If one wants to go to the stars; if one wants to understand the depths of the spirit, then take notice of what is said here, (see appendixes for much of this discussion), but, furthermore, one must also oppose the empire,
because one will be deceived and deluded by both the empire’s truths, and the empire’s institutional truths,

[relative partitioning of content in paper: p6 for 1st math and physics stuff; 24-25 more cultural stuff; 28-30 more cultural stuff; 35-39 more cultural stuff; p39 appendix I; p46 appendix II]
where the empire's institutional truths are also organized and developed so as to try to deceive and delude the public,
it is all about the empire’s ruling-class getting the public to believe in the inequality of the empire’s institutional expression of inequality, which, in turn, depends on the empire’s institutional truths being limited, partial-truths, and these limited partial truths being expressed as dominant authoritative and dogmatic truths by the empire’s institutional personnel,
but rather people can “uncover truth” based on their own rational and critical analysis, and to creatively build (or express) what they conceive as truth, but such an honest effort has to be done off-the-grid,

To try to break apart from the violent, coercive, and oppressive social structures of modern society, which has had (or been in) the same oppressive arbitrarily hierarchical social structure of social power for over 5000 years, eg ever since Sumer (the proclaimed to be the first historic civilization), where this same arbitrary hierarchical organization of social power…;
which is true for nearly all the different countries of the world, which all have an imperial organization of social power, where all societies are arbitrary social hierarchies;
…, which were developed, and then maintained by violence and coercion,
almost all large societies on earth are
also (held together ) by the ruling few, who are (also) controlling how language is used, and what the language means, ie by controlling a propaganda-education-moralization-cheer-leading-for-arbitrary-high-value-secret-police-state system of coercion and propagandistic persuasion,
where one, living in the empire, must be in an allowed productive or social processing imperial institution and use the language which is required of the institution in order to make a living wage, so as to survive within the society, where the society is partitioned into institutional hierarchies, of different categories of production or social processes but which are all tied to some aspect of the material-world so that the partition can be strategically made by means of property rights and the right of the ruling-investor-class to control how language is used in society’s creatively productive institutions, where this is all organized so as to only serve the interests of the ruling-investor-class, that is, it is a collectively organized, and centrally planned society, but this is because the ruling-class is at war with both the public as well as the rest of the world and this means that the central planning is done so as to be oppressive toward the public (ie it is not centrally planned so that the society is organized to be for the public good), where the main point (or main idea) that the empire’s highly controlled communication system puts forth…, beyond fear and coercion…, is that people are not equal,
The many nations are all tyrannical empires, where (today) the ruling-investor-class is at war with the entire world, and where the big investment structures (of the ruling-investor-class), into resources and production, identify the aspects of the material world around which the empire’s military actions are determined,
The empire’s justice system is based on property rights, and protecting the king’s English, ie control over the language people use, are used to attack the public,
that is, control over the language people use, especially, in regard to the public expression of ideas, and in regard to the “knowledgeable language structures,” which are used in the empire’s knowledgeable productive institutions, eg copyrights and patents, which are, essentially, only about institutional investments and institutional control over thought, it is not about creativity, and, subsequently, making money from one’s creativity,
making money from new ideas depends on how the ideas fit into the already existing investment structures, which means that they are “new ideas” only in the most narrow sense of the word new,
rather copyrights are used to classify, by author, the ideas which are expressed, so that some authors are not allowed into the market,
while the, so called, “market place of ideas” is carefully controlled by institutional managers, using the communication channels of the secret-police, (eg look at the institutional structure of internet censorship)
where the attacks on the public by the justice system are based-on property rights, inequality, and duplicitous actions, the justice system is mainly used to attack the public, so as to exclude all but a very few from the public whom try to reach the top of the empire’s limited and dogmatic institutions,
those who make money through the empire’s allowed institutions express their superiority over the public,
it should be noted that the ruling-class and their “top” institutional personnel are engaged in the worst criminal acts, when compared to the oppressively confined actions of everyone else in the society, nonetheless, the imperial justice system attacks the public as the main sources of crime within the empire,
it is forever a deception for the people whose lives are lived in the empire’s carefully crafted illusions of high-value and inequality, which are carefully crafted illusions made by the empire’s propaganda-education-moralization communication system,
where a person tries to prove their own high-value, so as to try to get a position in the high-valued, and also highly moral imperial (or arbitrarily hierarchical) institutions, where being moral means being in an institution and being free from attack by the empire’s violent agents, where all of the empire’s institutions only serve the interests of the ruling-class, a person has value within the empire if they express ideas which are consistent with the empire’s limited (and failed) institutional dogmas,
where the relation of the public striving to be in the empire’s institutions…, which define an arbitrary narrow list of high-valued actions…, over and above their fellow members of the public, is the main cause (or defines the social structure) for the structure of class warfare,

that is, the society is organized as a collectivist…, and centrally planned…, society, an arbitrarily hierarchical society, where the society and actions within the society are planed by the very few at the top of the ruling-investor-class,
eg the banks owners; very rich individuals; and very big (oil and military) companies,

where in this society the public seeks to be the high-valued personnel within the imperial and mostly failed institutions, which, nonetheless, collectively support the ruling-class, if the arts are too critical of the empire’s social structures they will lose their institutional positions, on the other hand the arts are used to hypnotize and distract the public, ie the essential message of the arts is that, “here is some interesting structure of a careful effort, which creates an illusion and which is expressed over the empire’s communication channels,”
To oppose the arbitrary paternalistic authoritarian social hierarchy of military violence….,
where the militaristic violence is organized around the material-world, and the related expert knowledge about the material-world, namely, weapons and communication system instruments, which are primarily used by the empire’s secret-police-state institutional personnel,
…, then (other than systematic and relentless violence, coercion, and fear applied by the ruling-class to the public and to the entire world) one must oppose its two central (intellectual) “truths:” materialism and inequality,

And this can be done with new ideas about math and physics, where the new measurable description about existence contains the idea of materialism as a proper subset, and it provides more details for the material-world’s processes of interaction and change than the empire’s physics and math institutions give, but it also extends the descriptive range of physics and math so as to include the very large set of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems which exist at all size-scales, but furthermore it carefully examines the idea of stable math patterns, which it both adjusts and uses the new ideas about stable math patterns to reduce the need for empiricism and it extends the new descriptive set of math patterns so as to elucidate the relation of the material-world to the world of higher-dimensional containment (ie containment of (all) existence) where such higher-dimensional models of existence are excluded by the imperial assumption of materialism, but in higher-dimension the material-world and the living-world and the spiritual world are all unified in regard to the higher-dimensional descriptive context of containment and (metric-invariant) mapping to a system’s measurable-properties and the image-set of the maps all having the same property of stable being parallelizable coordinate-shapes, ie the containment coordinates; the image set; and the metric-invariant maps; all being geometrically similar coordinate-shapes, where this rather simple math structure is quite wide ranging as to its ability to measurably describe the stable properties of all of existence this is a math structure which is consistent with physics; the cosmology of the ancient Mayan culture, as expressed by C Castaneda in his book “Fire from Within;” and it is a math structure which is consistent with the idea, expressed by many ancient cultures, that human-beings are the star people, ie people belong to the distant stars, these new set of stable math patterns, which are really, only slight adjustments to the set of stable math patterns expressed by W Thurston, and the notion of separate-ability associated to solvable inertial pde-models, are also about the human memory of the knowledge about the totality of being a (complete) human being, where this is a human-being with an immense amount of personal power, which one has if one can master one’s own self-knowledge, and a subsequent relation to having the personal-power to create new patterns within the picture of existence which the new set of stable math patterns provides to the knowledge about existence and human being place within existence, one does not have to whine about, and/or protest the barbaric actions of the empire, instead one can engage in practical creative activities, which are about knowledge which is superior to (and well beyond) the knowledge of the empire, and so it is beyond the control of the empire, so the empire loses its control over truth and the incorrect idea about (human) inequality, but the real problem has to do with what is explained in C Castaneda’s books (about the ancient Mayan culture) namely, that a high-dimensional life-form has attacked earth and has controlled people by being able to control the memories of people, ie memories about the totality of their actual high-dimensional life-structure in a higher-dimensional existence, where this has led the selfish murderous people to have an opportunity to become socially dominant by using violence and deception so as to regiment the lives of the people on earth, where this social regimentation aids the high-dimensional life-forms which have attacked human-beings on earth,

other than the, so called, trade-secrets, the words which are used in the empire, eg in the empire’s high-valued institutions, are all closer to being nonsense than their fixed dogmatic claims being true, though it may be required that the public carefully state that the empire’s high-valued institutional truths are “great truths,”
nonetheless, they are, in fact, all a bunch of nonsense, so as to be without any meaning, eg the noble words of: physics, math, spirituality, morality, law, are all words whose main purpose, in the empire, is to deceive and confuse the public, the law in the US is English common law which means that the justice system’s duty is to both protect the king’s property, and to protect the king’s English, ie words only mean that which the king says the words mean,
in the empire, except for commercial trade-secrets (ie the king‘s secrets), any high-social-and-cultural-value…, which is different from violence and coercion…, is an illusion, and/or a deception, eg physics and math are too narrow to be taken seriously,

The (main) weakness of this system is its institutional knowledge, where the empire’s main intellectual institutions, which are supposed to be about civil, rational discourse, and they are not supposed to be based on fixed, failed dogmas and, subsequently, where the discourse is about the opinions of the authorities, which, in turn, are about how to maintain the dogmas, and, yet still try to extend the descriptive structures of the dogma, even though the descriptive range of the dogma is not expanded, so the fixed dogmas and the narrow limited authoritative opinions identify an institutional social context which is coercive and violent, it is not a civil discourse, and where the language and implication of this institutional social structure is about the superior intelligence, of the dogmatically authoritarian “top” institutional personnel,
which, nonetheless, this supreme intelligence is still (are) narrowly fixed in their limited and failed dogmas, where for the empire’s math and physics institutions,
the descriptive range of the formulated and solved set of physical systems is some 1-body systems, which are in center-of-mass coordinates, and these 1-body systems are usually with spherically symmetric coordinates,
where this insistence on failed dogmas and its narrow context of measurable descriptions makes these institutions as coercive and violent as any of the other imperial-serving institutions,
eg it is no different than the violence implied by the socially acceptable institutional viewpoint of paternalistic sexism, implied by dogmatic authoritarian arbitrarily hierarchical institutional structures,
the institutions with the most foundational knowledge…, in regard to practical development of new inventions…, are the empire’s physics and math institutions, which are the most noticeably failed institutions, namely, they only describe 1-body systems; but cannot describe the stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems which exist for all size-scales, where the property of stability means that such stable MBFC-systems can be described by some stable math pattern,
but where
if the empire’s math and physics institutions actually developed new knowledge, then this could lead to new invention, and then to new production, where new competing products could de-stabilize the existing investment structures of the ruling-class,

But /and (in the imperial society’s deceptive institutional structures)
there are two “opposite” institutional factions: one of which is delusional-ly intellectually arrogant (the intellectual authoritarians) and the other is delusional-ly violently arrogant (the authoritarian moralistically violent institutions),
since the ruling-class is at war with the entire world, and (according to the Chinese military book, “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu) the main activity in military actions is to deceive and confuse the enemy,
so there is a great example of deception which has led to a central conflict within society where the conflict is about a grand illusion,
(1) the intellectuals, who seem to be unaware that the society already is collectivist, and they also deeply believe in the illusionary high-value of the empire’s intellectual-institutions, and they claim (in a misplaced defiant context) to deeply believe in a collectivist, centrally planned (or centrally controlled) society, which they delusional-ly seem to believe “that a collectivist, centrally planned society does not already exist,” and/but, apparently, they also want a (or for their) “new” collectivist society to continue to follow the high-intellectual value of the empire’s already existing intellectual institutions, so the only things (intellectual knowledge) which can exist in the new society are the same intellectual knowledge, which is already being used in the same intellectual institutions as the empire’s institutions, and thus, the same types of products…, as were being produced by the old empire (mainly weapons and oil)…, are also to be produced by the new society, so how they can balance maintaining the same knowledge base with a new ideas about protecting the earth’s environment is unknown,
so it would only be the same empire, but with new bosses,
the new bosses are the same hierarchical and arbitrarily intellectually-arrogant type of people as the old bosses,
however, since the new bosses, apparently, believe in the same high-value as the empire’s old ruling-class also believed, and thus, the new bosses would soon have to learn to be as violent as the old bosses, since the belief in the same arbitrary high-value (as the old empire believed in) must be upheld by violence,
(2) the other faction are the agents of imperial violence, who (also) delusional-ly claim to oppose the society from forming into a collectivist and centrally planed society,
that is what the social structure of the empire already is,
Thus, they (the empire’s agents of imperial violence) are really using violence to maintain a collectivist centrally planned society, though the agents of imperial violence often claim that they are for individual freedom but they are always susceptible to some regimented command structure,
they are not individualist entities, rather they are socialized to be collectivist social entities, who are the empire‘s violent agents,

thus, the two deluded opposing factions are fighting to achieve for society; what is the opposite of what they claim to be fighting for,
namely, both factions are…, in their deluded beliefs…, fighting so that the empire is to be maintained as a violent arbitrary social hierarchy, wherein the institutional imperial knowledge of the society keeps its same form, where that form of knowledge is mostly about developing weapons, where the violent arbitrary social hierarchy is also still a collectivist and centrally planned society, which is marketed as a society for individual freedom, but only the oppressors are allowed to have any freedom, and they seem to always define their own freedom; “to be the freedom to oppress others,”
the intellectual-class want the intellectual-class in charge,
the active agents of imperial violence are the same type of person as the ruling-investor-class, but who do not care about what the words, which they use, actually, mean, in regard to what they claim to be fighting for, since in such a violent society the words will mean whatever the king (or the ruling-investor-class) proclaims the words to mean, so this means that it does not matter if they are fighting for an illusion,
thus, they (the agents of imperial violence) are the same type action personalities as the murderous aristocracy, whom are the subjects of Shakespeare’s histories of the English kings, ie people who simply want to control the power of the empire, the violent agents of social power,

Note that
The empire causes human behavior to be: amoral (the empire is an oppressive state, so serving the empire is a “moral” issue), deluded, dishonest, and opportunistic,

whereas human nature is really: gentle, curious, daring, and creative, and in this alternative context of “what a human being is,” then (or thus) law needs to be based on people being equal, equal individual freedom,
in particular, using equal free inquiry, in regard to developing new knowledge, and creating new practically applicable inventions,
which are often to be made and traded,
(equal) in regard to a narrow material-based range of allowed life-styles, which the society owes to its equal and creative public,
where individual people, in a detached manner, gently help their fellow human beings,

where the allowed range of material-use is to be related to the precautionary principle, ie if using this much material is harming the earth’s biological systems then do something else,
which is the type of precautionary behavior which is needed to have an abundant earth,
people need to have the confidence that humans can always create other things, or other processes, associated to a particular life style, which, in turn, might be related to a limited resource or to a toxic resource,

The real issue, in regard to how to resist, destabilize, and change the empire, is about the context of the truth of the imperial math and physics institutions, where the types of truths which the imperial physics and math institutions put-forth need to be considered, in turn, in regard to how they affect the empire’s many other institutions,
mainly both science and religious imperial (institutional) truths,

physics does not need to be based on the idea of materialism…,
ie the descriptive context is always fundamentally reduced to a material world property, this is true: of quantum physics; of particle-physics; and string-theory; and “general relativity is only allowed to exist in its ineffective (or limited narrow descriptive context of a) 1-body coordinate-structure,” which is (partly) how general relativity size-cut-offs are manifested in string-theory, ie namely; the black-hole cut-off for the small size-scales of string-theory,
…., and which is usually (almost always) associated to measuring,
if this is true, ie science is about the material world and religion is about the spirit,
if physics can present a model of existence which does not depend on the idea of materialism as its fundamental default context, then religions would need to change their stories,

but this change would be difficult to realize in the empire’s already existing language constructs, which exist in the empire’s propaganda-education-moralization communication system,

so this type of a change in an imperial physics institution is not going to happen,

But the empire needs to give some technical descriptive context, so as to make their, so called, far-off possibilities seem accessible, eg clean cheap fusion energy, the possibility of using parallel processing based-on quantum computing, in turn, based-on an unmeasured context of a super-position of quantum-states being acted upon by a (supposedly) causal energy-operator, but the problem is, “when will wave-function-collapse occur?” but more fundamentally, “what realistic quantum-system has actually been solved, so the super-posed wave-function is, actually, known?”

