many years..as evidenced by my explanations and model) ..i wish to simplify his( those- as in many) technical and complicated approach to the problems inherent to physics. Though in no deliberate way do I relegate his insights, and if he (or you) can propose something that I haven't already researched- I will spend the necessary time to familiarize myself with it. Do you take this approach ajb? If so, and if you have really considered my explanations and illustrations (mathematical equations coined differently than yours or mordreds) I ask you to contradict them. “assuming what you have said has anything to do with supersymmetry.” You can assume such correctly. And I have provided the simple tools (and equations- that I will expand) to experiment with the model so as to easily “influence” you away from any standard model and in many ways much of the prescribed SUSY descriptions. “In part you can think in terms of pictures, the great Sir Michael Atiyah told me 'geometry is just algebra that you can do with pictures'. From a modern point of view this is okay; geometry is algebra for which you can think 'geometrically'. I believe you diminish both the profound and elegant(simple) power that geometry exerts on any or all mathematical or scientific experiments accompanied by descriptions. I will say that a purely geometric approach is necessary to discover a Theory of Everything. “Anyway, it is not possible to simply forget mathematics and draw pretty pictures.” I appreciate that you refer to my model as beautiful (“pretty”) and that you see, verses acquiesce (for the time being) to the “simplicity” of my descriptions. Furthermore, that the system I am describing is apparently hard to contradict as you have yet to do so. Appeals or retorts ('crutchum and argumentem?') to your models in no way have invalidated mine. I am waiting patiently for those refutations. Explain it any way you wish and I will categorically simplify it. How long has it been since you read (reminded yourself of the wording of) Einsteins: Relativity- The Special and General Theory? What was the ratio of the proportion of mathematical statements to vivid illustration and thought experimenting(void of explicit mathematical sentences)? I will post the preface to this profound document so as to express the intent of my theorem. My theorem serves two purposes. 1) Present a model for a Theory of Everything 2) Make it simple! Albert Einstein Preface (December, 1916) “The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics. The work presumes a standard of education corresponding to that of a university matriculation examination, and, despite the shortness of the book, a fair amount of patience and force of will on the part of the reader. The author has spared himself no pains in his endeavour to present the main ideas in the simplest and most intelligible form, and on the whole, in the sequence and connection in which they actually originated. In the interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I should repeat myself frequently, without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of the presentation. I adhered scrupulously to the precept of that brilliant theoretical physicist L. Boltzmann, according to whom matters of elegance ought to be left to the tailor and to the cobbler. I make no pretence of having withheld from the reader difficulties which are inherent to the subject. On the other hand, I have purposely treated the empirical physical foundations of the theory in a "step-motherly" fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the wanderer who was unable to see the forest for the trees. May the book bring some one a few happy hours of suggestive thought!” Though Einstein chose a different approach in relaying his message was he really so “(non)-conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics?” Are we not discussing those same “theoretical” constructs? Could we impute to Ol' Albert a limited and thus merely 'standard of education ...university matriculation examination?” Could Einstein have expressed himself in other ways outside of simple? Was most of what he wrote and spoke intelligible to anyone? Do you understand why I have repetitively shown that in order to show the 'sequence (recursion) and connections' in a chronological way is imperative? Do you see how patient and indulgent I am with constant appeals to deviate from these descriptions into a spiral of many opposing supersymmetric theories. If you pay attention and not be thinking so much of retort while I am speaking and posting then you will see that I am/have /will 'scrupulously adhere to” the proper scientific standards. ( I do not adhere so much to those aspects of “science and mathematics” that have not been so accurately embodied into a unified theory including the SUSY ones.) I do not fail to 'withold” any difficulties which are inherent to the subject.” .” ...” On the other hand, I have purposely treated the empirical physical foundations of the theory in a "step-motherly" fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the wanderer who was unable to see the forest for the trees. May the book bring some one a few happy hours of suggestive thought!” Einstein was as modest as others around him were self-assured and complacent. (Imagine that I am unfamiliar with physics ajb (strictly an analogy)and that I am a wanderer with only my powers of observation and ability to measure and experiment with things. Now: Explain your SuSy models. 2+2=4, regardless that that it can be explained principally in many ways and with appropriate degrees of freedom) “More words, which I have a feeling you don't really understand the meaning of.” I would bet that you say this to a lot of people. “Can you just quickly tell me what is a Riemannian manifold, a connection, a torson free connection and a diffeomorphism? (without just copying Wikipedia).” Scroll up and pay more than the usual attention to posts by naturephysic2345. If you fail to experiment with the model I am presenting( spend a lot of time presenting yours) then you could not possibly take what I am saying seriously as you have neglected to consider it. “I am sorry if this feels like a test,..” I am not afraid of tests ajb. Are you? (please respond to the questions I have posed.)

