Web Surfer Dude suggests that E8 Symmetry = Abraham

This is far too coincidental.
Did the Surfer dude and E8 inadvertently find the formula for Abraham the patriarch?

The Hebrew root cherem (spelled: chet, reish, mem) is a permutation of ramach (spelled: reish, mem, chet), the 248 limbs of the body that correspond to the 248 positive commandments of the Torah. 248 is also the numerical value of Abraham. It was Abraham’s self-nullification that allowed him to integrate the knowledge of the unity of God into his very being. This self-nullification is the origin of the 248 limbs and the 248 positive commandments. Abraham spread the knowledge of the unity of God throughout the world, manifesting the image of God.248 is also the numerical value of b’tzelem Elokim, “in the image of God.”

And surfer dude’s theory rests on E8 which is a 248-dimensional form of algebra…

…Consider 16×16 real matrices and satisfying two conditions…

Is E8 … Abraham?

Spheres, cylinders or cones are familiar examples of simple, symmetrical objects in three dimensions. But E8 is a piece of geometric origami that comes in 248 dimensions.”E8 is as complicated as symmetry can get,” David Vogan, a mathematics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who took part in the calculation, said on Sunday.


And this is a picture of the patriarch Abraham…E8 Lie symmetry.
Good looking guy.
He looks perfect.
He has great symmetry.
I must say, Abraham is semitic symmetry in motion.


So if E8 (248 dimensions is Abraham) is that image above a ‘mirror reflection’ of the Creator?



One thought on “Web Surfer Dude suggests that E8 Symmetry = Abraham

  1. Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.
    Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.
    This simple fact is forgotten in the science now.
    It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
    ( theory of photon/ electron’s behaviour ).
    Minkowski, trying to understand SRT, used 4D space.
    Poor young Einstein , reading Minkowski interpretation,
    said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
    ” You are right, it is difficult to understand SRT, using 4D space.
    But using my 5D space it is possible” – said Kaluza in 1921.
    This theory was checked up and recognized insufficient.
    ” Well, – said another mathematicians, – maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D
    spaces will explain it”. And they had done it.
    But the doubts still stay.
    “OK,- they say, – we have only one way to solve this problem,
    we must create more complex D spaces ” .
    And they do it, they use all their power, all their
    super intellectuals to solve this problem.
    Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
    But there is one nuance. To create new D space, mathematicians
    must take a new parameter. It is impossible to
    create new D space without a new parameter.
    And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
    ( it fixed according to his opinion not objective rules ).
    The physicist R. Lipin explained this situation in such way :
    ” Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant. With four
    I can make him wiggle his trunk・quot;
    To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add :
    ” with one more parameter the elephant will fly. ”
    The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
    Where are our brains?
    Please, remember, many D spaces were born as a whish
    to understand SRT ( theory of photon/ electron’s behaviour ).
    But if someone wants to understand, for example,
    a bird ( photon / electron) itself and for this he
    studies only surroundings will he reach success ?

    If I am a king , I will publish a law:
    every mathematician who takes part in the creation
    of 4D space and higher – to award with a medal
    ” To the winner of a common sense “.
    Because they have won us, using absurd ideas
    of Minkowski and Kaluza.
    I asked some mathematician :
    There are many different D spaces in the math/ physicist’s works.
    Are there limits of these D spaces?
    Maybe is 123 D space the last and final space ?

    He answered:
    I think there are as many opinions on this as there
    are people giving thought to the issue.

    My own opinion is that since the more immediately
    obvious 123D option (either parabolic, flat or hyperbolic)
    did not allow, despite all efforts, reconciling the various
    theories, then there is need to try something else.

    Maybe has this time
    “then there is need to try something else” come ?

    And what is mathematical opinion about photon itself ?
    Here is one example how mathematician tries
    to solve the problem.
    Russian scientist professor V.P. Seleznev created “toro model ”
    of light quanta. According to this model the light quanta is a
    constant volume ring ( like bublik) . The speed of it
    is different and this fact gives possibility to understand
    all light natural phenomenones, overcome through all
    contradictions in the physics and to offer a new technology.
    So it is written in the book.
    / Book “The secrets of Universe” 1998.
    V.D. Demin. Page 377./
    Short explanation is given on 4 pages.
    Glory to this scientist .!!!!
    Glory to this professor !!!!
    But I have only one question .
    Can this “toro volume ring model ”
    ( like bublik) have volume in Vacuum ?
    The answer is ” NO ”
    According to J. Charles law ( 1787),
    when the temperature falls down on 1 degree
    the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
    temperature reaches -273 degrees the volume
    disappears and particles become “flat figures “.
    The ” Charles law” was confirmed by other physicists:
    Gay-Lussac, Planck, Nernst, Einstein .
    So, according to Charles law
    the “toro volume ring model ” is only
    mathematic illusion .

    There are many different models of photon.
    To choose the correct one we needs to ask
    a question: ” Which geometrical form can
    photon have in vacuum ? ”
    Some scientists say:
    ” The darkest subject in the science is light quanta.”
    Maybe now some my readers will understand
    better the way on which we must go.
    Now mathematics goes ahead science and physics follows it.
    Mathematicians carry the posters ” Forward to abstract”,
    ” Forward to absurd” and we all follow them.
    We go bravely on dinosaur’s path.
    ============ =.
    The SRT is a real theory.
    The bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima proved it.
    But ” 4-D Minkowski space ” is an abstract theory.
    There isn’t any proof of its existence.
    And if we mix these two theories then we are
    surprised with its paradox.
    What does the man usually do in such situation?
    It is clear, he must understand
    what ” 4-D Minkowski space ” is. I say, it is Vacuum.
    But somebody can say: ” You are wrong,
    4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.”
    Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must suppose
    that the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space
    in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.
    Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.
    In another words, if we don’t know what ” 4-D Minkowski
    space ” is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.
    The proof of SRT isn’t over yet. We must give a real
    interpretation to ” 4-D Minkowski space “. I only hope that
    a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence.
    ====== =========
    I forgot that all Universe began from ” apparent big bang “.
    So I must add the ” apparent big bang ” to ” D-space”
    ・・..or to ” the God “……….. ……… ..
    Then ………… …
    The atheist will say : ” There isn’t any God. There is only
    big band which destroyed all “D- spaces” and therefore
    we see background radiation T=2,7K now.”
    And religious man will say: ” The God exists.
    He sits at his ” D- home” and plays with all things.
    For example.
    The action, when the God compresses all Universe
    into his palm, we have named ” a singular point”.
    And action, when the God opens his palm,
    we have named the “Big Bang”.
    I don’t know who is right.
    But I came to conclusion:
    ” If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,
    I will never gather my harvest . Because if I plant ,
    for example, an electron I will get ・a positron, ・
    ・.quark,・aryon,・boson,・.meson,・muon,・.tau, ….
    ….D- spaces ・ and in the future centaurs and sphinxes.”
    ======= ====== ============ ========= ==
    http://www.socratus .com

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s