All about physics and math

in physics and math it is desired that there be measurable descriptions (or actual predictions) based-on stable math patterns of models of measurable system properties, and it is desired that the same type of such a stable math pattern be used for a very wide range of different types of systems, ie the measurable descriptions (or predictions) are about finding stable math patterns which can be used to reduce empiricism for a very wide range of different physical systems, ie reduce the need to measure a set of systems properties,
the new descriptive language construct is to be about an objective world which is non-local, and the new non-localness is a new type of model for non-localness, which is not to be related to the quantum-physics type descriptions of non-localness,
And (for a descriptive context which can de-stabilize the empire’s math and physics institutions)
then the stable math pattern for an objective existence is about stable regionally unified coordinate-shapes, where this is needed for measurable descriptions (predictions of system properties) of:
nuclei, atoms, molecules, catalytic-chemistry, crystals, life-forms, the solar-system, and the galaxies,
all of these (listed) stable systems need a regionally unified descriptive context, in order to measurably describe these systems’ set of stable spectral-orbital properties, and the ability of some of these systems to perform unified-system processes, eg chemical-catalysts or in a life-form,
the imperial physics and math institutions only identify a very narrow context for describing stable predictable physical system properties, namely, the set of some 1-body (in center-of-mass coordinates) interactive systems,
subsequently, the set of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems (listed above) goes without any meaningful description,
this limitations is due to the fact that the empire’s math and physics institutions insist that all physically measurable descriptions be based-on inertial pde-models of either forceful or confined types of material-interactions, but which can only be formulated and solved for some 1-body systems,
the systems for quantum systems are very few in number, and they are also the 1-body type systems,
the ideas…, which can be used to measurably describe the observed properties of the large set of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems…, include expanding the system-containment set to include the metric-spaces of both Euclidean space and space-time spaces, or, equivalently, hyperbolic metric-spaces,
whereas the inertial pde-model is stuck in both the idea of continuity and the set of parallelizable coordinate-shapes, which are associated to Euclidean space, which allows for a descriptive range of only some 1-body systems,
But (how to expand the descriptive range of physics)
where the parallelizable coordinate-shapes are to be the containment-coordinate-sets for stable systems, and there is a related set of the types of metric-invariant maps, which can be used to identify a stable MBFC-system’s set of stable spectral-orbital properties, namely, the set of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, which are contained in hyperbolic metric-spaces, and which are stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes, and the metric-invariant maps are also (in the new description) discrete maps, ie in the new description the processes of change in physical systems are discrete, and this is the property which has confused the quantum physicists, and led them astray,
This simple context of extending the description to the set of parallelizable coordinate-shapes which are the natural stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes in a hyperbolic metric-space, namely, the particular types of very stable MTC-coordinate-shapes which exist in hyperbolic metric-spaces, is a descriptive context which super-cedes both general relativity and quantum physics,

Amongst other things quantum physics is solving the problem of atoms where charged components (according to classical description) are continuous position-motion properties which must exist in a system contained in a coordinate-frame which is in a bounded region, ie the system-component’s coordinate-shape must be a bounded region of space but classically this cannot be reconciled, since such bounded and moving charged components would radiate, and thus, their energy of motion would dissipate and the atom’s charged components would collapse into a charged pudding (where outside of the pudding perhaps the context would be charge-neutral (?)),
through collision-measuring probes into the atom, it is known (hypothesized) that the charged-components in an atom are separated into a positive central nucleus, and a negative charge orbital structure, with electrons, apparently, occupying discretely separated orbit-like energy-levels,
the quantum physics solution is to place the mathematical descriptive context deeply into a very narrow and limited (probabilistic) empirical model, which is also associated to an inertial pde-model of probability, whose solution-functions are interpreted to be associated standing-inertial-waves of a (the) quantum system, and, subsequently, to proclaim that any measurable (or mathematically modeled) properties of either component position, or component-motions, disappear into a probability context in which inertial-waves defining (in the quantum-system’s containing coordinate-space) a cloud of electrons, which do not occupy any particular energy-level until they are locally measured by means of a point-particle collision, at which time the electron-cloud collapses,
it is this electron-cloud with its assumed non-local relations, where the non-local relations are associated to the particular type of collision-based measuring process, which is supposed to be accessible to a computing process,
their understanding of the superposition state is limited to an empirical context, which, in turn, collapses the electron-cloud superposition-state of an atom,
furthermore, this context can only be defined for a 1-body system (or 2-body system in center-of-mass spherical coordinates) due to the description’s relation to inertial pde-models of the inertial-standing-waves or probability waves, which, in turn, are mathematically modeled to be independent functions (associated to each of the different and measurable energy-levels) of a function-space,
where each function in the function-space has its own coordinate domain space, which is either an independent box or an independent circle, and it is assumed that there are an infinite number of these functions,
But there is a problem in that the function-space is infinite dimensional, but the context of the domain space for the functions is supposed to identify the coordinate-context into which the measured state collapses, but where the emphasis is on the functions in the function-space, but considering these independent function’s independent domain-space math structures, where and how are these domain spaces to manifest?
especially, since the inertial pde-model relates the solution-functions to their domain coordinate-containment spaces, where solutions can only be found for 1-body systems, and where it is easiest to consider that the quantum system is bounded and that each solution-function is associated to its own independent circle (or pairs of circles, or tori), but this would define an infinite-dimensional coordinate-space, but there is also the 1-body rigid-body rotating system which is assumed to be related to a 2-sphere coordinate-shape and to a function-space Lie group representation associated to the 2-sphere coordinate-shape, where a group representation defines a metric-invariant map acting locally on a coordinate-shape’s tangent-space, ie the set of locally measurable properties, but coordinate-shapes need to be related to subgroup orbits in the fiber Lie group of metric-invariant-maps, where for Lie groups and their maximal torus subgroups this is about maps on toral coordinate-shapes,
in a context, in which the properties of a probability containment assumption cause any coordinate-shape to dissipate then how does the quantum system of an atom miraculously maintain its angular-momentum relation to a coordinate-shape which does not even reflect the probabilistic descriptive context of an electron-cloud?
The entire descriptive structure of quantum-physics is a patchwork of either contradictory, or inconsistent, math structures, which are arbitrarily brought to bear on the different empirical contexts, as they are needed for some vague descriptive story,
it is a story which is mired in narrow empirical models, and it provides no insight into the context of observed stable patterns measured for the set of MBFC-spectral-orbital systems of the nuclei, atom, molecule, catalytic-chemical, periodic crystalline structures of condensed material, life-forms, solar-systems and galaxy type stable system structures,
only the descriptive range of some 1-body systems and 2-body orbital-or-collision systems, a fairly significant description of statistically based closed bounded thermal systems, and furthermore the critical points of non-linear and/or non-commutative inertial-pde-model of system-component interactions provide a context for limit-cycles ie the more likely regions of the containing-coordinate-space where the pde-model becomes unstable, so as to be able to design some feedback-systems, as well as the node and loop models of electric-circuits with active and passive electric circuit components, and, subsequent, models for electric-circuit properties,
otherwise the descriptive context for the above list of very fundamental stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems, where math patterns are, supposedly, being applied to physical description so as to provide a set of stable math patterns, which, in turn, can be used to reduce empiricism for a wide range of systems;
But it is a context which is mired in empiricism, and the math structures which are being used are quantitatively inconsistent, and hence, cannot be used to describe a stable pattern,
And (to clarify what quantitative inconsistency is all about)
Consider that the quantitatively inconsistent math patterns, that is, both non-linear pde’s, and math contexts which are related to non-commutative math relationships which exist somewhere in a description, which, in turn, is contained in coordinate-spaces; where both non-linear pde’s and non-commutative contexts, are math properties, which, in turn, lead to no uniform unit of measurement being defined; and discontinuities for the quantitative sets, eg coordinate-spaces, within which the description is supposed to be contained; and there is many-valued-ness for the maps, which are supposed to define the system properties,
thus, the descriptions which are based on quantitative inconsistency, in turn, are: unstable, fleeting, and dissipative quasi-stable-math-patterns, types of descriptions, that is, both math and physics descriptions are placing the descriptive contexts into a narrow limited descriptive setting, which is mostly an empirical setting and there is not an effort to try to consider other stable math patterns in order to expand the descriptive range in regard to using math models to describe the set of stable measurable properties of stable physical systems, where this is papered-over by appealing to an belief in elitism and a belief in the high-value of the empire’s institutions eg in physics and math institutions, wherein the propaganda-education-moralization-secret-police-state system’s carefully crafted propagandized image has been presented (and with the pre-required opposition, eg the empire‘s secret-police agents of morality and violence) that the empire’s math and physics institutions have been able to filter from the (lowly) public the very brightest of all the people in the empire, so as to be in the empire’s physics and math institutions, which is a propaganda ploy of undefined high-value of a personal-property of intelligence, ie God-given intelligence (eg equivalent to a similar institutionally defined god-given talent to play football), where the best definition of intelligence would (might) be a person who can discern truth, but the empire’s physics and math institutions are filled with people who are faithfully obedient to authoritarian fixed dogmatic models of descriptive thought they are people who seek authoritarian social positions, in regard to intellectual domination within the society’s institutions, the authoritarian imperialists those willing to have their authority and social be based on violence, eg they do not question if their math constructs are quantitatively inconsistent or not,
they do not consider if the large set of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems of all size-scales can be described or not;
they simply take the words (or the opinions) of the institutional authorities about these matters, but where the institutional authorities, in turn, are more concerned with intellectual domination than in an attempt to discern truth,

There is a patchwork of descriptive math properties such as: probabilistic math properties, and interpretative properties, which are as much about assumptions as they are about description, where this can be said because the descriptive range of quantum physics is so very limited, ie three systems, and coordinate-properties, where the three formulate-able and solvable quantum systems are descriptions based-on coordinates, and then the model for measuring quantum systems by local measurements which are realized by point-particle collisions, has a very large influence on the entire descriptive structure of quantum physics, since local particle-collisions will destroy any relation and occupying component might have to a description based-on a coordinate-shape, but where measuring is supposed to be used to see if the description is correct, but (because a point-particle-collision (or a billiard-ball type collision) can cause a quantum-system’s component to radiate an E&M-wave) it really can only provide a list of energy-levels which a component of a quantum-system might occupy, thus, the model of measuring turns… the activity of describing and measuring a component’s properties of components in a quantum system…, into a black-box, which is only relatable to a vague local context, ie and without a relation to coordinate-shapes, and which is related to a long empirical list of a quantum system’s energy-levels,
But where the vague relation of the black-box of point-particle-collisions and their scattering patterns of stable and unstable point-particle quantum-components which emerge from the site of the point-particle-collision is given an exclusively local descriptive context, namely, a local internal-particle-state context, which is used to identify the components which emerge from the collision-site, a black-box which an have local structure but it cannot have any regional coordinate-structure, where this is used to describe the dynamics and change of internal particle-states of the collision at the point of the collision, it is information about a 1-body system ie a 2-body collision described in center-of-mass coordinates which are assumed to have spherical symmetry, but this is a quantitatively inconsistent descriptive context, which can only be relevant to the empirical information which emerges from the collision-point, and though it claims to provide the, so called, secrets about nuclear forces, nonetheless the descriptive capability of this black-box, and strictly empirical, set of relations, and which are quantitatively inconsistent, namely, where the inertial-pde-model of the collision and the emerging components from the collision, is both non-linear and fundamentally non-commutative thus it is a descriptive context which is exclusively local and it has no relation to any regionally unified stable coordinate-shapes so the model of the point-particle collision’s set of scattering-patterns cannot be related to a regionally unified model of a nucleus, but this is exactly what is needed for a stable nucleus, ie the stability of the nucleus means that it is measurably and precisely relate-able to some stable math pattern,
and such a stable math pattern is always going to be hidden by a local measuring process which is based-on a point-particle-collision, where the measuring (or collision) process destroys the quantitative structures of the coordinate-description of the regionally unified model of a nucleus,
and such a stable math pattern is never going to have its subtle quantitative properties measured by a local measurement, which, in turn, is based-on a model of a point-particle collision, where the measuring by collision process destroys the quantitative structures of the coordinate-description of the regionally unified model of a nucleus,
But, in quantum physics, there are so few coordinate-descriptions, the box and the spherical coordinates, where the box is determinable from the geometry of the (classically thermal) system,
the spherical coordinate-shape is determined for the inertial-pde-model of the H-atom which is assumed to be a pair of oppositely charged interacting quantum-components in an orbital structure which assumes the center-of-mass coordinates are spherically symmetric (the same assumptions which Newton made for planetary-orbits) but the inertial-pde-model can only be separated into a radial-ODE, and an inertial-pde-model defined for the 2-sphere, ie spherical coordinates are not parallelizable, furthermore, the solution-function to the (partially separated spherical coordinate’s) radial equation diverges, but the resulting 2-sphere is dealt with as a rotating rigid-body, and the resulting solution-functions to the 2-sphere’s inertial-pde for the inter-related longitudinal and latitudinal spherical coordinates identify a discrete function-space representation of a Lie group, which is associated to the 2-sphere coordinates, which, in turn, are interpreted as discrete angular-momentum-states for the H-atom’s electron component,

this is likely not the best way to think of the coordinate-structure of a MBFC-spectral quantum system,

Yet, as soon as one says this, then the authoritative chorus is that there cannot be any coordinate-structure for a quantum-system, because the quantum systems have been assumed to be a fundamentally random structure for the quantum system’s components,
but arbitrarily an exception is made for spherical coordinates for which it is claimed that the local measuring by collision verifies the angular-momentum properties,
but of course this is about selective gathering data and selectively interpreting the collision-determined data, for external particles colliding with an H-atom,
whereas the coordinate-structure for a general MBFC-spectral atom is most naturally (in space-time coordinates) the set of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, whose toral-components are directly related to maximal-tori in the fiber Lie group,
but the authoritarian context of the imperial institutional structure of math and physics institutions is brought forth, so as to exclude any such a mathematical comment about a nuclei‘s coordinate-shape, the most likely reason for the authoritarian exclusion of new ideas is that such a coordinate-shape cannot be made of a (or found from a) solution-function to an inertial pde-model of an assumed probability-wave type description of a quantum system, eg a nuclei, and its (probabilistic) component-properties,
thus, the main context of quantum description is about the dominant influence of the math of probabilities of components, where, in turn, the point-particle components fill-up (or occupy) the list of empirically determined energy-levels,
the set of assumptions which are associated to both the local measuring by point-particle-collisions and the very limited set of descriptions of quantum systems, within a context of probability-related inertial-standing-wave solutions of a quantum system’s inertial pde-model, results in the main descriptive context of quantum physics is the context of empiricism,
especially, since under the context of authoritative sets of assumptions and a limited set of empirical data which can be gathered from local particle-collision type measuring processes, there are, essentially, no quantum systems on the list of quantum-describable probability systems, ie three such descriptions of quantum systems is not a valid list,
But there are alternative math models (but) which only exist outside of the empire‘s physics and math institutions,
in fact, there are models of non-local processes of material interactions and the discrete structures are the maps defined between both the different toral-components of a MTC-coordinate-shape and between the maximal-tori in the fiber Lie group for a description of a stable MBFC-spectral-orbital system and there are discrete maps defined between different types of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes which can emerge from new resonances defined between both new geometric contexts and new types of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, where the new geometries (upon which new resonances can be defined) are brought about by material-interactions,
where (or that is) empiricism is given a special position in regard to measurably describing properties of quantum systems, in that measuring of quantum systems is assumed to always be local, and the model of local measuring (of a quantum-system’s properties) is assumed to only be based on collisions, so that this assumption of measuring locally, by means of using (external) particle-probes, which collide with the quantum system (for the quantum-system) whose properties one is trying to either describe, or empirically determine, excludes that there is a stable regional coordinate math descriptive structure, which can be measured by the local context of measuring (by the existence of a point-particle type collision, which is assumed to be the only way in which to measure a small component’s quantum-system properties), but such a local collision-based measurement would destroy any regional descriptive coordinate structure of which a small component might be a part,

The assumptions of quantum physics, which are guided by local measuring processes and locally measured properties, are opposed to assuming a description of a quantum system is about a regionally unified stable coordinate-shape, where the main assumption of quantum physics is that all material systems reduce to components which are point-particles, and whose properties of: position, motion, inertia, as well as charge, are quantum-component properties which are outside of the space-time continuum, and instead these properties are based-on probabilities of point-particle events, which can only be determined upon local measurement, thus, the charges which are quantum-components… in bounded charged systems with opposite-charges which are separated (a nuclei and an electron-cloud)… apparently, do not move, and they are not accelerated to maintain the property of being in a bounded material system, and thus, the quantum-charged-components do not radiate E&M-radiation, and subsequently, the quantum system does not dissipate, ie the energy-levels of the quantum-system-components are stable,
this does not account for the external properties of atoms, which are almost always about being charge-neutral,

in particular (or especially), during atomic-collisions in thermal systems, where for an atom an electron cloud surrounds a central positively charged nucleus, which when such an atom collides with another atom (where both atoms are in thermal systems) then these colliding atoms would have their charge properties re-organized, where this would be caused by colliding electron-components (when the atoms collide), so that a new (non-neutral) charge distribution would emerge from the collision, and this new charge distribution in the atom would cause an E&M-field interaction between the colliding atoms, but this is not what the evidence of atomic-collisions in thermal systems supports, where in thermal systems, which are filled with atoms the atomic collisions are seen to be between charge-neutral billiard-balls,