Mordred: “the SO(10) MSM standard model us far simpler on the Higgs couplings as your only dealing with the 126 Higgs with 4 degrees if freedom including its antiparticle/.............................................................. and max 2 mexican hat potentials via 2 max seesaw potentials in the 10^10 to 10^12 TeV range below VeV though the seesaws aren't an issue on the EWSB or chiral symmetry breaking Forgive me moderators, but I merely do this so as to also challenge mordred to present his model in a more forthcoming visual and methodologically simple way. ( As he has insisted that I explain myself clearly. ) I would ask him to give us a clear model from which to extract (observe, measure and experiment with) his superymmetric proofs and axioms. As I encourage others to examine my model for scientific, mathematical and logically deductive validity. I will not persist in this method of communicating information as such would probably seem sophomoric. However when I fully articulate the logic's and proofs for the system I am describing, particularly as it concerns the supersymmetric relationships existing in nature such mathematical language (in all of its forms and relative to everything) will seem less insignificant and more universal.- Theory of Everything. Below the picture 'sentence' lies the disparate complex sentence that is obviously homeomorphic to mine. Coined by mordred and translated by means of my more picture logic(model). Though the SUSY models have substance (great substantiality ) I encourage these very very intuitive people to stop thinking in terms of mathematics SO MUCH and start thinking in pictures. I believe that some of the most profound advancements in science as well as mathematics were a product of very insightful people who thought in a higher mathematical (thus logical) framework. My isommetric thought represents an 'isomorphism sentence' (framed in pictures) and is approximate to and the same as (symmetric to) mordreds. I stopped where I did because if I started posting pictures of... Mexican sombreros/ seesaws/pots/ ewes or corals..I would have been laughed out of the room or booted. . I hope this served another purpose of lightening the mood in the room. (Note: Sigh, Read the top row of pictures left to right then the next stage below right to left.) Though I cannot provide full descriptions relative to every symmetric type presented by mordrum..I will briefly respond to each type. The full relevance of anything related to symmetry or supersymmetry (discovered everywhere) will be elaborated upon when I can redirect my attention back to the original theme of this thread: Recursion Scenario.

Mordred 0:39 PM I will , as promised, categorically respond to the aspects of your challenges as well show that my model approximates aspects of every type-symmetry you refer to. As well I will respond to your last paragraph (“Can you demonstrate a formula with a non linear relation?) Again, as this represents a worthy redirection of the purpose of this thread, It will take me a few days to appropriately articulate the explanations and accompanying illustrations. Bear with me. Projective “symmetry”: You will see that both RF's (reflective horizons) represent vector fields (Xa). The particle represents the infinitesimal symmetry that is projected to the Higgs fields perspectively (right and left ..represent the “Ce”(closed end's) of a string relationship). These HF's(Higgs fields) are the same as Xa. Or: HF=Xa. The projective structure, of/from the projected particle information, is a Dark matter(DM) reflective field that remains dark until a light ray comes into relativity (collides with-is projected to) to its surfaces from varying degrees and directions. (Note: I illustrate the difference between the 'lit up' Dark matter surface- (mirror to the right) as opposed to the left side mirror that is not lit up. I show the difference by making the left mirror darker than the right one. This left side illustrates that the Dark matter surface, if not lit up with particle information, is only reflecting “darkness,” thus, in most ways, is indistinguishabe from the invisible quality of the dark energy space it reflects. However, I will explain powerful ways to discern these dark matter surfaces, even if not lit up thus representing mass objects or systems, relative to a new mathematical/geometric language... accordingly)- ( I will also introduce a more refined understanding of black holes and wormholes.) When these screens (DM=HF/Xa) are lit up by particle(s) they transform these infinitesimal bits of information to qualifying wave representations. The Higgs branch(HB)- (DE= dark energy, space between mirrors) connects these Xa -tangent spaces by serving as the information existing as/in the open part of the string and as communicated to both closed ends of the string relationship. The information existing on the surface of the HF's (perspectively – right and left) is the transmutable wave that has 'trans-formed' the particle information to their surfaces. The surface of the mirrors represent smooth manifolds that are connected to each other via reflection. As well, both reflective horizons, are of necessity, connected via the Higgs branch (space between mirrors), as well, connected in the sense that they are reflecting the same body of particle information. We can see that, though the symmetric bilinear forms represented on the tangent spaces are in most ways indistinguishable from the Euclidean information (the real object between mirrors), these general Riemannian manifolds are surfaces that separate the Euclidean information from any or all reflective recursive subvectors existing within both upon and within the Higgs fields. These surfaces are not exclusively flat (for instance the curved surface of an eye= Higgs mechanism, manifold) rather , either asymptotically flat or curved. ( As in lensing.-- I will get to gravitational lensing!). We can see that any Euclidean information that is represented on these surfaces is represented as resembling the Euclidean particle information at each point on the Higgs mechanism surface. ( I will explain this by briefly saying that the Higgs fields are comprised of the sum of reflective points/potentials, thus, these individual reflective pints represent boson points. The sum of boson reflective points represents the sum of the Higgs field-reflective) We will call the surface(s) of reflection the principle approximations of this dark energy information, and that, all other recursive representations are.. orders of approximation-(sub vectors; extending the symmetry of the surface to a supersymmetric system of self-similar symmetries) . Yet, in the strictest sense, the concept of the progressive refinement of the approximations is a reversal of the process that one witnesses in recursion. That is to say, each recursive stage is an approximate symmetry of the surface ( as the surface is the approximate symmetry of the particle side) and this symmetric surface information is gradually diffused or diminished in strength the farther from the surface any particular stage is found. (We will come to see how this model fully reconciles the 4 forces) But, if we reverse this process (think in the reverse-as I encourage others to do so and frequently), and imagine that we are/exist far back on a recursive stage and moving toward the surface (going toward the past), then the approximations of the information (the intensity of) will be progressively increased, and that, our understanding of the true strength of the information (singularity= point of conversion)would be exponentially enhanced if we could travel toward the surface(past) from our present point, or travel back toward the singularity from any future stage we may assume with time. If you look at my model you will see clearly that the past, present and future lie on the same time line and every action occurs simultaneous with every other action or event. (within recursion as well due to the events on one surface as reflecting or reflective of the events on the other surface). What I mean is , if all stages( the whole recursive system of “time and symmetry continuance=supersymmetric continuity) represent a time continuum, then we would realize that, those stages nearer the surface represent more pastward than those stages existing in the middle(present) and as opposed to, but existing at the same time as,---->the futurewardly same events(occurring simultaneous with the past and present event(s)). The Riemannian metric refers to the real metric distance between the particle and each perspective plane surface. All other metrics that emerge in the reflective/recursive system represent reflections of this metric. These reflected measurements represent both a beginning of the time continuum (beginning of time)-(occurring when the particle information first began to reflect itself) that occurs on the surface........ and then, the sum of this time (from past to present/ beginning to end)-(the predetermined time as well as entropic limit to the system) is divided into time increment. These time increments represent the phase space existing between recursive stages. These time increments can be either sped up (contraction of the phase space) or slowed down (expansion of the time increments)- (Where 'change” in PS-(phase space)= change in TI(time interval/increment)- ( And Where PS=TI) contingent upon the change in the real distance between the particle and the perspective manifold surfaces. The speeding up or slowing down of time =...the expansion or contraction of the phases space between recursive rows. This speeding up and slowing down of time (balancing of information= adding or deleting information from the system by moving the real object toward or away from the plane surfaces) seems to be dictated by the dark energy side. (implications?) The distance preserving diffeomorphism between the Riemannian manifolds (the entropic controller of the system= Riemannian metric-real distance(s)) -(I.e., Higgs branch) merely controls the isomorphism(relationship) between the isometric points described as mirror right and mirror left. This diffeomorphic branch (HB) represents the cardinal or superior isometric point/location of the particle. This open part of the string (Oe) is the invertible function of the differntiable manifolds. This Higgs branch maps or determines the distance from itself to either plane of reflection, as well, can communicate itself in various ways to each surface merely by changing its distance and or altering its angle as communicating its information to the screens perpectively . (Note: For purposes of brevity I will neglect to explain the recursion as representing the Diffeomorphisms of subsets of manifolds. Though I post this relevant aspect to the illustration, I will elaborate on these principles later on.) I will begin to break up my posts (thought symmetry breaking) into smaller portions, as it is apparent that long posts are often scorned, and I do not wish to approach this theorem in any way other than to encourage and maintain interest. ( I hope that by doing this the descriptions will compel one to examine my posts more thoroughly for accuracy.) Mordred. The SUSY principles are not tricky, as you infer...IF...you consider the axioms and proofs I am presenting. What is trickier than not is the difference between complex explanations and simple ones. As well models that are explained but not observed in any tangible ways..V/S..a/the Unified Field theory model that I am introducing.

Mordred: Firstly, I will no longer debate with you as to how you wish to define the term supersymmetry as opposed to how my model will show clear evidence as to what this supersymmetric phenomenon is.(Sigh- Recurssion). What I will do, and as an effective means of using your own statements and descriptions of supersymmetry ( contemporaneous with my own broad descriptions) to strengthen my axioms and proofs, is allow you to draw attention to any and every particular model you ascribe to. I encourage you to post your equations and long string of descriptions as coined relative to the SUSY endeavor..so that I can categorically and effortlessly show you that, on every point, you are describing the simple model that I am presenting. I believe this will prove to reinforce my arguments greatly. I hope you accept the challenge. However , lets not just speak on what we know or have read or have heard..lets both strive to provide the necessary predictable, observational , measurable and experimental axioms and proofs to support our words and claims. While you are preparing yourself for this exchange of information and ideas I will get on about describing: Supersymmetry in nature- Prelude to a new paradigm- New mathematical language. This introductory statement will not just speak on the relationships but provide powerful and tangible observations, measurements and experiments that verify its merit. The “specific meaning” of symmetry (in physics) does not invalidate the principled meaning of symmetry as being “the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis...correspondence, balance,...similarity or exact correspondence between different things.” If you look closely at the picture I posted, you will see that a real object is communicated to a reflective plane in a way that conforms to these definitions. All we have to do is state that the real object represents the quantum side of the equation (“E;”-left side of the equation) and that the reflected object, that exactly corresponds to this left side, is the right side of the equation, and represents the m'c2' position- (wave representation of Dark Energy. E-particle/light photon/). We see that a symmetry does not exist, and of necessity no geometry exists, if E is not relative to its reflected counterpart (dual-form). However, when the relationship is established (thus birthing the relativistic sum of the equation-E=mc2), we observe and measure that the relationship is a symmetric one. That is to say ...1/2 of the symmetric whole =E. And; ½ of the symmetric whole=m('C2'). Reiterate: Before this reflective relationship emerges there is no connection between two isometric points, thus no disparate points exist so as to begin to frame any shape, whether percieved as asymmetric, symmetric or supersymmetric. This original condition of things represents the existence of only the Euclidean state with no relativity to any separate, reflective branes/planes. This original state was a fluid state, and was not defined, nor could be described, with any mathematical model, nor could be described under any “specific physics terms.” Regardless: Now I ask: When you look at the picture (model) that I posted earlier, is it really that difficult to see that the relativity between a real bit of information (quantum-real object existing outside of or between two reflective planes) and a reflected copy of this information, creates a perfect symmetry? All “Specific” physics-semantics aside, the question is rhetorical and the answer obvious. This model expresses clearly the principle of symmetry. (refer to image accompanying this post). A principle that I propose is an emergent one! Further I would ask you, while we try not to relegate this principled meaning of symmetry: does the one ½ of the equation (E-left) 'face the other side?” Of necessity, and due to the obvious answer to this question, can we say that, therefore; the other side(reflected side) also 'faces to other side”-(reflector=E)? If we can see this aspect of symmetry(1/2 X 