But such atomic properties of being charge-neutral and colliding in thermal systems with the properties of billiard-balls are consistent with a quantum system modeled to be a stable bounded MTC-coordinate-shapes and where such a coordinate-shape is a metric-space and it is a metric-space with an open-closed metric-space topology and it is a stable coordinate-shape which is a rigid-body and where the E&M-properties whose energy is low remain within the metric-space so as to be trapped in the metric-space’s open-closed topology,

instead all properties of quantum components are local and random so as to be defined only at the point of the local measuring collision process, and thus, the Lie group representation of the local tangent spaces of coordinate-shapes, but only for a particular set of (iconic) coordinate-shapes are considered, namely, the sphere and the right-rectangular faced box, so that the metric-invariant maps of a containing metric-space’s fiber Lie group are only to be defined in a local context, ie the same context in which the properties of a quantum system are assumed to be (locally) measurable;
why the sphere? an inertial pde-model defined on a sphere is only partly separable, and, the sphere is not a parallelizable coordinate shape, ie it is many-valued, and hence it is quantitatively inconsistent, and, hence, it is an unstable coordinate-shape,
that is, almost all coordinate-shapes are excluded due to the assumption of a fundamental probabilistic containment context of the point-particle-system-components, but then the probabilities are supposedly to be found from a solution to an inertial pde-model of an energy-wave-operator, which somehow confines the quantum-system’s quantum-components, so as to form into a set of standing inertial-waves, for each of the energy-levels which quantum-components can occupy, and then the quantum-system’s probabilistic wave-function is assumed to be the super-position of all of these standing-inertial-waves, and where, upon a local measuring process, one energy-level of component-occupation is non-locally singled-out (or identified), where the local measuring process is based on point-particle collisions, but of the coordinate-shapes selected so as to be related to a solution function to the quantum-system’s inertial pde-model of the quantum-system’s component-wave-confining energy-operator, is the spherically symmetric coordinate-shape, which, in turn, is associated to the point-particle potential-energy term in the energy-operator, but the spherical coordinates are unstable coordinate-shapes,
but furthermore,
the coordinate-domain spaces for the infinite set of different spectral-functions (in the infinite dimensional function-space), are not consistent with one another, that is, the coordinate-structure of the domain-containing coordinate-spaces are either boxes or circles or single-term polynomials, but these domain spaces are coordinate-structures which are (often) not consistent with a common metric-space coordinate-containing space, so this introduces a context which is both quantitative inconsistency and/or logical inconsistency,
(or that is) such inertial pde-models can only be solved for stable, parallelizable sets of coordinate-shapes, thus, there are only formulation and solutions of such quantum wave-operators for three systems, which can be associated to an actual geometric-component relationship (which is required for solving an inertial-pde-model), eg furthermore; the harmonic-oscillator depends on a quantum-microscopic spring? Which is a non-realistic quantum system: thus the three quantum systems which are solutions to inertial-pde-models of energy-wave-operators, are:
1. the free particle, which is a model which implies that the electron is not stable, and this is not true, ie the electron is stable,
2. the particle (or set of non-interacting particles) in a closed bounded box (the one system where the quantum description is significant), and
3. the H-atom a 2-body system with an orbital formulation, which, in turn, is based on spherical symmetry for center-of-mass coordinates of a 1-body system, whose inertial-pde is only partially-separable, but, furthermore, the solution-function to the radial equation diverges, and, subsequently, the angular-momentum defined for the rigid-body of a 2-sphere, and which is about a Lie group function-space representation, and which is associated to tangent-spaces defined on a sphere, where such Lie group representations allows for the quantum model of there only being local measuring descriptive relations in quantum systems,
where a group representation of a (metric-space’s fiber) Lie group is about how a metric-invariant map acts on a (local) vector-space,
the rigid-sphere is not a parallelizable coordinate-shape, so it is quantitatively inconsistent, so it dissipates,
that is, everything in quantum description is about a bunch of arbitrary assumptions, consider that most quantum systems should be about charged components in a bounded (quantum) systems, but quantum systems are almost always given an unbounded globally rectangular-coordinate-filling set of spectral function images,
Furthermore, coordinate-properties are either allowed if they provide some form of being consistent with a local model for measuring; or if the coordinate-structures associated to the inertial-pde-models do not provide a consistent relation to the local model of measuring quantum systems, then the quantum system is assumed to be probabilistic,
so that there are no coordinate-relations to be considered in quantum description, unless it is expedient (or opportunistic) to allow for a coordinate-shape to dominate some aspect of a quantum description,
because the descriptive basis is probability, and/but this means that probability can always accommodate any type of unexpected data, that is, using a probability as a basis for prediction is a self-contradictory descriptive context, since probabilities are determined in regard to an empirically determined elementary-event-space, which is full of stable well defined, and easily distinguished and hence easily counted random events, and from the elementary-event space the probabilities of random events can be determined, eg by counting events in random experiments for many such experiments,
That is, the basic logical structure of quantum physics is not about the science of physics, where physics is about observed and noting stable empirical patterns and then trying to find stable math patterns which can be used to reduce empiricism and one wants to identify the context of the stable system properties so that a few stable math patterns, placed in their correct measurably descriptive contexts can be applied to a wide-range of different systems, so as to reduce the need for empiricism in these many different systems, eg trying to measurably describe (predict before measuring) the stable spectral-orbital properties for all of the various types of stable MBFC-systems and for all types of different size-scales,
whereas probability is simply about incorporating empiricism so as to be a part of an empirically based descriptive language construct,
but probability cannot predict anything, rather it gives (or provides) probabilities of random events, (this is not a prediction),
probability simply follows empirical results, and it does not reduce the need for empiricism, the other main idea of quantum physics beyond point-particle-components of a quantum system are fundamentally random and the quantum-system components can only be measured locally, is the idea…, related to local measuring…, that the quantum-components of a quantum-system cannot be identified as being in a quantum-state until after they are locally measured to be in a particular state, thus a quantum-system is a black-box whose inner workings…----, beyond the non-existent set of formulate-able and solvable inertial-pde-models which are to describe quantum-component confinement for at best a 1-body system…, ie the quantum-system’s coordinate-properties, eg a stable coordinate-shape within which the quantum-components occupy the stable coordinate-shape’s geodesic pathways----, cannot be determined either from the quantum system’s assumed to be a basic probabilistic structure, or from any type of local measuring of the identified (random measuring) event, especially, so that the model of a local measurement is a pair of point-particles colliding, and upon the measuring-collision the quantum-system’s (non-existent) probability wave-function is assumed to identify…, by a non-local relation…, both the quantum-component’s state, and the entire wave-function also (at the same instant as the measuring event) non-locally collapses,
thus, the black-box model of the probabilistic quantum-systems is only about a list of energy-states within which the quantum-component can occupy, and the only descriptive context…., beyond an inertial pde-model of a probability function, which can only describe a 1-body system, and (in regard to the (very short) list of solved 1-body quantum-systems) except for the thermal system in a closed bounded box, such solution-wave-functions do not exist…, is the context of a local system structure,
where such a local (internal) quantum-system-structure is going to have to be about the collision interaction of the model of local measuring, ie it leads to particle-physics ie the descriptions of the scattering-patterns of the set of scattered unstable and stable components which emerge from the point of the collision, where the set of scattered components and their (energy-related) scattering angles form the list of the collision system’s internal energy-component states, and which defines the measurement process,
again this model of a collision is only a 1-body system (or 2-body system in center-of-mass coordinates) and it cannot be extended beyond the 1-body system so as to describe any regionally unified stable coordinate-shape,
which is what the stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems…, such as stable nuclei…, must be,
the black-box model made of random point-particle components, where the black-box-system only has local properties, and there is only local measuring, and the model of the local measuring is a collision, is a descriptive structure, which cannot get past the description being, at best, a list of locally measured empirical results,
it is not real physics, rather it is simply empiricism,

Note on general relativity
This description of a local 1-body system is the same path which is followed in general relativity, where the only system which the non-linear inertial-pde-models of curvature and energy-distributions can solve is for a 1-body system in spherically symmetric coordinates, where the solution-function (to the non-linear inertial-pde-model) is, supposedly, related to a general metric-function
(where the metric-function is, absurdly, assumed to only need to be defined locally, where this assumption means that there cannot be a uniformly defined unit-length for the global coordinate-manifold-shape, where the manifold’s coordinate-patches are patched-together, and where the patchwork between different coordinate-regions is non-commutative, and this (the indefinable uniform-unit of measuring) means the context is quantitatively inconsistent, and it does not properly fit into a valid mathematical global descriptive context for stable (global) coordinate-shapes)
this descriptive context (of general relativity)…, which is based-on solving for a physical system’s metric-function, and, subsequently, determining the system’s coordinate-geometry…, can only be formulated and solved for a single 1-body system…, but in this particular case, there is actually only 1-massive-body, which defines the physical system…, where the system is defined by the coordinate-geometry of spherical symmetry, and, furthermore, its mass is related to a singularity-point for the solution-function, and the solution-function is the coordinate-metric-space’s metric-function, and thus, (because of the metric-functions singularity-point) it is not a global model of a stable system, although the condition the instability of shape (due to the metric-function’s singularity-point) so that the singularity point is used to separate the coordinate-geometry into two regions one region…, which contains the singularity-point…, is used to describe the bounding coordinate-structure ** for a dissipating system, but the descriptive context of the instability ie the region containing the singularity-point (in the spherically symmetric-coordinate-space’s metric-function) is given arbitrary interpretations, where, in turn, these speculative interpretations are arbitrarily given dogmatic institutional authority,
where it is seen to be arbitrary authority, especially, since the context described is remote to the physical description’s verification, where the measurements used to verify the speculative claims are often local measurements, of a limited number of signals which are very far from the physical system,
where one of the speculations about the singularity, is that the region containing the singularity point of the 1-body spherical-coordinate-system can be interpreted to be a worm-hole, which, supposedly, connects the 1-body system (with the out-side of mathematics and bounded singularity region) to anywhere in the universe (why not since the singularity is a context which is outside of mathematics, so why not have arbitrary mathematics), and/but these claims define an entirely speculative descriptive context, which is not even a valid mathematically measurable description, since the math singularity is a quantitatively inconsistent descriptive context, and, especially, since there is no valid math structure in the coordinate-region of the singularity point, yet part of the speculation is that there are valid math structures within the context of describing the coordinate-structures within the region of the singularity-point, but the models are all based-on arbitrary assumptions, but which have been given arbitrary institutional authority, by violently excluding an other speculations about the subject of stable system’s coordinate-shapes,
thus, an imperial and authoritative institution’s intellectual truth is being upheld by violence,
and furthermore,
supposedly, the local coordinate-structure is a space-time metric-space, which has the effect of mixing-up a metric-function structure; with an E&M-field structure,
and supposedly,
from a physical system, which is the geometry of spherical symmetry, all the order…, which is seen in the solar-system and for the galaxies…, is supposed to all be based on (or derived from) the 1-body spherically symmetric metric-space shape, yet spherical coordinate-shapes are not parallelizable coordinate-shapes so they are unstable dissipative coordinate-shapes,

these systems (solar-systems and galaxies) are many-body systems, they are not 1-body systems, so again there is a lack in any descriptive breadth…., and such a complicated intellectual reduction to a measurably descriptive context to a 1-body system, whose geometry is spherical, and where spherical geometry is an unstable geometry, is a bit of a joke…, and (or that is) it is a descriptive context, which no one should be taking seriously,
yet it is given the highest institutional authority by the empire’s physics and math institutions,
this is because these speculative models are used in string-theory as bounds on component sizes, and string-theory…, though also about an unstable coordinate-shape structure…, it is a descriptive structure whose formal words seem to relate particle-physics to gravitational singularity points, and thus this formal nonsense apparently, is thought to be related to nuclear bomb engineering, this again seems to be a pathetic joke,


where the formulate-able and solvable quantum systems are too few for quantum physics to be taken seriously, that is, quantum physic’s has a very few number of quantum-systems which can be formulated and solved, essentially, the only system which is formulated and solved, and which has practically useful knowledge is the model of a fixed number of non-interacting rigid-components which are contained in a closed and bounded box, ie the classical closed bounded thermal system,

otherwise the ideas of quantum physics, which are ideas which are assumed to be about the state of a quantum system’s component properties,
so that both… the descriptive contexts and the assumed local collision between two point-particle components local model of measuring… drive physics into local measuring contexts, where there are no models for a quantum system having coordinate-shapes, and the set of collisions associated to measuring the coordinate-shape (the coordinate-shape within which the quantum-system-component is contained) and where the collisions are in a context of randomness, wherein coordinate-shapes will lose their coordinate-shapes by their random relation to the local measuring collision process ie measuring by local collisions, and thus any stable coordinate-containment shapes are not to be defined, but, arbitrarily, the exception is given for the box the circle or the sphere,
so that this type of an empirical structure and arbitrarily geometric structures, effectively, forces the measurable description to be based on probability, for which no quantum systems, beyond three 1-body systems can be formulated and solved (where the three solvable quantum-systems are: the free particle, the box, and the rotation of the rigid-body, but for the coordinate-shape of the rigid-body which is a sphere, but which is, really, supposed to be modeling an electron cloud, which, in turn, is defined around a central nucleus, and an electron-cloud is not a rigid-body), but where these 1-body systems are solved in the context of maps defined between geometrically similar coordinate-shapes, and thus, they are outside of the assumption of quantum physics being based-on probability, which, in turn, is a context which insists that there are no valid coordinate-structures associated to a quantum system, where, in turn, these probability methods of doing math which is trying to identify a quantum system’s set of spectral-values, cannot be used to identify stable regionally unified system-shapes, eg but where nuclei, atoms, etc, are systems which have a stable regionally unified context of bounded systems, ie which also includes all of the systems related to the list above,
thus, the idea of using probability as a basis for prediction of spectral-properties has been a complete failure,
where probability is an entirely empirical context, eg counting labeled faces of dice, or it requires that the components of a physical system be confined eg in a closed and bounded box, whereas a potential-energy-term in a wave-energy operator, which is used to confine the assumed to be point-particle components of a quantum system, either cannot be related to an actual physical system eg where the math of the context diverges, so this is omitted and the quantum descriptions is then supposed to be about a rigid-1-body rotating system, but the quantum context (a cloud of electrons around a central nucleus) does not allow for rigid-bodies, so a probability model is a failed descriptive context, in which the assumptions of both probability and that the system-components are always rigid-point-particles, through which local measuring is to be defined (or modeled), and furthermore, the property of a quantum-system’s (single) component cannot be determined until the component is measured, and where the measurement is a local point-particle-collision where this collision emerges out of complete randomness, so the measurement has no context through which the measurable results can be interpreted, except for the box, or the free particle, or the rotating sphere, that is, these two assumptions (randomness, and only local measuring by point-particle collisions is allowed) are the central assumptions, which exclude a coordinate-description, and thus the local measurements modeled to be point-particle-collisions can only be interpreted to be the measured set of spectral-values which the quantum-system-component can be in and thus this is providing the set of spectral-event values which define a probability system ie equivalent to the set of six faces of a dice; which is the elementary-event space when a dice is rolled in a probability experiment, in fact, this is mostly how quantum physics and particle-physics works they are primarily about a narrow empirical descriptive context of component occupying a system, but where the system is without any internal structure, except what the experimental data gives for the quantum system’s spectral structure, a spectral structure whose only relation to the material-world is the local point-particle-collision model of a local measurement, while particle-physics is an extension of this black-box model of a quantum systems except the point-particle collision is related to scattering patterns of the unstable components which emerge from the collision site, but which empirically seems to be related to a finite structure associated to the scattered unstable components where the collision site is given an internal structure for the set of unstable scattered components, this has been how the knowledge-able trajectory (or knowledgeable context) of quantum descriptions of black-box quantum systems, which are assumed to only be probe-able by local measuring contexts,
even though the very few 1-body quantum systems, which have been solved, are solved based-on coordinate-shapes, eg closed; bounded boxes; and angular-momentum of a rigid-spherical-body, where the angular-momentum of a quantum system is all about assuming that the quantum system’s coordinate-shape is the rigid-body of a spherical coordinate-shape,

But (to re-iterate)
where probabilities for a quantum system’s point-particle component positions and point-particle component motions, is the assumption, which excludes the idea of a quantum system having a coordinate shape, and which, in turn, is associated to the local point-particle-detection of an assumed random point-particle-collision event interpretation of quantum-system measuring processes,

which are assumptions and interpretations, which the description provides to the deception of quantum descriptions,

Whereas a quantum system modeled as a stable MTC-coordinate-shape supplies the model of a many-spectral-energy-level system, whose lower-dimensional faces are themselves occupied by lower-dimensional stable MTC-coordinate-shapes,

where the measuring process for the quantum-description assumptions is about bombarding the system with other high-energy small components, so the collision of a bombarding-component with a regionally defined component, which is occupying the system’s spectral-energy-levels, will define a local event which looks like (appears to be like) a collision of point-particles,

that is, from a 3-dimensional perspective, one is trying to measure a 1-dimensional regionally unified coordinate-shape, ie the system-component, where the system-component is occupying the geodesic curves of a 2-dimensional regionally unified coordinate-shape, and so that the 2-dimensional shape is contained in 3-space, so if one is in 3-space and one is bombarding the 2-shape with relatively high-energy, small (point-particle) components from a context outside of the 2-shape, so the system-occupying 1-shape has a regionally-unified geometric context in the 2-shape, so its spatial-position and its motion and its material is defined over the regionally unified geometric properties of the 2-shape, so there are a range of values for both its geometric position and its (geometric) motion, so when the local measuring of a collision event is interpreted as the measurement being the probabilities of both motions and positions for an occupying point-particle, but it is actually the geometry of the system which allows for a range of point-particle collisions set of measurable values for position and motion, so as to allow such a probabilistic interpretation,
it (the description of local measuring, which is acting on an assumed to be random quantum system) is assuming and interpreting the subtleties of the actual system’s properties out of existence, and washing over the system’s actual geometrically detailed description of spectral values with a fairly non-descriptive and un-sensitive probability model,
whereas, the stable MTC-coordinate-shape is a regionally unified system, which is
an open-closed metric-space topological space, and thus, its occupying charged component’s E&M-fields are trapped by the metric-space, ie it will be a neutral charged physical system,
it is also a rigid-body,
thus, in a closed bounded classical thermal system such components will not interact, if the collisions are below a particular energy-level, and the components will collide like billiard-balls within the closed bounded thermal system,
where these properties are not the type of properties which the assumptions of quantum-physic’s quantum-systems would allow,
in quantum-physics the H-atom is assumed to extend out to infinity, so as to define a cloud of electrons, but a cloud of electrons is certainly not a rigid-body, and there would certainly be an E&M-charged structure associated to the electron-cloud of an atom, and upon a collision with another atom, so that when atoms collide in a closed bounded thermal system, where as a result of the collision a new charge structure would result from either charge interactions or from collisions between charges, which would take place during a collision between atoms, especially, since such a collision would define measurable properties (or cause measurable properties to be formed), but this is not true for atomic-collisions which occur in closed and bounded thermal systems,
that is, the collisions between atomic components in a thermal system are characterized by the charge-neutral and billiard-ball type collisions,

that is, atomic collisions in thermal systems should cause E&M-type interactions to form, but this is not true for atomic-collision in closed and bounded thermal systems,

but such an E&M-type structure for charged interactions are excluded from such measurable properties forming, where the positions…, motions and charge-values of the quantum system components… were, before the collision, are not allowed rather there is simply probabilities,

that is, to claim that in quantum physics that systems are still to be based on system-component interactions, for which there exist inertial-pde-models of component-confining interactions, but that after forming quantum systems behave (or act) outside of the identifying measurable properties of: position, mass, motion, and charge, yet the components are assumed to be point-particles, but they are ruled entirely by probabilities of the measurable values of: position, motion, charge, or mass, but which have no physical manifestation until they are measured, and the model of measuring is a local collision defined between two point-particles, at which time a component energy-level is measured, but then the energy-state must also disappear, or collapse, ie the wave-collapse at the time of measuring, but local-measuring is a collision which destroys any of the quantum system’s coordinate-properties, that is after local measuring the quantum system must reduce again to its black-box context whose properties can only be determined by a local measuring process of a point-particle-collision,
where this paragraph seems to be an illogical contradictory set of claims,
The physical condition which is not defined in quantum systems is whether the objective structure is an atom or “is it an atomic component, which is within an energy-level of the atom?” because it is still assumed that the quantum systems come into being due to some form of a component interaction, which confines the components, and thus, the objective part of a quantum description is the quantum system’s occupying component’s locally measurable properties, ie the component interactions define the system properties,

I. is identifying the atom the objective truth?
II. is identifying the atom’s set of stable spectral-values the objective truth?
III. is the atom’s component’s energy-state the objective truth?
IV. is the objective truth, that the atom is to be reduced to point-particle components, which possess random values for their measurable properties of: position, motion, charge, and mass, and that the only way in which to resolve the determination of a component‘s measurable coordinate properties is by a local measurement, which, in turn, is about a point-particle collision, and where these quantum assumptions of point-particle-components in a random context of containment excludes any geometric form for a quantum system, (is this set of arbitrary assumptions the objective truth?
In fact, the best analysis of quantum description is this forth characterization, where quantum physics assumes that stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes are irrelevant to any description of a quantum system’s spectral properties,
But (or that is)
local measuring a lower-dimensional context of coordinate-shape for small systems, results in the same type of, apparent, randomness of measured values as does the direct assumption of randomness?
The real system is a closed geometry, and measuring this geometry results in an apparent range of possible coordinate and motion properties for an occupying component, ie a component which is contained…, as a shape…, in the open-closed topological geometry of an alternative model of a quantum system, which does not assume that the measurably descriptive context can only be about the probabilities of black-boxes,

In the alternative measurably descriptive context the assumption is that one needs to find a stable math pattern which can be used to reduce the need for empiricism, in regard to identifying the system’s measurable properties, and that the only way in which a system, which is contained in coordinates, can be related to a stable math pattern, is by using stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes… of either Euclidean spaces or of hyperbolic metric-spaces (where a hyperbolic metric-space is, essentially, a space-time metric-space)…, to model how the physical system is contained in a stable math pattern, or equivalently, how a physical system is contained in a stable coordinate-shape,

The real issue for physical description is about how a physical system realizes its stable coordinate-containment stable parallelizable coordinate-shape,
for many such analogous types of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, which exist in hyperbolic metric-spaces for various dimensions, and which represent both (1) energy-shapes for a physical system’s occupying components, as well as (2) stable metric-space shapes, within which either lower or equal (but smaller) dimensional stable MTC-coordinate-shapes are contained, or within which the lower-dimensional face-fitting shapes can occupy,
where all of these stable MTC-coordinate-shapes exist in forms which can be both bounded and unbounded MTC-coordinate-shapes which are defined over many different dimensional levels,
And the main issue is not about measuring a system-component which might exist (or occupy) in a different dimensional metric-space-energy-shape,
the main issue is about identifying a given finite set of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes which are defined over all the different dimensions, wherein they can exist as particular types of very stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, and (then) identifying the relationship that these shapes can have with one another over (or through) the different dimensional levels, eg what sizes do the higher-dimensional stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, especially, if the lower-dimensional MTC-coordinate-shapes are subsystems of the higher-dimensional stable MTC-coordinate-shapes,

The quantum physicists are looking at classical measuring of black-box quantum systems, but it is a measuring context which is really being applied to systems which have different independent dimensional levels, which are associated to the (quantum) system, so the different independent dimensional stable coordinate properties appear to be random and probabilistic
The quantum descriptive language structure is quite inconsistent with itself, it is an anti-coordinate descriptive language, assuming “small point-particle-components have physical properties which are fundamentally random,” so that it is only through local measuring contexts that quantum-system-component properties can be determined,
where the, so called, predictive probabilistic distributions of the components, ie the component energy-levels, are still claimed to depend on applying an inertial pde-model…, which is associated to some form of interactive component confining process…, to both a quantum system’s containing metric-space coordinate-space (the domain-space of each of the function in the quantum-system’s, assumed to exist, function-space), and to the quantum system’s containing function-space, where the function-space, in turn, contains the quantum system’s…, assumed to exist…, probability properties, but where these coordinate-shapes of the (functions in the function-space) domain space, change with each function,
because this is all determined in regard to the quantum system’s set of inertial pde-model of the component-confining energy-operators, so that any such set of quantum-system energy-levels can only be determined for some 1-body (in center-of-mass coordinates) quantum systems,
thus, there are not really any coordinate properties, especially, for any stable MBFC-spectral quantum-system, but (or since) quantum system spectral properties can only be found for 1-body systems, but which are related to definite coordinate-containment descriptive contexts, the part of the descriptive context which opposes the assumption that any of quantum-system’s components must be fundamentally (and indefinably) random,
furthermore, the descriptive context only makes sense for some form of externally imposed bounded containment properties of the quantum system, ie confined to a box or confined to a sphere,

Question (which only makes sense within the alternative context of system containment within stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes, usually the stable MTC-coordinate-shapes in hyperbolic metric-spaces):
Within which metric-space context of existing are system-component properties to be measured?
Eg in 3-dimensions, apparently, quantum-system components are seen as small point-particles,
in 2-dimensions the atom has a stable spectral-orbital structure, and it is occupied by components which also (themselves) have a stable spectral-orbital structure,

The big story of physics and math

The story of modern physical description begins with Newton, who fashioned an (the) inertial pde-model, so as to describe material-interactions and their dynamic affects on inertial-bodies, where he identified force-fields as the causes for an interacting component’s changes in both spatial-positions and changes in motions (really the causes for changes in pairs of interacting component’s)…,
(and in this context; “why not allow locally regional absolute space?” especially, since the context of inertial pde-models of material-interactions (for all of physics: Classical Physics, GR, QP, PP) has a narrow descriptive range of only some 1-body systems, which can be formulated and solved, based-on the, so called, laws of physics, so that regional relations described in space have no bearing on this descriptive context’s range of descriptive capabilities),
…, and
thus, the, so called, forceful causes for stable physical (or inertial) systems to form…, and which, in turn, is modeled after the empirical processes of Galileo who measured accelerations of material-components…, was formally identified by Newton, and this same math construct has been faithfully and obediently followed, in a very authoritarian and intellectually coercive manner by all of the empire’s math and physics institutional personnel ever since Newton,
But (in the descriptive context of; inertial pde-models)
the word inertial means that there is a local measuring of spatial-displacements in the pde, eg d/dx, d/dy, etc, and
thus, by E Noether’s simple displacement symmetries of space and time, the spatial-displacement measurements place the descriptive context within Euclidean space, wherein inertial properties of material-components are measurably described,
This…, along with the assumption of continuity of dynamic “processes of change” of interacting (or non-interacting, ie no force-fields are present) component properties…, places constraints on the math context of the measurable description,
but there is a further mathematical constraint on the context of physical description, namely, the only set of solvable inertial-pde-models are the separable pde’s, which, in turn, means that the solution-function of the pde is a metric-invariant map which map stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes…

(note) ie coordinate-shapes whose coordinates are always globally locally independent, and thus, any “parallel transport” of a local coordinate direction on such a coordinate-shape, where the local coordinate-direction is to be transported… (or moved, by a metric-invariant map, and so that the metric-function of the metric-space only has constant coefficients)… around any closed coordinate-curve, where this processes (on a coordinate-shape whose coordinates are always globally locally independent) transports the local coordinate-direction around the closed curve and back to itself, ie the local coordinate-direction is maintained after the parallel transport process, and where this is the property of a coordinate-shape being parallelizable,

…., to (at least) geometrically similar (or perhaps to the more confining property of being geometrically congruent (ie geometrically equal)) stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes,

This (ie maps defined between geometrically similar stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes) can become the main math pattern to try to realize, in regard to finding stable math patterns, which can be used to measurably describe the observed stable properties of physical systems, eg stable spectral-orbital properties), and which can be used to reduce empiricism, so that the stable math patterns are used to describe the (observed) measurable properties of a physical system, and so that the stable math pattern has a wide range of different systems to which the stable math pattern can be applied,
where the effort to reduce empiricism needs to (or should) be focused on the set of very stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems,
where without extending the range of parallelizable coordinate-shapes beyond the set of parallelizable coordinate-shapes, which exist in Euclidean space, then the set of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems can never be measurably described by a stable math pattern,
ie maintaining the authoritative dogma that the (only) cause for stable material-systems to form is due to the set of inertial-pde-models of material-interactions: that is, material-interactions defined by: (1) force-field interactions defined between components, or (2) metric-function interactions with material-energy-distributions so as to identify a system’s global coordinate-shape, or (3) energy-operator interactions with inertial-waves; so that the energy-operator causes an energy-system, which is associated to small-components, to have standing inertial-waves, or (4) system-component-statistically-determined-collisions, where the components have internal-particle-states, where the system-components are interacting with one another by collisions, and which, subsequently, collision rates can be used by means of thermal averages to perturb the quantum-system’s standing inertial-wave, (or more realistically a quantum system’s non-existent standing inertial-wave, since only the quantum-wave-functions which exist are either for non-interacting (except “interacting” in a statistical context through collisions) components of independent 1-body systems in closed bounded boxes, or for a 1-body rotating quantum-system with spherical symmetry)
where all four of these types of interactions are modeled by inertial-pde-models, which, in turn, implies that all these system-properties are described in a continuous math context,

where with math properties which are:
(I) an assumption of continuity and
(II) the inertial description…, ie the set of inertial pde-models of material-interactions…, being confined to Euclidean space,
(III) that the set of stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes in Euclidean space are: (1) the rectangular coordinate transformation (2) the cylindrical coordinate transformations and (3) the toral coordinate transformations,
where these transformations of coordinates (in (III)) are the metric-invariant coordinate-transformations which comprise the elements in the Euclidean metric-space’s fiber Lie (or isometry) group of metric-invariant coordinate transformations, and furthermore, the metric-function of Euclidean metric-spaces has only constant coefficients,
then this (these three properties, ie (I), (II), (III) above) confines the solution-functions to any set of inertial-pde-models of any material-system’s interaction-properties…, a context which is claimed to define all physical laws…, to a descriptive range of only some 1-body systems,
where most of these systems are the rotation properties of rotating rigid-bodies, where the rigidity of the body allows the techniques of calculus to work (or to be valid),
thus, the claim, made by the empire’s institutional physics and math personnel, that the measurable properties of the stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems cannot be measurably described by using the laws of physics, is true
(or may quite well be true, where the great efforts in the empire‘s math and physics institutions is to use non-linear and/or non-commutative, etc, or quantitatively inconsistent type math structures to be able to extend the inertial-pde-models out to be able to describe the set of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems, but such an effort is unlikely to be successful, since, in the empire’s physics and math institutions, this has been the effort for, at least, the last 100 years),
the stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems of all size-scales are stable systems, ie and they represent a set of stable measurable patterns,
thus, these stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems, which exist at all size-scales, must be relatable to some stable math pattern,
To understand what the simple stable math pattern is…, which can be used to measurably describe the set of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems,
…, consider,
that the temporal displacements…, which are associated to E Noether’s simple displacement symmetries…, places the measurable descriptive context into “energy-space,”
“what is energy-space?”

One answer has been that energy-space has been inertial-ly associated to symplectic spaces, that is, to phase-space, which, in turn, is associated to coordinate pairs (x,p), and to a bilinear metric-function, which is an alternating form, and such a descriptive context of phase-space system-containment can be related to a symplectic fiber Lie group,
where the focus in phase-space is the Hamiltonian function, ie function of energy, which is usually associated to two energy terms of kinetic-energy and potential-energy-functions, where the potential-energy-functions are (usually) defined for conservative force-fields, but this measurably descriptive context is a mixture of energy-properties and inertial-properties,
this is the space (ie phase-space) where in the new measurably descriptive language construct there is defined the discrete sequence of non-local interaction-tori, which are defined between stable material-components for each discrete time-intervals, and where time parameterizes each element of the inertial mapping sequence of the material interaction,
this also defines a discrete sequence of quasi-energy-shapes, which are defined by the non-local interaction-torus, which, in turn, is defined between stable energy-shapes,
so that, [except for some 1-body systems, where the interaction-torus is consistent with (or intersects with) the interacting-system’s stable toral coordinate-shape], (otherwise) these quasi-energy-shapes identify each discrete element of a sequence of an interaction process, which, in turn, leads to an unstable, dissipating description of material-interactions, unless the geometric and energetic context of one of the discrete sequence elements is resonant with a new element of the given finite set of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, so that the quasi-energy-shape transitions to a new energy-shape, ie to a new stable MTC-coordinate-shape,

but in the context of the “rather few in number” types of parallelizable coordinate-shapes, the desired context for an energy-space is space-time, which is (isomorphic-ally) related hyperbolic metric-spaces, where the metric-function of a hyperbolic metric-space also only has constant coefficients,
where this association of an “energy-space” to a hyperbolic metric-space is desired, since the set of stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes in hyperbolic metric-spaces are the set of particular types of very stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, which define both (1) regionally unified coordinate-shape models of physical systems and which (2) can be used to model the stable set of spectral-orbital values by means of a stable coordinate-shape for such a MBFC-system’s set of occupying-components, eg the system-components; for the set of stable MBFC-systems; are to occupy the stable MTC-coordinate-shapes many different toral-components, namely, the occupying-components follow the stable MTC-coordinate-shape’s geodesic pathways, and where the circumference for each of a bounded MTC-coordinate-shape’s (bounded) toral-component’s measures the length of the toral-component’s geodesic pathways, and this set of the different toral-components’ geodesic lengths identifies the coordinate-shape’s set of spectral-orbital values,
the energy-space can be related to space-time, or, it turns-out, it can also be related to hyperbolic metric-spaces within the context of special relativity;
when the “mass equals energy” formula is identified in special-relativity, then E Noether’s displacement of time symmetry is used…, so that after time has been divided-out (of the 4-dimensional coordinate-structure of space-time)…., so as to logically relate the energy, in the “mass equals energy” formula to either
(1) to the constant time-coordinate,
or (in an alternative interpretation of how to understand and to apply E Noether’s simple time-displacement symmetry)
(2) to a stable MTC-coordinate-shape, which is contained in the remaining (ie after time has been divided-out) hyperbolic metric-space, and such a set of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes identifies a set of energy-shapes, which are the stable energy-shapes which possess the property of having inertial-mass values, and where these MTC-coordinate-shaped energy-shapes are models of (or models for) stable MBFC-material-systems, or equivalently, stable material-components,
where these energy-shapes…, in the hyperbolic metric-spaces…, are (now) the set of stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes (in hyperbolic metric-spaces), which are the particular set of very stable MTC-coordinate-shapes,
where the inertial-mass of the material-component, in turn, identifies the material-component’s internal energy,
though this might require a new fundamental constant, so spectral-energies and total inertial-energy of the regionally unified coordinate-system add-up correctly, although the fundamental constants involved in the formulas: (1) E=mc^2 and (2) E=hc/2(pi)r, for r the radius of a toral-component, may already be sufficient, but one (1) represents the total energy of the energy-shape (ie the stable MTC-coordinate-shape), while the other (2) represents an energy-level of what could be the same energy-shape, but then there is the further (3) energy of the energy-level-occupying lower-dimensional energy-shape,
now, in order to relate the metric-invariant maps of maximal-tori of the hyperbolic metric-space’s fiber Lie group…, namely, SO(n,1)…, to the mapping structures…, which are defined by the set of the fiber Lie group’s maximal-tori, and these metric-invariant maps…, which act on the set of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, ie the finite set of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes (which can be considered for a description of existence which is based-on the finite set of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes), then this mapping context must result in a set of discrete, metric-invariant maps, which are defined on both the toral-components of the stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, and on the discrete maps defined between the different maximal-tori, where both maps must (discretely) transition between the fiber Lie group’s different maximal-tori, and the different toral-components of the stable MTC-coordinate-shape in a discretely simultaneous manner, where it might be noted that, if a standard coordinate-position is identified then the different maximal-tori are (can be) geometrically aligned to the different geometric alignments of the different toral-components of the stable MTC-coordinate-shape, which has been identified with a standard coordinate-position, or standard coordinate spatial orientation,
but this discrete context for the mapping process needs to be done so that the descriptive context associated to a stable MTC-coordinate-shape remains stable, or maintains the property of continuity, the discrete cut-offs for all the toral-shapes which are a part of this measurably descriptive context must all simultaneously end at their periodic end-points, where this mapping process can be both parameterized by (discrete) time-intervals, and the measures of the spectral-orbital values, and where the spectral-values can (or must) be in the rational-numbers, and this means that the set of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes which can be considered must be some given finite set, and the set of periodic end-points of the different tori can all be realized in a discrete quantitative structure,
it must also be noted that space-time and hence hyperbolic metric-spaces are the metric-spaces within which charged material is defined. Thus all of the stable MTC-coordinate-shapes will have a relation to charged-material, eg the occupying-components of a stable MTC-coordinate-shape will be charged-components, and the stable MTC-coordinate-shapes are shapes which are to be applied to both E&M-theory, and to charged material-components, but if a charge is subjected to forces which cause inertial-changes then the charged material radiates E&M-waves and this causes the energy of the charged-material to dissipate,