1/2=whole symmetry) evidenced in the picture; ( and our own cognizance of the fact) would we then contradict this by saying, because observation doesn't fit the predisposed and specific definition as coined in physics, we will deny that we just observed and measured ...symmetry? This model describes an axis of symmetry . Brief synopsis: One side of the graph is a mirror image of the other side. The converse is true. The 'only' (qualitative) difference being that, the left side is not dependent upon the existence of the right side where the right side, as a reflected isometric point, IS dependent upon the preexisting left side. This dictates that although they seem exact, one is a product of the other and not the other way around. As well that the equivalence of energy and mass is NOT expressed so long as the right side of the equation reflects the left side (and is not innately energy independent of reflection). The only way that the mass side can really be equivalent to the Energy side is when conversion occurs. I will state that conversion represents that the quantum side no longer reflects to a former dual copy and thus due to this loss of reflection ( loss of relativity between the reflector particle and its dual wave form) the mass wave disappears and can no longer be observed or measured as existing. Or: that the particle can no longer be represented as well as a wave. Now lets deduce another consistent character of the model I am presenting. We are expressing an equivalence of shape between a real object and a reflected one. No matter how you move or turn the real object this equivalence is expressed in the mirror image. If we increase the distance between the real object and the reflected one (on a number line- ½ distance from real object to surface of mirror , X, ½ virtual reflection of this distance) we have added the same distance quantity to both sides. So the distance between the Higgs branch to the dark matter reflective medium(Higgs field) represents ½- ( The real distance). However, to 'get to' the reflected object existing on the surface of the plane, we must double this real distance (reflect it). Thus , ½ reflected of real distance. The whole distance expresses a symmetric relationship, whereby, to get from energy to a mass object ( the real object to the reflected one) one must square the real distance. This means that the symmetry of distance represents ½ real distance X ½ reflected distance (to mass object point.)- (Please do not forget, before you raise issue with defining distance as symmetrical, that you refer to your mathematical logic in saying that “light has symmetry.”) This relationship of 'invariant under” and “invarient to” is expressed only due to the relationship between the real object and the SURFACE reflected object. If we add recursion to the system, then the subsequent rows of reflections (stages, with finite dimensions, perspectively) and the phase space between (distance between stages) represent “ratios of distance” as well ratios of symmetry. How so? If you have a surface reflection you have a symmetry. This symmetry is distinct from all other recursive stages in that it is both first and the product of all other ratio symmetries. Thus, if this symmetry undergoes recursion, we have a ratio of 1-infinite. Yet all recursive symmetries are derived from this surface reflection. As well, we see a ratio of distance between recursive stages (phase space) always relative to the ratio of stages to phase space. <----(digress). Despite any changes to the real distance between the real object and the surface plane of reflection , or despite the change in the distance between two reflective planes with Euclidean space between (branch space-linking information from one surface to that same information found on another surface), or despite that angular changes may occur between the two mirrors( either parallel or deviating from parallel-face to face) thus resulting in 'scalings, rotations'... the reflected half of the whole symmetric relationship remains invarient to or invarient under these changes. We can extend this constant to say that : Even when recursion occurs, these transformations (surface to stage 1, stage2, stage3 ---->) produce similar shapes. We have introduced trigonometry into the model! If we have a circle reflected to a surface, then the reflected circle is the same as the real circle. No matter how far the distance between the two circles are, and if the mirrors are parallel, both the real circle and reflected one can be measured , and the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is invarient and equal to pi. We are saying that the real circle is being transformed into the reflected circle. As well, even if the mirrors are turned away from true parallelism, and though the reflected circle seems not to represent a true circle (pi) ( for instance..converts to an elipsis or even further stretches to a thin line)..we now know, based upon the principles being deduced relative to this new model, that the reflected circle(s) even if perceived to be anything but a real circle, is actually still reflecting a true circle. This states that everything is symmetric and that everything is made up of (comprised from) true circles(spheres -as an extension), but, based upon the power of observation, ( the eye as a plane of reflection/refraction..not to mention a mechanism of recursion. I will get to that!) as well changes from true parallelism to degrees away from parallelism of the plane surfaces, we perceive “less than” or “more that” and not as it truly is. Everything we see is really derived from the most symmetrical shape known to us -circles and spheres of reflected information.(pi) If 'one' would you deny this reality, then place a circular object between two mirrors. Turn the true circle and you will see that the circle as reflected to a surface and continually (supersymmetrically) recursively reproduced ,(relative to the mirror to mirror relationship=recursion) though appearing to stretch on the left and right sides, is still really representing (reflecting)a true circle. We could go farther and say that; any or all elipsis or oblate spheroid are being observed as such(perceived) and even measured as such.. but really represent merely the turning of a true circle relative to a reflective plane or relative to a plane to plane relationship. The human eye ( and all other eyes) represents viewing true circles from varying degrees away from true parallelism to the plane surface of the eye. This should aid us in mapping relationships between objects. This algorithm demonstrates that, if the earth is slightly deformed at the poles (and it is) then we should be able to utilize this mirror to mirror phenomenon to determine, based upon measurements where the real object point is that is reflecting to the earth, as well the incidence angle of this reflector point. ( We can see this by using a light source shinning to a mirror, and by turning this light source away from true parallelism to the surface, measuring the degree of stretch relative to the reflected light circle . Once we get these measurement we can allow our mathematicians and astronomers to begin to discover the relationships between celestial bodies, planets, stars and galaxies. Not to mention those who study nature and cosmology ..helping us to see these same relationships evidenced in nature and the universal scale. I will broaden these descriptions as I continue. Suffice to say, I will use simple tools to do so, as well utilize one simple equation to discover all of these relationships. (Note: Due to this equation, we can also determine how far the real circles/spheres are from any reflected objects or systems by determining how big or small objects are, when relative to a real