* the empire’s physics and math institutional personnel, according to their indoctrination’s fixed dogma, the dogma to which they must be faithfully obedient, and thus, they must assume that all observed order in the world is caused by some form of a 1-body system,
where these 1-body systems emerge from the formulate-able and solvable set of inertial pde-models, which are called the laws of physics (for classical physics, for general relativity, for quantum physics, and for particle-physics are all measurable descriptions about material-interactions and which are modeled as inertial pde-models),
many of their efforts (beyond their pre-dominant considerations about developing ever more powerful weapons and communication channels) are to extend the math context of the inertial-pde-models of physical systems, ie extend the descriptive range of the, so called, laws of physics…., where the laws of physics are all represented as inertial pde-models…, so as to try to extend the descriptive range of the laws of physics beyond “the (or beyond its) descriptive range of only some 1-body systems,”
where they try to do this by using non-linear, and/or non-commutative math contexts, and they invent math contexts in which no well defined global uniform unit of measuring is properly defined: such as in (a) purely local math structures, (b) assumptions of the existence of general (local) metric-functions, (c) the model of a vacuum-state, (d) inventing contexts of indefinable randomness, eg the elementary-event space of a probability based description does not have stable, well-defined events, so counting random events is not possible (eg the events cannot be identified),
all of these constructs are quantitatively inconsistent, and thus, the quantitative context quickly moves away from any quantitative structure, which can consistently be related to either a stable regionally measurable descriptive pattern, or to a valid probability pattern,
ie it is an elaborate formal pattern in language, which is without any meaningful content,
they try to compensate for their shortcomings, ie they must adhere to their fixed dogma that physical description must be based-on inertial pde-models of material-interactions, by claiming that all measuring must be local,
either for quantitatively inconsistent global descriptive efforts, or when systems are reduced to small components, the local context of measuring is unstable, and related to fleeting local (coordinate or particle) states,
thus, local measuring is about the unstable quantitative context of an unstable and dissipating quantitative-containment structure; and the unstable quantitative context of an unstable and dissipating set of quantitative (locally measurable) relations,
nonetheless they make nonsense claims about:
(a) many-worlds, or many-universes, (b) worm-holes, ( c) big-bangs, (d) quarks, (e) Higgs Bosons, (f) gravitons, (g) gravity-waves (the gravity-wave is really simply an E&M-wave, since the energy-shapes are in hyperbolic metric-spaces, and where hyperbolic metric-spaces contain both charged material and its associated set of E&M-fields), and (h) vacuum-states,
which are all non-math constructs, which are either quantitatively inconsistent, or logically inconsistent elaborations about 1-body systems,
which…, as they are now (2018) being formulated…, are irrelevant to our human experience, but almost all of these constructs are (believed by the institutional mangers) to be relevant to nuclear bomb engineering,
there is nothing about local measuring methods which can be considered conclusive,
all these models (GR, QP, PP) depend on local measuring methods as their empirical basis, but the description cannot extend past their locally measured, empirically-unstable, and quantitatively inconsistent measured (empirical) context,

The empire’s physics and math institutional personnel, by adhering to the dogmatic authority of the institution are deluded into believing that they are elite intellectuals, who have been graced by god (so as to fit into a man-made institution and highly controlled by the institutional managers so as to fit into the interests of the ruling-class), and this arrogant intellectual power is the enemy of reason, it is the basis for intellectual violence so as to exclude expressions which challenge the institutional dogmas,
Thus, all the institutional intellectuals, who make a living in the empire by reading and writing, are indoctrinated to the point of being faithfully obedient to the authoritative dogma, which allows them into the empire’s, supposed, elite institutions, and they are made intellectually arrogant in their authority over elite institutional contexts,
so they cannot think of challenging the empire at the very core of its imperial knowledge, namely, challenge the empire’s dogmatic, and clearly failed (the set of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems go without any valid descriptions in relation to the institutional dogmas), physics and math institutional knowledge,
The context of physics and math is the only context in which the self-referentially designed structures of completely confusing institutional language, can be challenged at its very core, namely, the quantitative structures being used by the empire’s physics and math institutions are not descriptive of a stable regional measurable pattern, rather they are narrow empirical contexts, whose context is either that of dissipation, or which only fit into chaotic contexts of existence,
if the arrogant intellectual power of the empire’s institutional personnel can be shaken, then this can weaken all of the empire’s institutions,
Eg that is, economics does not make any sense in the first place, so trying to become indoctrinated into economic-institutional language of economic processes does not equip one to challenge the economic power structure of the ruling-class, since economics is not about how money flows, rather it is about the big investment structures, which, in turn, define a materialistic context, which, in turn, relates to the violent context of military actions,
furthermore, the undermining of the structures of institutional knowledge can be replaced by new contexts “through which to organize knowledge,” and this can allow for new practically creative contexts, which are well outside of the investment structures of the ruling-investor-class,
when (or if) things are changing then make law be based on equality, so that equal individual freedom is directly related to knowledge development and the use of new knowledge for new practically creative efforts, but everyone gets upheld equally, not that there are a few on the central planning committee who are violently upheld (by the empire‘s military and justice institutions (where the justice systems is based on violently protecting the king‘s property, and providing the king with the control over the king‘s English, ie control over all the society’s communication-channels), and who, in turn, direct (by coercive means) the public to collectively support the centrally planning committee, where this is how the social structure of social power has been organized for over 5000 years since the mythological first civilization of Sumer, and it has been maintained in this same form by the ruling-class controlling confusion and violence,

The new measurably descriptive language construct

however, the new measurably descriptive language construct can be used to measurably describe the stable spectral-orbital properties of all the stable MBFC-systems of all size-scales, but some of the empire’s nonsensical and non-mathematical, and delusion-ary models can be made exact in the new language namely, the idea of many-worlds or many-universes, and traveling instantaneously through-out the universe, but also the new descriptive language allows regionally unified models of systems, so now even life-forms can be given a valid regionally-unified model, and one can find models for catalytic-chemical processes,

The best that physical description can do, in regard to finding and using stable math patterns, in order to reduce the need for empiricism, and in regard to identifying a stable physical system’s either (1) dynamic or (2) component-occupation properties for a wide range of physical systems is to define…,

ie…, the best math can do…(is to describe [or is to define])

… the set of coordinate-system-containment stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes, which are mapped by a metric-invariant mapping context to the system’s measurable (1) inertial properties (ie 1-body inertial systems), or (2) to the system’s coordinate-shape-occupying component’s measurable properties…,

…, which means metric-invariant mapping from the stable parallelizable coordinate-shape of the system’s containment coordinate spaces to geometrically similar stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes, which form the image-set of the metric-invariant map,
that is, the general context of measurable descriptions of system-properties is about metric-invariant maps which map between domains sets and function-image sets, which are geometrically similar stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes, and where the set of parallelizable shapes are different for Euclidean space and for hyperbolic metric-spaces,
Where (1) the dynamics of material-interactions for 1-body systems can be described by using the parallelizable coordinate-shapes of Euclidean space
(2) the toral-components of the set of stable parallelizable MTC-coordinate-shapes of hyperbolic metric-spaces can (or are to) be occupied by a system’s components for a stable MBFC-spectral-orbital system of any size-scale,

Where the set of stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes are mapped by metric-invariant mapping contexts, but where the mapping are, essentially, discrete,
namely, there is both a set of
(1) maps which are defined as a sequence of discrete changes of positions in the metric-spaces or on the coordinate-shapes,
the stability of the system-component stable parallelizable coordinate-shape models of material-components maintain a (descriptive) context of continuity,
and a set of
(2) discrete isometry subgroups of the metric-space’s metric-invariant coordinate-maps fiber Lie groups, where the set of right-rectangular-faced fundamental-domains or right-rectangular-faced-type of convex polyhedral fundamental-domains which are the particular types of fundamental-domains associated to the very stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes of these discrete isometry subgroups are related to the most stable of the parallelizable coordinate-shapes, so that the set of these (above mentioned) particularly stable types of discrete isometry subgroups, in turn, identify a right-rectangular-faced-(type) polygon or polyhedral fundamental-domains, for Euclidean space and for hyperbolic metric-spaces and for the Euclidean-type fundamental-domains associated to a (fiber) Lie group’s set of maximal-tori,

that is, both (1) the 1-body, continuous, dynamic systems, and (2) the set of stable bounded MBFC-spectral-orbital systems of all size-scales, can have their measurable properties identified in such an analogous descriptive context, of parallelizable coordinate-shape containment, and, subsequently, defining maps to geometrically similar parallelizable coordinate-shapes, and where the mapping’s image set of geometrically similar coordinate shapes identify
(1) dynamic properties of a 1-body-system (or a single component system’s) properties,
(2) the coordinate-shapes of the set of system-occupying components and the properties of these occupying components,
where it might be noted that (2) is identifying the equivalent descriptive context of general-relativity, in regard to system-components occupying the geodesic-paths of a system’s stable coordinate-shape,
eg the stable containment parallelizable coordinate-shapes are congruent with the image-set of…, in this simpler context of… metric-invariant maps, which have been put into a discrete context for the mappings, but now the maps are defined in a discrete math structure, and they are metric-invariant maps, and the new descriptive context is about discrete metric-invariant mappings which are defined between stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes, which are contained in hyperbolic metric-spaces,
(ie in the new simpler measurably descriptive context, which is, essentially, re-interpreting the meaning of the “mass equals energy” formula of special relativity, where the mass is inertial mass, and the energy is the energy of a new construct of a stable energy-shape, which, in turn, is an element of a set of parallelizable coordinate-shapes which are contained in hyperbolic metric-spaces, where this is a new construct in regard to the language which is used for physical description,
so as to identify a new context of metric-invariant mappings being defined on parallelizable coordinate-shapes which are in hyperbolic metric-spaces, where this separates inertial contexts, eg sets of inertial pde-models of material-interactions, from the contexts of mappings between stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes which are defined in (or which are contained within) hyperbolic metric-spaces, where the stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes in hyperbolic metric-spaces are the particular set of very stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, and where this is a new context to be used for describing stable regionally unified systems, and which is to be used for physical descriptions)

ie the inertial pde-models of material-interactions are only related to some 1-body systems,
it is, really, best to give more details about the discrete processes of the dynamic mapping constructs, which are associated to the solution-functions of the set of inertial-pde-models of material-interaction,
where these details, in turn, give the details about the selection of the metric-invariant maps for each discrete time-interval, which identifies a discrete mapping-process, namely, maps which identify spatial-displacements of the stable interacting material-components for each discrete time-interval, and where (in Euclidean-spaces, where inertial, or spatial-displacement measuring, or changing, processes are identified) these maps can be represented either as boxes (or vector-displacements), which provide systems whose motions fit into boxes (or are consistent with vector-displacements), or as maps which are represented as either circles or tori (ie a fiber Lie group’s set of maximal-tori), and which identify (two-body orbital, or) rotational motions (or mapping-images) which fit onto toral-coordinate-shapes,

where this can be done (either by I. dynamic maps in Euclidean space or by II. system-occupying coordinate-shapes in hyperbolic metric-spaces)

I. by inertial dynamic maps of interacting components in Euclidean space,
in turn, this can be done by using
(1) non-local interaction-torus descriptions of maps of spatial-displacements for sequences of discrete time intervals for interacting material-components,
(2) by using inertial pde-models of: either
(a ) geometric-material based force-fields as the local forceful causes for the inertial properties of the interacting components, or
(b) by pde-energy-operator models of probability waves, ie standing-inertial-waves for a quantum-system, ie for the small components to which all material-systems are assumed to reduce, but where these material-systems are related to a geometric term of a potential-energy-function term in the energy-operator,

where both of these contexts (as well as particle-physics and general relativity), all of which are associated to inertial pde-models, can only be formulated and solved, for such types of inertial-pde-models of material-interactions, when the pde is separable,
where a pde being separable means that the solution-function is a metric-invariant map defined from a parallelizable coordinate-shape in the domain-space to a mapping-image set which is a geometrically similar parallelizable coordinate-shape,

in Euclidean space…, which is the space where spatial-displacement measurements are defined to be math properties (of a Euclidean space) and Euclidean-space is a mathematical continuum, and, except for dynamic processes, which relate to time, and time is related to two opposite (or locally inverse) metric-space time-states, maps on Euclidean space can be defined to be continuous…, and the parallelizable coordinate-shapes of Euclidean space are: the box, the cylinder, and the torus (or doughnut shape), but where these shapes, in a context of continuity, can only describe some 1-body systems,

note: where a 2-body system in center-of-mass coordinates is reduced to a 1-body system eg two orbiting bodies in circularly symmetric center-of-mass coordinates; or two-components which collide in center-of-mass coordinates, and then (if) the two-components are broken-apart, so as to create a scattering pattern of the new components, which emerge from the 1-body center-of-mass coordinate’s collision site, then the scattering-patterns of the components can be used to determine a cross-section for the colliding components, which is a physical property which can only be used as a property of “probability of collision” in a chaotic and/but closed and bounded (classical) thermal system,
most of these 1-body interacting dynamic system-solutions are the rotation properties of rigid-bodies, and their solution-function maps are defined in a relation to the parallelizable coordinate-shape of the Euclidean torus,
note that the inertial-pde-models of material-interactions can be placed into a context in which the maps are discrete (discretely defined), but the context remains continuous,
where this is true from the quantum context, where the only descriptive capability of quantum-physics is the set of classical thermal systems in a closed and bounded box, which is modeled to be the superposition of N independent 1-body systems in a closed and bounded box, and the rotation properties of a rigid-body ie which gives the approximate angular-momentums of a few elements in the periodic table of the elements, but there is no explanation as to why general atoms have their energy-level structures, eg energy-levels of a Fe-atom or an Fe’s nucleus, and/or why atoms are mostly charge-neutral, eg the non-interacting (but colliding) atoms of a thermal system in a closed bounded box,
that is, quantum physics is really the same language as classical physics, and otherwise it only describes a non-mathematical condition of quantum systems being about indefinable randomness,
ie note that only a handful of 1-body energy-wave-operators can be formulated and solved, and, otherwise, if a quantum system cannot be formulated and solved then its, assumed, randomness is indefinable,

Metric-invariant maps from stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes to (geometrically similar) parallelizable coordinate-shapes are: (1) (in Euclidean space) from boxes to boxes, or from cylinders to cylinders, or from tori to tori, or (2) (in hyperbolic metric-spaces) from stable MTC-coordinate-shapes to stable MTC-coordinate-shapes,

The inertial pde-model of material-interactions for: classical physics, or general relativistic physics, or quantum physics, or particle-physics, are all unnecessary, essentially, because their descriptive ranges are confined to being able to only formulate and solve only some 1-body systems, otherwise they are defined in quantitative inconsistency so that the description is about a discontinuous, many-valued, and no uniform unit of measuring type of quantitative containment context, which is a chaotic context which has no practically useful measurably descriptive meaning,
furthermore, in regard to probability as a basis for the solution-function context for the inertial pde-model, then this context is (with) elementary-event spaces which contain indefinable, or unstable, types of events, and this is (also) a description of non-measurable chaos,
where the idea of local measuring, to which the descriptive structure (of the inertial-pde-model solution-functions which are different from some 1-body systems) is applied (ie either geometrically or through an assumed context of probability containment), but because there is only fleeting, unstable, dissipating contexts associated to global-system models of measuring in this quantitatively inconsistent context, and this local measuring is also about a fleeting, unstable, dissipating, and chaotic context, eg particle-physics, which has no practically useful meaning, that is, local measuring is often a context of point-particle collisions, and probing a system by using a point-particle collision as a probe is not a sensitive method of measuring, namely, the point-particle collision being used as a measuring probe does not allow for any regional shape of the target system being probed to be related to the collision and its related scattering-pattern properties unless the target system is either a rigid-body or it has unstable internal particle-states,

Furthermore, if one is trying to measure the properties of an electron’s shape by particle-collisions then the context is that an electron is a 1-dimensional stable MTC-coordinate shape which occupies a geodesic on some 2-dimensional face of (say) a 2-dimensional stable MTC-coordinate-shape,
if the component which is used to locally probe the electron’s shape is being used to collide with the electron, where this is the (1-body model of measuring) method of locally measuring the electron’s properties, then this is ignoring the coordinate-shape of the stable MTC-coordinate-shape, which the electron is occupying, and
thus, when a statistically determined collision is realized, by the colliding component-probe, then the interaction will be as if the electron into which the probe has collided was a billiard-ball, since this is what the 1-body model of a point-particle-collision demands,
but this can also be understood by first
noting that the 3-sphere is the union of two tori, which can be interpreted to mean that the geometry of a toral-collision is like the collision pattern of a sphere,
but this is, especially-true, in a geometric context where the common 2-plane…
(of the two 3-spaces into which Euclidean 4-space separates, where this separation is due to its fiber Lie group SO(4)’s properties of SO(4) = SO(3) x SO(3))
… is geometrically fixed, and, in fact, defines the ecliptic of the solar-system,
then the collision between two colliding components, each colliding component is a stable MTC-coordinate-shape, each of the two colliding-components will be made of toral-components, and one of those toral-components (in each colliding-component) will align with the non-local interaction torus, but where the non-local interaction-torus…, which is associated to the collision…, will be geometrically aligned with the same 2-pane orientation in 3-space as the ecliptic of the solar-system, thus, the equatorial plane of the colliding toral-components (ie the electron and the probe) will be geometrically aligned to the 2-plane which defines the ecliptic of the solar-system, so that the collision will appear to be the collision between two-spheres (two billiard-balls), in fact, this property of a fixed 2-plane being related to the intersection of the two Euclidean 3-spaces…, so as to both define a geometric orientation of a MTC-coordinate-shape’s toral-components in a collision, and to define the ecliptic of the solar-system…, and this property of a fixed 2-plane orientation for the intersection of the two Euclidean-3-spaces in 4-space, is the property which distinguishes spiral galaxies from elliptic galaxies,
ie the elliptic galaxies do not identify a fixed 2-plane spatial-orientation for their two intersecting Euclidean 3-spaces,

that is,
eg particle-physics was supposedly to be used to measurably describe the structure of a nucleus, but there has been no valid model of a nucleus put-forth, so as to be a model derived from the, so called, laws of particle-physics,
but where the unstable scattered component context of the 1-body collision site, from which particle-physic’s empirical properties are derived, there is only the empirical context of the scattering-patterns of unstable and stable components, which emerge from the 1-body collision site,
ie the claimed to exist descriptive structures of particle-physics does not extend beyond the properties of a 1-body system,
ie the MBFC-spectral properties of a regionally-unified nucleus are well beyond particle-physic’s descriptive capabilities, particle-collisions only relate to the chaotic context of thermal systems, which need to be defined (or imposed) by a closed bounded box, or which momentarily exist in the chaos of a bomb’s sudden explosion,


II. consider the measurable descriptions in hyperbolic metric-spaces: where this is about measurable
descriptions of the set of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems, which are based-on identifying metric-invariant maps which are defined between stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, and which exist in hyperbolic metric-spaces, where such maps need to be defined in terms of finiteness for the set of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes and discrete-ness, eg discrete parameters within which the map is defined, eg defining the maps for discrete time-intervals,

that is,
there are bounded systems, which are stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems, and where the map which maps from a coordinate-shape containment space to the system’s stable-coordinate-shape’s occupying-component’s (stable) measurable properties, needs to also be a map between (geometrically similar) parallelizable coordinate-shapes, but furthermore, the metric-space, within which the stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes…, which model the energy-shapes of the stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems…, is a hyperbolic metric-space, which is found when the formula “mass equals energy” is logically developed, and in this context of its logical development of relating inertial energy to an energy-space, or, equivalently to a stable energy-shape, and where the energy-space is defined to be associated to space-time with time divided-out, which is a hyperbolic metric-space, where this becomes a general rule for any hyperbolic metric-space, ie a hyperbolic metric-space is an energy-space, and the set of stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes of a hyperbolic metric-space are stable energy-shapes, and where the set of parallelizable coordinate-shapes of a hyperbolic metric-space are the set of particular types of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, where usually lower-dimensional face-fitting energy-shapes (which are components) occupy the different toral-components of the stable MTC-coordinate-shape, thus allowing for the measurable descriptions of the set of stable spectral-orbital-values of a stable MBFC-spectral-orbital system, ie the set of stable energy-shapes in a hyperbolic metric-space are the set of a particular type of very stable MTC-coordinate-shapes those stable MTC-coordinate-shape’s whose discrete isometry subgroups are the set of right-rectangular-faced-type of fundamental-domains,

New creative efforts at improving the descriptive range of measurable physical description are completely marginalized (because they might destabilize existing big investment structures) and so they must be accompanied with criticisms about societal and institutional imperial structures

The institutional critic of the empire’s physics and math institutional, so called, truths, is quickly marginalized and excluded (by the dominant ruling-influences of the empire’s [arbitrarily hierarchical] supporting institutions of society), where this can be true even if the critic is capable of expressing, to the public, a higher-valued truth about physics and math,
that is, being able to express a new idea about math descriptions of physical systems, which is actually more truthful (the interpretations of data are more consistent with the new model, and the model is mathematically coherent, eg it is quantitatively consistent), and has a wider descriptive range, than are (or is) the empire’s, so called, high-valued physics and math institutional expressions of truth,
nonetheless, (the critic) must be capable of expressing, in a relatively few words, both the new idea about math models of physical systems, and the entire case against the empire’s high-valued institutional truths, where the empire’s “institutional truths,” which are at best only partial-truths, and are narrow and dysfunctional, the empire’s math and physics institutional partial-truths is about an intellectual structure which relies entirely on empiricism, the descriptive range of these imperial math and physics institutions is only some 1-body systems,
the, so called, laws of physics cannot be used to measurably describe the observed properties of the large set of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems of all size-scales,
whereas the new measurably descriptive contexts are capable of doing this,

Where this is because the empire’s high-valued physics and math institutions are dysfunctional by the design (or intent) of the institutional managers,
eg a very high-level institutional manager of the empire’s physics and math institutions, E Teller, was only interested in using math and physics to only develop weapons,
because the empire’s institutional partial-truths are only needed to maintain the ruling-class’s powerful social position, ie maintain the status quo of society, in regard to the social structure of social power, ie the empire’s institutional partial-truths only serve the narrow interests of the empire’s ruling-class,

Everything which the critic says (which is different from)….
where the new ideas are based on different sets of assumptions and contexts and interpretations concerning both physics and math,

thus, it is easy for the dominant social influences, eg the propaganda-education-moralization-cheer-leading-for-arbitrary-high-value-secret-police-state system, to marginalize and ridicule such an obviously intellectually inferior type of thought (ie easy to judge to be intellectual inferiority within the dominant dogmatic intellectual constructs of the empire’s intellectual-institutions), where the top personnel in the empire’s dominant high-valued physics and math institutions identify the society’s dominant and “clearly” the society’s highest valued cultural truths,

…. [which is different from] the empire’s highest scientific truths, is excluded from the institutions and is excluded from the empire’s propaganda-education-moralization-cheer-leading-for-arbitrary-high-value-secret-police-state system, and where this exclusion is easy to realize since the empire’s highest scientific (partial)-truths are about the opinions of the empire’s top indoctrinated, and deluded physics and math institutional personnel, and where these opinions are about dysfunctional, quantitatively inconsistent models, which are given elaborate formally descriptive contexts, but which have no meaningful content, ie the content is only empirical content,
and/but (nonetheless)
where the empire’s top physics and math institutional personnel are those who are (also) the objects of a personality-cult worship by the public, where this worship is induced by the propaganda-education system, where for example these objects of personality-cult worship are those institutional personnel who both excel in the empire’s education-system and who win all of the culture’s intellectual prizes, thus, the institutional expert’s fake-truth opinion is made an absolute scientifically verified truth by stating that the expert won a high-valued prize, winners of an intellectual competition is identified by the propaganda-system as being proof positive that the intellectual-competition winners have high-intellectual-value, but intellectual-educational-competitions can only be devised around fixed authoritarian dogmatic truths, so that the delusional indoctrinated dogma is deeply internalized by a competition winner, where the obvious delusion which is (must be) believed by the empire’s physics and math institutional personnel is that all the observed order of the world is caused by the measurable descriptions of 1-body systems,
in the empire’s physics and math institutions these 1-body systems are only related to bomb-engineering, by elaborate formal math structures which are quantitatively inconsistent,
eg string-theory is about detonating (by collision) the mythological math model of a gravitational singularity, done in the chaotic context of high-energy particle-physics,

But (ie the criticism and its cure)
if there are physical systems with stable measurable physical properties, eg the very large set of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems of all size-scales, then one must [find and] use (stable) math patterns which are quantitatively consistent, so as…
(basically, this is about coordinate-shapes, which are always locally linear and independent, in regard to local coordinate-directions, and these are the set of stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes as well as their set of associated local linear metric-invariant coordinate-maps, which map between the set of (geometrically similar) parallelizable coordinate-shapes [and which is the basic context of a solvable (or separable) inertial pde-model, which, in turn, identify the, so called, laws of physics])
… to try to be able to measurably describe the observed set of measurable stable system properties,
where this is to be done by using stable math patterns, in a context of metric-space coordinate-containment of the physical system (note: the more general “form-invariant inertial-pde-models” of general relativity are still inertial pde-models, and they still have a descriptive range of only some (of only one) 1-body system(s)), and then by using metric-invariant maps, which are to be mapped from the system’s containment-coordinate-set to the system’s set of measurable properties, so that the system’s set of measurable properties are identified by the map’s image-set,
where the system’s components follow the geodesic-paths of the system’s stable parallelizable coordinate-shape (note: the goal of general relativity is realized in a metric-invariant mapping context),
where this descriptive context has two “metric-space-type” attributes (or math properties), within which the containment and maps are defined, namely, (1) the inertial interaction structure (and the set of inertial pde-models) which is contained in Euclidean space, and where Euclidean space can be thought of as a mathematical continuum, but its interaction process is discrete, and (2) the hyperbolic metric-spaces, wherein the general context of a stable math pattern (in regard to a physical system’s coordinate-containment) can be realized, namely, wherein there exist a given finite set of a particular type of very stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, where the stable MTC-coordinate-shapes is the main category…,
especially, in regard to special relativity in regard to system containment in hyperbolic metric-spaces, where the derivation of mass equals energy reduces space-time to hyperbolic metric-spaces
…., of stable parallelizable coordinate shapes, (in regard to a physical system’s coordinate-containment, where the set of stable parallelizable coordinate shapes are the most general form of stable math patterns, especially, in regard to or in the math context of solving inertial pde-models for physical systems, especially, for those physical systems which are contained in hyperbolic metric-spaces)
where the context of the metric-invariant maps is discrete, and the math continuum of Euclidean space is primarily defined by the stability of the interacting material-components during the (new model of) discrete inertial interaction process (to which the math structure of the Euclidean metric-space can adapt, where Euclidean space as a mathematical continuum allows such an adaptation),
where the stable material-components are, essentially, modeled to be sets of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes,
though such components can [due to a “Cartesian product” property of the fiber Lie group, SO(4) (see below)] form into a context of condensed material, and when the material (which is contained in both the hyperbolic and Euclidean metric-spaces) is condensed into solids, it will have a local (or microscopic) periodic structure (or a discrete structure of a fundamental-domain),

The violence and ignorance of institutional exclusion

But (the expressions of the above few short paragraphs are carefully excluded from the empire’s physics and math institutions)
The narrow and dogmatic, and highly authoritarian, opinions… of the empire’s institutional experts…. define the set of high-valued institutional truths of the entire empire,
both the, so called, institutional truths and the top institutional personnel are…, collectively worshipped by the civilization’s public, where this is due to the empire’s propaganda-education system’s great efforts to heap high praise for the high-value of the institutional truths (note that: arbitrary high-value, which is arbitrarily upheld as (failed) authoritarian dogmas, and is the basis for requiring arbitrary inequality within the empire‘s social structures, where the empire produces what it wants and needs with their institutionally very intellectually inferior set of partial-truths: namely, (or note) if the public is allowed to determine truth then soon the public would realize that the ruling-investor-class are the biggest criminals in society, eg the empire is a system of experts whose failed expertness nonetheless exactly serves the interests of the ruling-investor-class)…,
Because of the empire’s propaganda-education system’s great efforts to heap high praise for the high-value of the institutional truths, there is the belie that the empire’s institutional truths are, supposedly, the highest intellectual capability of a human culture, (but this is far from being true)
even though…, by the standards of the physical sciences, namely, that a stable math pattern is found (or invented) and then the stable math pattern is used to reduce empiricism for a wide range of physical systems…, the assumed to be high-valued set of stable math patterns…, which are used to reduce empiricism in the empire’s math and physics institutions…, is the set of inertial pde-models, which are used to measurably describe material-system-component interactions…
(material-system-component interactions described in either material-geometrical math constructs; or in regard to standing-inertial-wave probability constructs, where standing-inertial-wave probability constructs are associated to material-systems, which have been reduced to small-components, and, subsequently, related to energy-wave-operators),
…, and which, supposedly, cause stable systems to form,
where these inertial pde-models are identified as the laws of physics,
the inertial pde-model has a math structure, or a math context, which only allows for some 1-body systems…, (eg for 2-body orbital-or-collision systems, which are most often put in center-of-mass coordinates)…, to be measurably described, ie formulated and solved,
otherwise, the inertial pde-model identifies a math context of
(1) either non-commutative properties, or
(2) of non-linear properties, and/or it defines quantitative contexts in which
(3) there is no, apparent, well defined unit of measuring, eg systems with general metric-functions; or the, so called, vacuum-state of particle-physics, or
(4) in physical systems wherein a system’s components’ randomness is associated to an elementary-event space, which either cannot be found from solving the energy-wave-equation, or which has unstable and/or indefinable elementary-event elements, and/or (or thus) there is no stable basis for counting random events, ie probabilities cannot be properly defined,
This (ie (4)) is an example (or these are examples) of indefinable randomness, which is outside of mathematics,
nonetheless, it…
(ie as are all four identified quantitatively inconsistent and vaguely-measurable-descriptive contexts)
…. is (or they are) used in an arbitrary and meaningless fake-quantitative context,
a descriptive context which is, essentially, a narrow and limited empirical descriptive context, and all four of these identified quantitatively inconsistent and vaguely-measurable-descriptive contexts are, essentially, empirical descriptive contexts,
which are all avidly, pursued by the empire’s math and physics institutional personnel, and, furthermore, institutional personnel win prizes for pursuing these, effectively, meaningless and narrowly empirical descriptive contexts,

where this is not about a valid descriptive effort, but rather this is an entirely empirical context, ie a very narrow and limited descriptive context, ie the narrow descriptive context is about the descriptions of the experimental processes, and, subsequent, the description is, essentially, only a list of (locally) empirically measured values,
this is about both quantitatively inconsistent math contexts as well as being about reduction of material systems to small components, which are placed into a random context,
whereas in both descriptive contexts measuring can only be defined locally, eg this is essentially about observing a quantum-spectral event,
where the local measuring is defined in terms of collisions between small components,
ie particle-physics is placed…, as a set of internal particle-states…, (ie internal) within the colliding-components, and where these empirically determined internal particle-states are added-on to an, essentially, non-existent quantum-inertial-standing-wave-function, which, in turn, is defined for (or is being identified with) an indefinably random quantum-system,