object ( between the mirrors), and by moving the real object to and from the mirror and measuring the consistent rate of change in the diameter and proportions of the reflected object. We can determine by the diameter of any object how far the real particle information is from the surface of these objects. Again, this will be described both principally and mathematically as I progress into this theorem thread. If the speed of light has symmetry then all you are saying is that, that relative an observer and measurer, that the DISTANCE from light to any reflective plane (or eye) is squared and then proportionately symmetrically copied in the phase space between recursive stages relative to any or all Higgs reflective fields. What I am saying is that: Not only is the real object (particles) copied relative to a surface reflection and all subsequent recursive stages, but as well the SPACE between the real object and the reflected objects is copied to the surface and between all recursive rows. How this volume of space appears(perception) is relative to an observer existing within the system. Though we see the volume of phase space between stages seem to contract, it is still representative of and proportional to the real space between the real object and the mirror surfaces. To illustrate. I can look at a stretch of road (that has been measured to be one mile before the experiment starts) from a distance and it seem less than a mile. Yet, the closer I get, the more able I am to see that it is actually a larger volume of space ( a longer line measurement). The only way to determine its “real “ length is to walk it and measure it. So, despite that when we look down into the virtual matrix, and it appears that the phase space and size (or dimensions) of each stage seem to contract, they are all really representing the true distance between a real object and a surface plane of reflection. The distance between stages ( or the fractional volume of phase space between seperate recursive stages) is the same at all points. This dictates that, every stage of recursion is symmetric to every other stage. This states that, the volume of phase space is also symmetric to the volume of phase space between all other stages. This states that, due to this repeated symmetry of both the phase space and the stage dimentions, we are realizing a supersymmetric relationship as defining the whole “VOLUME of phase space.” ( the whole system comprised of surface reflection and recursion). We are witnessing, observing, measuring and dwelling within a supersymmetric and thus recursive system. (Note: I stand by my definition of supersymmetry proportional to standing by the statement that supersymmetry=recursion.). I also concede to any formal mathematical statements, so long as they account for this decisive/recursive relationship. I cannot ascribe to those mathematical formulations, equations or logics that do not express this principle, as they are, and have been proven as; ineffectual in explaining the whole phenomenon of recursion. Thus they have not yet defined clearly supersymmetry (= recursion) The two pictures that I have posted represent shades of an expanding higher mathematical equation Acme I am not ignoring your efforts. There are a lot of relevant challenges that are being raised in the room and I feel it imperative to address these. I ask that you continue to experiment with the system as you did with your posted pictures and annotations. If you continue to follow my descriptions ( as well as observe and measure the tangible system that I depict) you will be better able to see the relationships that I initiated discussion about earlier. As well, the things that I said that seemed to invalidate your measurements, will come to be understood as well. You conducted the experiment pretty much exactly as I suggested, and you were highly creative in the way you went about it. I would ask that as you listen to and stay involved in this thread ...keep the real object mirrors and measure close by. By doing this you will quickly grasp the principles that I espouse. I would further guess that any who do not choose to follow my line of reasoning by also experimenting as you are, will be less likely to observe and measure the supersymmetric relationships and thus will be less capable of seeing the superiority of the Recursion Scenario that I am describing.

Mordred: (And in part--- ajb): I have proposed that the “symmetry of what” represents a symmetry existing on a surface.- ( The sum of information that is rotationally symmetric and is communicated through the virtual space by means of recursion). Here I equate 'symmetry of what' to whatever sum of information that resides on a reflective surface, and as necessarily a symmetric representation of the Euclidean information it reflects. ( I explained this in a former post) . I discribe this surface “object” (the “what”) as a preliminary template of information, and as a reflected copy of Euclidean information (Dark Energy) to a plane or brane. I describe the surface as a dark matter medium (isometric reflective vector relative to the isometric Euclidean condition or state) that receives this invisible particle information and, if relative to other reflective horizons the potential of recursion can occur. I refer to supersymmetry outside the standard interpretations, and thus, merely express the.. PRINCIPLES... as indicative of the recursive mechanism. I will show that the models that seek to express a supersymmetric condition of things, are really depicting the “continual” reproduction of a thing (object or energy) or quality.. =Recursion. I refer to supersymmetry as a.. principle.. and not to be confined to any strict or specific supersymmetric model. (Note: All supersymmetric models, to date, have not been verified as the absolute reality). However, the principle that is hiding from view is being expressed in highly creative and relevant ways relative to virtually all models that deal with supersymmetry. While these models WILL eventually replace the standard model, they have not been so all inclussively revealing as of yet. We have not attained to a Theory of Everything that brings the necessary mathematical and scientific transparency we are searching for. I am stating that , by considering supersymmetry, and as defined in various ways, (all speaking on the same principles) we are better equipped to find solutions of the Einstein equation and with regard to such things as , for instance- a system of second-order differential equations for g. I am saying that by introducing the principle behind supersymmetry (“continual” as opposed to singular=supersymmetric law of nature verses symmetric=recursion) we would in essence be imposing more symmetry into the system and thus can 'expand' the equations so as to find solutions. I will equate the “finding of solutions” to discovering the hidden phase space both in nature and of our universe! I am proposing that 'hidden phase space' emerges due to recursion. Where the symmetry on/of the surface is further continued, or is reproduced/copied and thus adding/imposing more symmetry into the system resulting in a matrix or lattice. (Note: “Lattice models are also ideal for study by the methods of computational physics, as the discretization of any continuum(recursion) model automatically turns it into a lattice model. )-(The human brain is far more capable of solving problems than any computer, especially if such problems are so complex as to necessitate abstractifying, intuition and logic. Furthermore, and I will assert, some problems cannot even be algebraically or analytically solved outside of first observing, measuring and experimenting with a system. In these mathematically chaotic contexts I will say that using formal mathematics before higher mathematical logic and deduction is no different than putting the cart before the horse.) In order not to seem too evasive( I typically take things at my own pace, but will step out of character) with regard to 'your' appeal(s) for prediction and testable data I will briefly synopsis the following, but in no way stop here if given time: We can refer to this scenario as a homogeneous space. A topological (dark matter) reflective medium first receives light ray (particle information) and further replicates this information forming group G. This describes the Minkowski space as being the combination of surface information and recursive information as all part of the same framework or matrix. The properties (and underlying supersymmetric principles) of this virtual space are therefore preserved despite the “continuous” so-called “deformations.” It is reflection, combined with recursion, that stretch and bend the space ( much as can be witnessed when a real object is between two mirrors and one moves the mirrors in and out and turn them all different degrees and directions away from true parallelism) . It is also the process of recursion ( same principles as supersymmetry) that results in the connectedness or continuity...while the reflective surface represents the boundary to this virtual system. This boundary is a principle verses a tangible thing so much, in that, the only thing that separates the real space( and object) from the virtual space is a thin skin of reflection. Beyond this thin membrane of reflection ( a Planks length beyond) one enters into the Euclidean dark energy (or quantum) condition or state. We can refer to the group G as both the phase space and each stage of recursion that is separated by this area of space. It is a non empty manifold that resembles the Euclidean information ( though is not equal to; one is the higher dimension space the other is a lower dimensional, energy-inert reflected space) near every point. This phase spacing (recursion mechanism) represents the “neighborhood” that is described as homeomorphic to/of the Euclidean space. We have a two dimensional manifold surface accompanied by a multidimensional recursive 'thickness.' ( “virtual depth—perception” ). ( Note: I take issue with the string theorists '12 dimension' inference, as well any supersymetric model that confines the dimensions to anything but infinite- This includes, but is not limited to, the volume of dimensional modes expressed within The Super G-string model.) In order to see my meaning with regard to infinite dimensions, you have to see the recursive principle that I am depicting as representing an infinite “string” of dimensional modes related to the infinite layers/stages one witnesses in mirror to mirror reflection. Each mode is separated by a certain volume of phase space that contracts from the surface through the recursive matrix, and as well is either contracted or expanded relative to an observer. The 'infinite” combination of both phase space and separate recursive membranes of information from the surface, represent the “volume” of phase space. Both the surface AND recursive 'continuity space' represents the virtual informational transliteration of the Dark Energy information. Any transformations or renormalizations of this surface information occur implicitly through recursion. This recursive system, and at all points proportional to all other points, shifts to all changes in the distance or even movement/&momentum of the REAL OBJECT existing between the two surfaces. This same proportional rate of change, occurring both in the phase space and with each layer as moving closer or further from each other due to the change in this phase space, can happen due to the contraction of the REAL space between horizons relative to each other. Not dissimilar to this reflective plane to reflective plane relationship is the relativity of the reflective/refractive/recursive 'mechanism eye' to any or all other reflective points. The eye is a Higgs field just the same as any and all other reflective/refractive horizons are perspectively represented as Higgs fields. Thus the eye, in most ways, ALSO both causes and can determine 'change' in this measurable system. Actually-predominately...The eye (force of observation) results in the changing of measurements, and can express one true measurement in one experiment and another true measurement in another experiment, yet, the experiments contradict one another. This mirror to mirror model (qualitative..principles extracted from) is expressing the isomorphic relationships, whereby the 'equal shape” on the surface is inversely represented to the next row. This row is inversely changed at the next row...so on and so forth. (Note: One can observe this phenomenon by placing a light on the side of a spinning top and placing the top between two mirrors and spinning it. You will notice that the first stage of reflection moves opposite to the direction of the real top. Where the lights will intersect at a certain point (center to center) the real light is traveling one direction and the first stage of reflection is moving the other direction...where the lights intersect cancels out the opposite spin. If you then compare the 2ond stage of reflection to the first stage you will see the same 'cancellation ( or balancing of entropy) occurring , whereby stage two is opposite stage one, but, moving the same direction as the real top between the two mirrors. This 'recursion of inversion' is telling us something very valuable. I will speak on these relevant principles further on.) Because you bring up very relevant things in your responses I will post an image illustrating the preceding paragraph. This image will represent a slight diversion from how I was going to begin expressing my theorem in a way that best fits the chronology of discoveries. Yet! I feel it will be a fitting start. Not only is the information on each recursive row, isomorphic of the former row, but the surface reflection is isomorphic of the space (or object) between the mirror surfaces. As well, the space between the recursive stages is proportionally a representation or an isomorphism of the phase space before and after. (Note: Of necessity, the bijective function, mathematically essential...can be inferred from the same model,and, therefore the experiments will verify that it is observed and measured as occurring within the system.). All of these phenomena are working together to describe a supersymmetric system, and as a result, serve to strengthen the mathematical and scientific validity of the Recursion Scenario -model I am introducing. You have to understand that, any model or theory that deals with supersymmetry, can be placed nose to nose to my model and be discerned as, and in most ways, self-similar to my proposals. That is to say: My model in most ways is,( though I will show how my model is superiorly explanative and relevant in other areas) in principle and substance, a mirror image of others, though I merely describe it differently and with minimal complex terminology and jargon. We are not so dissimilar in our conclusions, intuitions and abstractifications. I will guess that some of the most stimulating conversations that will occur in this thread will be between us. As 'YOU” represent 'blocks' reflecting to me( the symmetry of your thought and concepts) I will be a block reflecting to you-(same symmetrical ideas-not so incongruent or inverse/converse to yours). It will be difficult to distinguish differences between our shared, as well different proposals. The only differences I believe will manifest themselves when a particular aspect of my proposals are compared to yours, that is “surface to surface reflection=recursion)- (verses just mirror