(are quantum wave-functions, essentially, non-existent?)
where the inertial-wave-function for a quantum-system can only be formulated and solved for separable inertial-pde-models of energy-operator or wave-equations,
namely, it is only formulated and solved for:
(1) a free-component, which dissipates, eg for a low energy electron (or for a low energy proton),
where at low energy-levels, this free-component dissipation has no valid (no valid mathematical) interpretation for the stable particles of low energy electrons or protons, ie where the idea of component disintegration is related to the, so called, vacuum state, and the vacuum-state’s, so called, relation to internal-particle-states, and/but which is an empirical model of an empirically based interpretative-model, which is outside of any meaningful mathematics,
note that the experiment (supposedly, done with capacitors) which claims to measure properties of the vacuum state is about an arbitrary interpretation of experimental evidence, ie there are many other “just as valid interpretations” of the experiment’s results, [and since the, so called, vacuum state has not been coupled to in any other manner, then this is strong evidence that the interpretation of the experiment is both arbitrary, and wrong],
(2) consider a big number of N non-interacting (except by inert-collisions) components confined to a closed, bounded box, ie a classical thermal system, this can be formulated and solved as an inertial-pde-wave-equation, and which provides a useful model of a physical system,
note component collision with potential-energy-walls, where the walls are of various (low-valued) potential-energy-heights allows component tunneling,
(3) a harmonic-oscillator, can be formulated and solved, however, there is no valid micro-model of a harmonic-oscillator, rather it is assumed that the micro-harmonic-oscillators are modeled to be components which occupy other solvable quantum systems, which have discrete energy-level structures, though (in fact) only the model of independent components confined to a box satisfies this condition, and
(4) the H-atom’s wave-operator, or inertial-pde-model, is not solvable, but by arbitrarily giving the “assumed to be orbiting” charged-component (of an assumed to be a spherically symmetric H-atom) discrete radial values, which are assumed to identify discrete energy-levels for the energy-operator, then the “also assumed to be rigid-spherically symmetric coordinate-shape (of what separated equations remains of the separated inertial-pde-model of the H-atom) is associated to angular-momentum properties, where the different angular-momentum-values, in turn, separate the “radial energy-levels” into angular-momentum levels of, essentially, the same energy, this is about Lie group representations of (rigid) spherically symmetric coordinate-shapes, where this is a vague description about a partial-truth,
That is, this is about, 1½, formulated and solved, and clearly modeled and clearly interpreted quantum-systems, ie the box and the H-atom, but where the H-atom’s angular-momentum properties are really also an arbitrary math construct, and with an arbitrary interpretation,
thus, there is really only one formulated and solved quantum-inertial-wave-system,
namely, the classical thermal system in a closed and bounded box, note Feynman’s path-integral formulation of quantum physics is exactly about the classical thermal system in a closed bounded box,
These descriptions (eg of systems composed of small-components) are also with a context within which to interpret empirical results, eg tunneling, which is related to the material-thickness and density of the material of the wall through which the small components are colliding with the potential-energy wall and tunneling,
then there is the locally measured context of point-particle-collisions, ie a 1-body system in center-of-mass coordinates, and the resultant finite set of stable and unstable scattered components, and their regional scattering-patterns, which are scattered from the 1-body collision site, where the (stable and unstable) scattered components and their scattering-patterns are empirically associated to an internal particle-state model of scattering, which, in turn, defines a non-linear; and non-commutative; local inertial pde-model,
Then (for the almost always quantitatively inconsistent math models, ie the formulated inertial-pde-models of physical systems) the idea is put forth (or the assumption is made) that only local measuring makes any sense, especially, when the math context is quantitatively inconsistent,
ie the context is unrelated-able to math patterns, which are stable coordinate-shapes, ie the system’s inertial pde-model is not solvable, and so “the model of measuring has been assumed to be” that only locally made measurements have any relevance, since the mathematical description does not provide any model of a stable coordinate-shape, even though inertial-pde-models are only solvable for stable coordinate-shapes, so the local model of measuring are about models of point-particle-collisions,
which, in turn, are related to the, so called, internal particle-states, which are related to particle-physics,
where these internal particle-states are, in turn, supposed to be attached to the set of non-existent inertial-wave-functions of quantum-systems,
Thus, one can see that the set of locally measured properties are being locally measured due to the failure of math to provide a stable coordinate-shape for general physical systems,
where both the ideas of
(1) a separable pde ie a solvable pde, which must define solution-function maps of stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes, and the idea of
(2) general relativity, in which a system’s components are supposed to follow the geodesic pathways of a systems stable coordinate-shape,
are both descriptive contexts of mathematics which require the math description to be a stable coordinate-shape, but such stable coordinate-shapes are not being found for almost all of the set of inertial pde-models of material-systems as given by the laws of physics,
instead almost always only quantitatively inconsistent contexts for inertial pde-models are considered, and they are given an invalid math context, which, in turn, leads to an interpretation of physical description which can only be about the locally measured properties of quantitatively inconsistent models of physical systems,
which identifies a context of complete meaningless-ness,
the thus, measuring of general physical systems can only be about local measuring contexts, and these local models of local measuring…, which are considered…, are the models of particle-physics, which is best thought of as being a context of pure empiricism,
ie the empire’s physics and math institutions are not even trying to find new math patterns, which can be used to reduce the need for empiricism,
this is interpreted to mean that physical description reduces to a purely empirical context when one follows a math pattern, ie the inertial-pde-model, which is incapable of going beyond a description of some 1-body systems,

Though there can be many separate types of 11-dimensional hyperbolic metric-spaces, which are over-all containment spaces for bounded systems and beyond, and/but where if each such 11-dimensional hyperbolic metric-space has associated to itself a given finite set of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes and an associated sequence of shape-containment contexts, eg sequence of increasing dimension, then each such 11-dimensional hyperbolic metric-space can be a model of an existence, containing stars and galaxies, and everything else,
but where each such 11-dimensional hyperbolic metric-spaces, with its own given finite set of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes can each be a different type of existence, when compared with one another,
thus, there can be many-universes,
and/but high-dimensional and unbounded life-forms can likely move between these different universes,
but this is a mathematically explicit model of many different universes,

but there is expressions in the empire’s physic and math institutions vague speculative models of a many-universe existence,

The many-world (or parallel universe) interpretation of quantum physics
(which is all a bunch of non-mathematical nonsense)

That is, in the empire‘s, so called, physics and math institutional journals, there is (also) expressed the vague idea, really vague opinions, about many parallel universes, which, supposedly, emerge from quantum (or indefinably random) description,
this viewpoint has absolutely no merit (no meaningful content), since the claim is that new quantum wave-functions can form, apparently, with each new distinguishable materially measured state…, or materially identified state…, which a person perceives,
this is simply a vague assumption about the existence of wave-functions, but there is no formulation and solution of any such many-bodied wave-function representations of a person’s existence,
before the many-worlds…, which are supposedly associated to a quantum-wave-function’s existence…, can be assumed, then the laws of physics need to be used in regard to the formulation and solution of any such energy-operator and its related wave-function of a person’s entire existence, and they need to be explicitly produced and solved,
but this is not possible, the inertial pde-models of quantum physics can only be formulated and solved for some 1-body systems, so the conclusion is that this is all nonsense, so please “Do the math!” or otherwise it is simply opinions about vague speculative nonsense,

But this is how the propaganda-education-moralization system works, the descriptive context is pushed into a vague context of non-formulate-ability or non-solvable systems, and it is always placed in a context of quantitative inconsistency, so it is a meaningless context, and in this context the meaningless opinions of institutional authorities are put-forth as the natural, logical, and rational context about which a person is supposed to consider, about an absurd context, but it is simply meaningless, and content-less, speculative opinions, which are being expressed by the delusional and indoctrinated authoritative personnel of the empire’s math and physics institutions, it is a deception and it is fake-science,

But (in this context of ever promoting deceptions)
the set of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital physical systems is completely ignored, in the context of trying to measurably describe the set of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems,
thus, it (measurable physical description based on finding and solving inertial pde-models of physical system properties, which, except for the 1-body system of material-interaction) is a formal math language, but without any meaningful content,
which is contained in a math context of quantitative inconsistency, and it cannot be used to describe a stable pattern (either a mathematical pattern or a physical pattern),
thus, these pseudo-math-constructs are about formal math statements, which, in turn, are without any meaningful content, especially, in regard to measuring the stable properties of either a mathematical pattern or physical pattern, which are associated to an inertial pde-model, and, subsequently, it is a vague pattern with no practical use,
although (new) empirical data might be used to slightly adjust an already existing instrument,
in these contexts of quantitative inconsistency, the measured properties of physical systems become only about locally measured properties of unstable quantitative relations, which means that this is (only) about describing system-instability, and system dissipation,
thus, it is a descriptive context which is leading to ever more empiricism,
ie scientific truth concerning physical systems has come to be about long lists of empirical results,
it (ie the inertial pde-model) is the assumed to be stable math pattern, which is applied to many different systems, but whose descriptive range is only some 1-body systems,
it is a math construct, which certainly does not include “the very large set” of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems,

truth within the empire is defined by personality-cult worship, where such personality-cult worship is instigated by the propaganda-education-moralization-cheer-leading-for-arbitrary-high-value-secret-police-state system of deception and oppression,
where the (worshipped) object of personality-cult worship is the, so called, top institutional personnel of the empire’s rather limited in number of institutional categories (the fewer institutional categories then it is easier for the ruling-few to dominate these few numbers of institutional categories),
ie the empire’s truth about physics and math is about the opinions by the indoctrinated institutional experts about a quantitatively inconsistent and hence meaningless math context for math models of physical systems, where the empire’s physics and math institutional experts are a set of carefully selected set of the well indoctrinated and competitive…, ie competing for intellectual prizes…, (top) physics and math institutional personnel,

where the worship, by the public of…., physics and math institutions, where this blind worship by the public…. is induced in the public by the empire’s propaganda-education system, and it is framed in the propaganda-education-system as being about institutions, which have, supposedly, provided civilization with the highest cultural truths,
where this is a completely artificially manufactured illusion,
when, actually, the empire’s physics and math institutions are providing a context which leads…, not to descriptions of stable patterns, which can be used in a practically inventive context, but rather …, to quantitatively inconsistent math-model-descriptions, which, in turn, are leading to narrow limited empirical contexts, which are about local empirical properties,
whose empirical properties can (or might) only be applied to already existing instruments,
where the empire does not want new practically useful knowledge to be developed, since this would de-stabilize existing militaristically defined material-resources and business and product monopolies, whose socially dominating influences identifies the social context upon which the stability of the empire depends,

thus, the critic of the empire’s math and physics institutions, and who also has a new way in which to develop knowledge, is also excluded from the empire’s high-valued institutions,
those experts in the empire’s institutions, though they claim to want to consider new ideas, but they are deeply indoctrinated, and greatly rewarded for their faith in the empire’s institutional dogmas, ie the dogmas of their indoctrination and the dogma within which they compete for scholarly prizes, and thus, the only new ideas which they consider (and/but where they claim to be very interested in new ideas) are those ideas which are consistent with the self-referential set of assumptions and interpretations and the set of experiments which are only focused on the narrow range of “predictions,” which their dogma…,
ie namely, that all order in the universe is based on the order imposed on an assumed material-world by descriptive properties of 1-body systems, eg particle-collision scattering-patterns; and/or stars and associated solar-type-systems; which are modeled to be a spherically symmetric 1-body system; as given in general relativity,
…, is capable of describing, namely, the physics and math institutional experts can only predict attributes of (exactly) some 1-body systems,
eg scattering-patterns of the unstable components which are scattered from a 1-body model of a particle-collision, but where the scattering-patterns have been empirically related to what are called internal particle-states of the colliding particles, which are put in a 1-body center-of-mass system of coordinates,
ie they (the institutional experts who claim to be interested in any new ideas) have no (real) interest in any new way in which to use and organize the language of math, so as to try to extend the descriptive range of physics and math,
thus, if one is actually able to mathematically describe the stable properties of the MBFC-spectral-orbital systems,
but if the mathematical description is about math structures, which are not about the laws of physics, and the new ideas are not about the assumptions and interpretations and the narrow range of empirical contexts about which the empire’s physics and math institutional personnel consider, then any such new idea will be excluded from consideration,
the assumptions and interpretations and the narrow range of empirical contexts about which the indoctrinated institutional experts proclaim that the laws of physics, and the predictions of these laws, are only (and always) the descriptive range of “descriptions about 1-body systems;”
where it is only this narrow descriptive range which is being experimentally verified,
then the institutional experts have no interest in any truly new ideas about math models concerning physical description,

Where one finds the same fatalism in the progressives who make their living in the empire by reading and writing, they have many comments to make about how the only effective way in which to cause social change is to be civil-ly disobedient,
in doing this they are presenting support for the so called high-valued knowledge of the empire’s intellectual institutions, that is, the empire’s intellectual class whom fill the empire’s intellectual institutions are completely ignorant of the deep limitations of their institutionally highly-praised knowledge,
the intellectual-class should be engaged in equal free inquiry, especially, if they truly wanted to cause change within society, but the intellectual-class, in the empire’s intellectual-institutions are indoctrinated authoritarian paternalistic dogmatic intellectual imperialists like all the other paternalistic authoritarian bigots which fill the empire’s, so called, high-valued institutions,
but (or that is)
it is exactly the knowledge which is in the empire’s high-valued physics and math institutions, which must be changed if one wants the most effective way in which to cause social change, namely, by making new products, which can be associated to new life-styles, eg solar-energy instead of oil-energy,
but this example of a distinction made in knowledge about energy-sources is controlled by the ruling-investor-class’s control over the investment structures within the society, this is a control based on violence but it is militaristically allowed within the hierarchical social power structure,
thus, it is by disrupting life-style and disrupting trade-markets, by means of new knowledge and new invention, which can have the greatest social effects in a society, ie a society which is so regimented and oppressed by dominant investment structures of the ruling-class,

Well (or that is)
these big investment structures are associated to knowledge, so put forth alternative and better knowledge,

since the empire’s institutional experts are already at the top of the dominant intellectual institution within which high-intellectual value is measured, thus,
these indoctrinated, and deluded, institutional experts have no interest in any new ideas about math models,
even if the new ideas provide a measurable description of all the stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems, which exist at all size-scales,
it (the new idea about math models) is outside of the dogmas into which the experts have been indoctrinated,

(there is another social angle to the empire’s institutional experts, namely, their self-centered arrogance)
in fact, the, apparent, reason that any new ideas about how to model physical systems cannot be considered by the empire’s physics and math institutional experts is because the new solution is about math which is very simple (it is math which is exceedingly simple),
the institutional experts consider themselves (as does the public) to be quite the intellectually superior people within society, and their great intellectual capability allows them to consider only the most complicated of intellectual constructs, which are associated to the math description of physical systems,
where these same intellectually superior institutional experts have labeled the description of the stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems as being far too complicated to be able to be described using the, so called, laws of physics,
apparently, the intellectually superior physics and math institutional experts consider that any new idea about math modeling of physical systems must be very complicated, and it must not be a simple idea,
this seems to be true even if the new ideas about math models are ideas (or language constructs) which surround (or are very closely related to) the context of solution-functions to inertial-pde-models, and where the new ideas about math models are also about (metric-invariant) maps, which are defined between geometrically-similar sets of stable, parallelizable coordinate-shapes (ie maps defined from the domain space to the function-image space)----….,


but (note) [it seems that these physics and math institutional experts seem to be rather ignorant of simple math; they only consider the high-valued complicated math constructs; apparently, in their pursuit of intellectual prizes]
where the experts have foolishly placed the context of inertial pde-models into fundamentally non-commutative, and non-linear context, and these inertial pde-models are also placed within the context of indefinable randomness, and it is outside of an actual mathematical context, eg the set of unstable components which are scattered from the (in center-of-mass coordinates) 1-body particle-collision site; and the, so called, vacuum-state,
in these contexts none of the formally defined math constructs can be stable, ie they define a context of instability and dissipation which cannot be associated to any type of a stable pattern,
apparently, these same experts do not see that the only relation… that their 1-body models of existence…. has to any practical descriptive context (and that) is about an empirical relation to rates of collision (or reaction-rates) in a chaotic thermal system of a nuclear bomb’s explosion,
their formal mathematical complexity is completely irrelevant, to it (the mathematical descriptions which they use) being able to expand the descriptive range of any form of physically useful descriptions of stable patterns, other than that their efforts have pushed physics ever further into empiricism,

Where (to re-iterate) science is about trying to find stable math patterns, concerning a physically measurable context, but where the stable math patterns reduce empiricism, and, furthermore, these stable math patterns can be used to reduce empiricism for a wide range of systems,

thus, the physics and math institutional experts efforts are in opposition to reducing empiricism, ie they are in opposition to scientific development,
their main intellectual effort seems to be about pushing the idea that the 1-body system “is the cause of all order that is observed in all of existence,”
our existence seems to be confined to a material-world, ie higher-dimensions cannot be part of our experiences in life,
that the properties of the stable MBFC-systems cannot be measurably described,

it is perhaps best that one conclude that the empire’s physics and math institutional experts are chosen for their particular form of being: arrogant, obsessively authoritarian, and faithfully obedient, to their institutional dogmatic dullness, ie they seem to be very stupid, but arrogantly obsessive, and, apparently, they are seeking (intellectually) dominant social positions,