matter concepts or the like- more symmetrical in gist). My model, I am confident, will provide more robust and observable/measurable descriptions and will elaborate upon , enhance and refine the supersymmetric sentences and statements that you are using, which in essence, and by principle deduction, are indistinguishable from the new mathematical language that I am using to describe the same phenomena. Another thing that l may result in polarization between our 'models,' and that which I refer to in the body of this paragraph, is the “approach” and methodology of explanation. Your 'language', though unique to mathematics in some ways, will, for the most part, follow prescribed formalism and thus be much more complex sentences and mathematically verbose descriptions, whereas my approach will deviate from this formal mathematical model of articulation and thus be more lucid ( though-equally verbose) and inherently following higher mathematical principles of deduction (logic and thought experimentation ). Now you may understand a former statement that I made as to being “scared or bored” with OTHER aspects of mathematics, that, even though they can lead lead to a same conclusion, they are for the most part not my style of arriving at those same conclusions. In this sense, I favor that I am divested of this mode of math and can think more clearly, though equally mathematically and in other ways. I will predict that my recursion model will explain fully the following things: As well that this recursion scenario will describe all aspects of: -mappings that retain topological properties of a given space= Recursion -The relationship between two or more reflective surfaces=homeomorphism (where both surfaces are homeomorphic) -Bi continuous function= recursion -recursion=bi continuous function(s) as a result of occurring due to the relationship between topological spaces -Inverse function=recursion,recursion,recursion(Infinite--/--/--/--> o <--/../../../..infinite) -”A topological space is a geometric object” (reflected object on a reflective brane) -recursion= continuous stretching (space -mass expansion) of this topological geometric sum of information (rotationally symmetric- but I will get to that) -recursion= new shape as separate from the surface geometry but representing the geometry the same. The only difference in the recursive system, as opposed to the origin surface of the recursion, is that recursion makes this geometry “new” in the sense of contracting it away from this surface or expanding it toward a relative observer.) -The topology geometry ( rotational geometry existing on the surface and thus the representational and rotational sum of all other self-replications or recursive geometries) does not change when homeomorphisms are applied. Translation: A surface reflection does not contract or expand relative to the recursive changes, rather the recursive changes occur relative to this surface and relative to the distancial change between a real object and this first surface stage. A surface reflection is not dependent upon a recursive process, rather recursion is contingent upon both a surface reflection and the relativity of a surface to a surface and as separated by a certain volume of Euclidean space. All recursive stages are a product of a surface reflection and not the other way around. The surface reflection is not homeomorphic of the recursive stages that proceed it , rather the surface reflection is solely homeomorphic of the space between the mirrors and not dwelling inside the mirrors. I will explain this further on with pictures graphs and illustrations. For the sake of not no being to “fluffy” relative to any given single post, I will broaden the applications of this recursion scenario by dissipating it over the course of this layered theorem. I will allow a little “phase space” for others to respond before I assume the next stage of progression. Note: Please disregard the allusion to "hint: Power of observation, double slit experiment."(This image was designed to be used latter on. I decided to post it per relevance, to this post)

Ajb: In order to understand what I mean by “Supersymmetry: The “continual” reproducing of a symmetry”- I will ask: What is the difference between symmetry and supersymmetry. I refer to a symmetry as a SOLE 'uniformity of a shape.” I refer to supersymmetry as 'a' sole shape “continually” reproduced. So when I refer to supersymmetry as evidentiarily a manifestation of recursion I illustrate this by stationing a sole object between two mirrors. This demonstrates that a sole object symmetry is now represented supersymmetrically – or “continually. I synonomize this supersymmetric effect with the recursion effect. Or symmetry (real object between mirrors) x recursion= symmetry(1), symmetry (2), symmetry(3)------> = supersymmetry or a supersymmetric system= The recursion phenomenon. While “Scientists have discovered that nature contains symmetry in such things as butterflies, snowflakes, and faces, as well as in its own laws. They also have discovered that at particular points, symmetry ends and is replaced by asymmetry.” I would predict that the influence of the “force of observation” disguises from view the reality that everything is indeed symmetric as well as symmetrically related and that any asymmetry as perceived is a result of this “force” influencing conclusions and altering the reality of things from view ( “the hidden supersymmetric law of nature”) . Furthermore, I would say that this same force of observation (inferior) is what disguises the reality that; all things are symmetric and symmetrically related as a result of existing within a recursive system, where a/the symmetry existing on the surface is supersymmetrically represented through the recursive matrix as either larger or smaller relative to observers and measurers. ( Note: How the whole of the information is percieved is related to how far a particular stage is from this surface as either expanded or contracted relative to an observer existing in the system.) A relative observer, as existing in this system, is looking through these recursive stages (from their own stage or membrane, either toward the past or toward the future, or in the present- viewing the sum of the symmetries represented on their layer of recursion), and as well looking at either small or large portions of it, and therefore the true symmetry dwelling on the surface, and although communicated exactly the same throughout the recursive stages, is considerately being observed in parts and from many directions and from many different distances. Because of this physical/visual and intellectual constraint the true symmetric/supersymmetric relationships are hidden from view. ( Translation: We are trapped on a particular layer(stage of recursion) and looking through the phase space to/through other layers, but not able to dwell on those separate membranes of information. This means that we are “not able to travel back in the past or toward the future.' ) The overall theme of my theorem will seek to prove this is true as well demonstrate how to heighten our ability to realize both the symmetric and supersymmetric relationships. I will be providing pictures and illustrations to depict what I said in the former paragraph.. latter on . As well, I will show powerful axioms and proofs to define a new “special” rotational symmetry as expressing these symmetric and supersymmetric relationships, and as existing all around us and that can be both observed and measured. Note: ' Physicists believe that particle“antiparticle pairs behave symmetrically, like mirror reflections of each other (mirror-reflection symmetry). In 1964 at Doe's Brookhaven Laboratory, when a slight but definite asymmetry between a subatomic particle and its antiparticle was noted, physicists saw the breaking of symmetry in nature. It was time to ask why.” This supposed “asymmetry or symmetry breaking” is once again a product of perception and is an implicit result of the powers of observation as part of the experiment. Acme: There is one problem with your experiment. You stated that the measurement of the block was 10 cm and then deduced that the reflection was approximately 75% of this true measurement. However, (and one of the very significant things about what I am explaining) you altered your experiment, as well as interfered with the proper conclusion. Can you discern how? It has something to to with the location of the camera lens as opposed to the distance measurement you took between the real object and the reflected one. Actually, you introduced a 3rd vector which altered the experiment. Since it was the camera( and the location from where the picture was taken) that altered your measurement (thus the true mathematical phenomenon as being witnessed was lost) I will save the desire I have to speak on the human eye- as always a third vector relative to experiments and thus as altering ones view from correct conslussions. The eye is predominately responsible for altering our understanding of the true symmetric and supersymmetric relationships. Before I help you calibrate the experiment I will wait to see if you understand where the problem arises and if you can figure out what went wrong.(Hint: “I took a photograph”-...You measured by 'holding your rule to the mirror'..yet, you observed from a camera that was farther from this point of measurement.) We are conducting the experiment on a surface plane of reflection thus having monocular vision impairment will not at all effect your ability to conduct this particular experiment. As well you took a picture, thus any 3-dimensional abilities are not necessary as you can still 'measure' the system accurately. (Where lessened depth perception will not influence your measurements of the system) As well, when you refer to the shift of the rule relative to the slightest change of your eye while measuring, this is a natural consequence of the power of observation as able to alter experiments with the slightest movement or change. I have devised many methods to maintain the system as still as possible so that both the observations and measurements accurately represent the mathematical and scientific “proofs.” This is why taking pictures where they are supposed to be taken are significant and thus requires a conscientious effort. Mordred: When my model is fully described we will come to see that every minuscule reflected point as well all colossal reflected points (universe) are all reflections of each other (recursion) and as originating from, and as self replicating, the information residing on the horizon. I am saying that the entire universe, as regards the sum of its symmetric information, can be observed and measured as existing samely in points no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. We can imagine that the universe represents the reflected block that acme measured. We can postulate that when he introduces another mirror, and if we could measure a stage of recursion many trillions of trillions of trillions of stages beyond this universe-(block )- (surface reflection), that this same universe of information will be discovered as existing within microscopic point(s). I am saying that recursion not only replicates a 'surface' body of information, but as well contracts this information the farther from this surface. (This contraction represents a certain rate that is mathematically described). This means that every stage of reflection represents the entirety of the information on the surface to each perspective stage in the recursion. How we observe this information as well as the volume of this information that we do or can measure relative to any experiment, determines not only how we perceive it, but as well how we define it mathematically. At the present time our paradigm of mathematics, derived from an inferior vantage point and intellectual awareness, determines the difference between seeing asymmetry or symmetry (and writing equations to describe it) as opposed to the real supersymmtric reality (the absence of effective equations to describe it.) Again, we need a new mathematical language that can make it possible to “step outside the matrix” and thus view the system and extract the principles as if we were a camera outside the mirror taking pictures and measurements, verses dwelling within the system and not realizing the recursive mechanism that drives and defines the relationships.. Strange. “Because, of course, if you had placed it next to the reflected image (e.g. by placing it next to the original cube) then both cubes would be the same size.” This is a matter of perspective that is moreso dictated not by how close the block is to the mirror but how far your eye is from both the mirror and the real block. The size of both blocks will change , despite that they are only separated by a Planks length-(= the principle of reflection), relative to how far you and your eye is from the two blocks. Yes! I refer to the Planks length as the thin surface of a horizon that reflects invisible energy. More explicitly I am proposing that the only separation between real energy and mass is the thin principle/property of reflection. The farther away a recursive stage is from this thin reflective surface the farther they are away from the 'Plank.' Note: “The Planck length is the length scale at which the structure of spacetime becomes dominated by quantum effects, and it is impossible to determine the difference between two locations less than one Planck length apart.” Simple analogy: The structures (reflected mass of energy) existing on the surface of reflection, as well as all virtual recursive aspects of this surface information (fractaling of this same energy information) are birthed due to a thin principle of reflection(the Planks length)- relative to Dark Energy. The Planks length is defining the surface of a dark matter reflective medium. If you place the real block to where it touches this 'skin of reflection' it will be “impossible to determine the difference between to locations. However, if you move the real block away from touching the point of the mirror, then, due to the distance between the two (½ real and 1.2 virtual reflected distance) you can discern the difference(s). If all mass, existing as a result of a surface reflection and recursion, were to go beyond this thin demarcation then we could say that no mass would be observed any longer, as the real block is no longer in relativity to the mirror(or mirrors). Thus, beyond this thin property of reflection, or: outside of this reflective horizon, would be where the quantum block returns to itself and where it no longer reflects itself. The quantum particle will no longer be ½ the symmetry of the whole of the symmetry existing between it and its reflection. It will no longer reflect and represent only the 'symmetry' or condition of itself. Acme: Yes the video camera facing a screen is the same. Yet! I will say that doing things in this manner(video to screen) is more efficient in seeing the relationships I will define. I have a few videos on YouTube showing these things. I will not introduce those videos until The appropriate time. From this point forward , aside from necessary responses, I will focus on the things I wish to present in harmony with the purpose of this thread. I assure all who are involved that I am giving my undivided attention to everything that is stated in the room and will for the most part try to gear my theorem to a necessary degree to both respond to challenges as well stay on point.