….----, where these parallelizable coordinate-shapes, which identify both system coordinate containment and occupying-system-component properties, are defined
in Euclidean space, ie the 1-body systems,
in space-time, or, equivalently…., in regard to the special relativity formula of mass equals energy, wherein the local time-component is divided-out…, in hyperbolic metric-spaces,
the mass equals energy formula also means that there is a union of two metric-spaces, ie a Euclidean metric-space and a hyperbolic metric-space of the same dimension, but where the stability of the metric-space is based on the stability of the hyperbolic metric-space’s stable MTC-coordinate-shape,
Where (according to D Coxter) these stable parallelizable coordinate-shapes are the particular type of very stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, which are related to right-rectangular-faced types of fundamental-domains, and whose moded-out stable MTC-coordinate shapes are covered by coordinates which are always locally independent, and which exist in hyperbolic metric-spaces of dimension-n for 01, or n-ellipses, but n-ellipses, n>0, or n-spheres, n>1, are (both) unstable coordinate-shapes, but they can be held together by their 2-dimensional toral-component attached scaffolding, and thus, these higher-dimensional spheres primarily define the size-scales of the concentric tori, but apparently, it is primarily about concentric 2-tori, but now, for an dimension-n toral-component, there are, [n!/2], 2-tori, which are the stable scaffolding which are associated to such a toral-component’s fundamental-domain,
but there is the further consideration of the geometric n-measure of an n-dimensional ellipse (thought of as an artificially made stable coordinate-shape), and thought of as a high-dimensional spectral-value, for the n-dimensional (or (n+1)-dimensional) toral-component,
but perhaps these spectral-values might be better thought of as being related to the geometric-measures of ellipses, or the measures of the energy of the set of [n!/2] set of 2-tori, which form the stable scaffolding for the n-dimensional tori,
But (furthermore)
there are pairs of circles…, associated to each of the (n-2)-dimensional right-rectangular-faced fundamental-domain’s rectangular 2-faces…, but one circle (of the rectangular 2-face) is in one time-state, while the other circle is in the other (opposite) time-state,
where there are two circles for each rectangular 2-face, and one of these circles…, which is in the metric-space state of time, which is being experienced…, will be normal to both of the two (n-2)-dimensional faces which are associated to the equatorial fundamental-domains of an (the) adjacent pair of concentric toral-components of the given MTC-coordinate-shape,
these two circles…, which are defined on the toral-equators of the adjacent concentric toral-components…, will define a normal axis of rotation, which is normal to both adjacent-and-concentric toral-components (of the given MTC-coordinate-shape),
with this construct one can consider how to define a rotation, which changes the relative spatial orientations of the adjacent concentric toral-components change, so that the ([n!/2], 2-dimensional) toral-components can posses a spatial-orientation, which is consistent with the spatial-orientations, which, in turn, are associated to the different maximal tori in the fiber Lie group…,
(note) where this reduction of an n-torus to [n!/2], 2-dimensional tori applies to maximal-tori (in the metric-spaces’ fiber Lie groups) also,
… but, furthermore, this could define a link between different dimensional levels of the same MTC-coordinate-shape, thus, it could provide a context, which relates a life-form’s smaller lower-dimensional coordinate-attributes to its higher-dimensional coordinate-shape attributes, which are stable-coordinate-shapes which exist at a much larger geometric size-scale,
this it the geometric link which some (high-dimensional) life-forms possess, which connects these high-dimensional life-forms to a wide-range of different size-regions of the universe, eg a link which goes out to the edge of the galaxy, and perhaps beyond,

Note: There is often the wishful thinking (by the public) about a route to different dimensions, or (an instantaneous route) to different places in the universe, which are different from earth, and very far away from earth, and so that the journey is instantaneous,
where this wishful thinking (which is really a natural desire for humans, because humans are so linked to that which is beyond the galaxy) is almost always linked to an idea of a worm-hole, which is about a quantitatively inconsistent model of a mathematical singularity in a geometric model of a single-body system which is a spherical coordinate-shape, this model is unstable and absurd,
this is about manufacturing an emotionally-based belief in the high-value of the empire’s experts, who have put-forth a delusion-ary model of existence, and who have such limited knowledge, which is based-on partial-truths, which, in turn, is associated to already existing instruments, but which is linked to an institutional structure of building with “the bricks which are at hand,” and to keep the public away from engaging in rational critical thought, so that no truly new practically creative inventions (which might be derived from new knowledge) can exist so as to disturb the already existing investment structures of the creative and productive efforts of the empire’s institutions, which contribute exclusively to the social power of the ruling-investor-class,

the above structure of a stable MTC-coordinate-shape, which is defined above, provides a mathematically stable model of a link between the same system, (say) a life-form, and its different dimensional levels, and their associated different types of size-scales, through which an instantaneous relation of being at what-ever level of dimensional existence and what-ever size-scale or place (of which the life-form is a part) and for which such a context of existence for which one (ie the life-form) is capable of perceiving and within which they understand how to act so as to be a part of different dimensional existence and to be a part of a different size-scale of the life-form‘s own existence,,

1-dimensional MTC-coordinate-shape or a MCC-coordinate-shape, ie a 1-dimensional many-circle-component coordinate-shape,

thus, the question that is being asked is:
“can hyperbolic coordinates of a MTC-coordinate-shape be related, by resonances, to the Euclidean right-rectangular-faced of fundamental domains of the fiber Lie group’s maximal-tori (or tori’s right-rectangular-faced of fundamental domains)?” the answer was given above, and the answer was, yes,

* this is about considering new math patterns, and new assumptions about the measurable language of math and physics which is consistent with quantitative structures and which is about the idea of coordinate-containment and what it means that math patterns concerning a measurable description of systems which are contained in coordinates (which are metric-spaces) and deal with (metric-invariant coordinate) maps which define the system’s measurable properties and the math patterns are all stable but it also is asking the question about describing locally measurable attributes of changes and the relation of changes to the properties of stable math patterns, where stability is about energy and changes are about inertia, and these properties distinguish the different properties (of coordinate-containment) which are associated to different types of metric-spaces,

Note: Whereas almost all of the efforts of the empire’s physics and math institutions do not question traditional authority, and work almost entirely on formal math and physics models which are quantitatively inconsistent, so their descriptions are unstable, fleeting, and dissipating, these are meaningless and useless efforts, though the empirical context is sure to have some relations to the building-bricks of existing instruments,
so the empire’s institutional experts have mired the development of new knowledge in the contexts of their own arrogant and overly authoritative, and deluded, stupidity,

education is about trying to frame questions and to try to be honest, but it is mistakenly presented as authoritative high-value and dominance,
While there is the obvious problem; that there are a very large number of stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems, which have no measurable description within the empire’s math and physics institutions, yet this problem is resolutely (and always) ignored,
but it is a fundamental problem, especially, since stable MBFC-systems (due to their stability) must be relatable to stable math patterns,

so the idea of a stable math pattern needs to be explored at a fundamental level of “what math means?” and “what it can do?” ie math truths are about very simple self-referential redundancies,
while studying the physical world, or studying the issue of existence, is about using stable math patterns to reduce the need for empiricism, and this reduction of empiricism needs to be applicable to a wide range of many-different systems,
so it is math patterns which need to be adjusted, and the fixed dogmas about physics, and the laws of physics, do not need to be protected,
where protecting the fixed dogmas about how math patterns are to be used in physics, pushes the math into quantitative inconsistency, so the entire effort is point-less and meaningless,
that is, both the laws of physics and the math patterns used to describe the physical world, are both placed into…, and maintained within…, a fixed dogmatic, and arrogantly, authoritarian, and delusional, descriptive context, which makes the attributes of truths…, for these, so called, high-valued imperial institutional truths…, deeply false,
But where these are the standards of, so called, accuracy within the (violent and unequal) empire,
truth is upheld by the dogmatic authority of the empire’s high-valued physics and math top institutional personnel, ie the imperial truths are upheld by personality-cult worship (by the public) of the empire’s top institutional personnel, where the imperial truths are the speculative opinions of the empire’s top experts, whom (in their delusion-ary, but dominantly arrogant, mental states) authoritatively uphold a failed dogmatic authority, ie these experts spout their speculative opinions about a failed dogma (and this is promoted by the empire’s propaganda-education-secret-police-state system),
where such over-hyped nonsense is clearly exemplified by the free use of the idea of a worm-hole, as if this is an idea which physics and math can develop, but they cannot develop such a quantitatively inconsistent and unstable of a descriptive context, it is deception and delusion and faithful obedience of the empire’s institutional personnel to the empire’s authoritative dogmas,

(to continue the discussion about stability of math patterns)
the resonances, which are central to establishing stability, are the dominant influence over the math structures, and these resonances are defined for the right-rectangular-faced type of fundamental domains of the stable MTC-coordinate-shapes (which are contained in hyperbolic metric-spaces),
but also where a MTC-coordinate-shape is (being) made stable through resonances with the given finite set of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes,
Thus the shared identity element in each maximal-torus in the fiber Lie group maps to the same point in the hyperbolic metric-space, namely, the common vertex point of the moded-out fundamental-domain of the stable MTC-coordinate-shape so that each different maximal-torus defines a toral-component of the MTC-coordinate-shapes and so that the toral-component generated by the continuous actions of a particular maximal-torus on the common vertex-point in the hyperbolic metric-space has a particular spatial-orientation,
thus, concerning a particular spatial-orientation of a MTC-coordinate-shape’s toral-components,
and given a metric-space’s rectangular-coordinate frame,
first there can be identified a particular maximal-torus, which, in turn, generates…, by the orbit generated by the maximal-torus’s image (of the maximal-torus’s action on a (or any) point of the toral-component’s mapping-image set)…, a toral-component in the metric-space coordinate-space, which has a particular spatial orientation in regard to the metric-space’s given rectangular coordinate frame,
with this spatial-orientation reference of a toral-component then the different maximal-tori can generate the other toral-components, which have different spatial-orientations,
these different toral-components can be arranged as concentric toral-components based-on the radii of the largest of the toral-component’s equatorial moded-out faces…,
to clarify the geometric idea of a moded-out equatorial face, where, in an n-dimensional (of what can be thought of as a particular) rectangular metric-space coordinate-frame, there can be contained an (n-1)-dimensional toral-coordinate-shape, where the (n-2)-dimensional faces… of the (n-1)-dimensional torus… mode-out so as to be what is analogous to the (n-1)-independent flows, so that one of these (n-1)-independent flows will have the greatest geometric measure of its periodic geometric-measure, where this flow….
(with the largest geometric periodic measure, eg w x L x h x q [ie a 4-dimensional example of a geometric-measure of a right-rectangular-faced fundamental-domain] (etc);
… of right-rectangular-faced prisms) can be called the toral-component’s equator,
note that, in the fundamental domain, there will also be a flow of the same-dimension which is opposite the (n-2)-dimensional flow, but where the opposite is also defined in regard to the toral-component’s n-dimensional moded-out shape, ie one of the equatorial tori is defined in the moding-out process, yet there is still another (opposite) equatorial-torus,
…, from these measures of the toral-component’s equators then it can be determined how the toral-components can be placed into a shape of concentric toral-components, where the different concentric tori will have either different sizes or different spatial-orientations as the other concentric toral-components placed into the concentric geometry of the toral-components,
where a line… (at any point on the equator) from the equator and normal to the toral-component… can connect the adjacent concentric tori, ie connected at either of the opposite pair of equatorial points of adjacent toral-components, and can relate, by an axial rotation, the different spatial-orientations of the adjacent toral-components of the concentric set of toral-components,
Thus in this way the right-rectangular-faced fundamental domains can maintain their right-rectangular-faced characteristic shapes upon which the right-rectangular-faced fundamental-domains of the fiber Lie group’s maximal-tori can act,
what is being solved by this geometric-construct of concentric independent toral-components in the coordinate-space is the question about how the right-rectangular-faced Euclidean fundamental-domains of the fiber Lie group’s maximal-tori can act on the hyperbolic-coordinates of stable MTC-coordinate-shapes in the hyperbolic metric-spaces, while the maximal-tori in the fiber Lie groups are, essentially, Euclidean shapes,

This is ultimately about identifying a math context where stability of both coordinate-shape and its generating metric-invariant maps are both very stable and well defined,

that is, the math patterns existing in the math literature have pointed to a particular set of math patterns which are parallelizable stable coordinate-shapes, and, in turn, there are parallelizable coordinate-shapes which are associated to the set of metric-invariant maps, which, in turn, define (or generate) the stable coordinate-shapes,
but there are issues of non-commutative local coordinate math relations for both coordinate-contexts (eg vertex-points of fundamental-domains) and the mapping contexts (the intersections of open sets of the different maximal-toral subgroups with the group’s mapping identity element, which is common to all the different maximal tori) which might be a basis for instability of the math pattern, so that underneath the, apparently, stable math patterns, there might be a (yet) simpler (and more self-referentially redundant) geometric context, which, in turn, defines even greater stability for the math patterns, which can be used in measurable descriptions of the physical world, so that stable math patterns can reduce empiricism,
what one finds is that “the greater the redundancy of simple self-referencing math patterns, then the greater the stability of the math pattern,
ie rectangles are related to local independence of rectangular-coordinates, rectangular fundamental domains can be moded-out so as to be related to coordinate-shapes, which are based on locally independent circular coordinates, and metric-invariant maps have this same relation between rectangles…, which are moded-out to form coordinate-shapes of locally…, (to) independent circular coordinates,
eg the (metric-invariant) maps generate the coordinates; where (in turn) the coordinate generate the (metric-invariant) maps,
this simple self-referential redundancy, in turn, creates stable math patterns,
thus, a discussion based on this type of simple redundant math patterns is actually talking about regionally stable coordinate-shapes, ie there is an actual subject matter,
while the math used in the empire’s physics and math institutions is all about a description, which at best can only be related to properties at a single point, and otherwise their discussion is all about vague math contexts which have no definite relation to the stability of their math structures, since almost all of their math structures are unstable, fleeting, and dissipating patterns,
where, apparently, the empire’s institutional experts assume their formal math structures have meaning, in regard to describing the stable properties of existence, but this meaning is primarily about (due to) the authority which their social positions in the violent empire’s institutions gives to them,
at best they describe an unstable, fleeting, dissipating descriptive context,
they certainly do not know what exists,
other than
lists of empirical results, and the set of descriptive structures of E&M-theory, and Thermal physics theory, and they make empirically dependent feedback systems, which are a part of the empire’s almost entirely warring institutions,
They (the empire’s institutional experts) do not understand why a lot of existence is about stable structures, eg the very big set of very stable MBFC-spectral-orbital systems of all size-scales, and/but They (the empire’s institutional experts) do not understand anything about most of what actually exists, but which they (the empire’s institutional experts) authoritatively proclaim does not exist, physics is based on the idea of materialism, ie existence is defined by the material-world,
the external institutions of the empire direct the lives of the empire’s institutional authorities more than do these authorities own (internal) life-force directs their own lives, these people of the empire are empty,

where for the 2-face attributes of the generated toral-component this spatial-orientation can be related to the ecliptic 2-plane if one of the moded-out 2-faces, ie a 2-torus which is a toral-component of the MTC-coordinate-shape, has its equatorial circles intersecting with the ecliptic 2-plane,

thus, the fundamental-domains of the stable MTC-coordinate-shapes need to become more distinctly separate right-rectangular-faced of fundamental domains for each toral-component of the stable MTC-coordinate-shape,
where this can be accomplished at the level of the 1-dimensional stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, which occupy the 1-faces of the higher-dimensional stable MTC-coordinate-shapes, so that
(1) any point along a equatorial circle of a 2-face can be chosen to be the vertex, and
(2) in the concentric toral coordinate-shape a line-segment can be defined between equatorial-circles of the 2-faces of the separate right-rectangular-faced of fundamental domains of the concentric tori,
but (so that) the concentric tori all have a common 2-plane, thus, a line-segment can be defined between equatorial-circles of the 2-faces of the separate right-rectangular-faced of fundamental domains of the concentric tori, but so as to remain in the concentric-tori’s common 2-plane,
this common 2-plane would be related to the ecliptic-plane of the solar-system,
the different toral-components can have different spatial-orientations, based-on angles defined from a given 2-plane, where this given 2-plane is related to the ecliptic-plane of the solar-system, and an axis of rotation, which the line-segment between adjacent concentric toral-components could be, and where the line-segment is defined (or contained) in the 2-plane,
where the independent but concentric toral-components are generated by the maps which are confined to maximal-tori in the fiber Lie group, where the maximal-tori in the fiber Lie group are different based-on the spatial-orientations of the toral-component which the given maximal-torus will define by its mapping in the metric-space coordinate-space,
And furthermore,
(thus,) the different spectral-orbital values can be obtained for a toral-component with a particular spatial-orientation by discretely mapping the maximal-tori with the same spatial-orientation as the coordinate toral-component so that the each diagonal entry… of the diagonal matrix of the (otherwise) metric-invariant map, defined on the maximal torus, with the correct spatial-orientation…, is also multiplied by a constant multiple, so that the particular discretely defined constant multiples, in turn, identify…, in the discretely-defined diagonal map…, the 1-face lengths of the toral-component’s separate right-rectangular-faced fundamental domain of one of the concentric tori in the MTC-coordinate-shape,
where this discrete re-definition of the stable MTC-coordinate-shape is defined for each discrete time-interval, where, in turn, this discretely defined map identifies…, by it discretely repeated use…, a mapping resonance between both the
separate right-rectangular-faced of fundamental domains of the concentric tori…, which, in turn, define the stable MTC-coordinate-shape…., and the separate right-rectangular-faced of fundamental domains of the fiber Lie group’s maximal-tori,

Where the problem with the maximal tori is that they all share a common group-identity mapping-element, and where the intersection of all the different maximal-tori of the fiber Lie group is an open-set defined around the identity mapping element, thus, the resonance needs to be defined based-on the separate right-rectangular-faced of fundamental domains of the maximal-tori, which have a particular spatial-orientation in their relation to mapping-out stable coordinate-shapes, or the maximal-torus intersection-set might define a quantitatively inconsistent math context, that is, the separate right-rectangular-faced of fundamental domains of the maximal-tori make the resonance precise around the identify mapping element of the (coordinate metric-space’s) fiber Lie group

add a comment on this article