Abstract Structures and Motion

Abstract Structures and Motion

I found, after a short look at it, that my proposal for projects for February were already there. If a researcher has all the ingredients to solve some problems but someone else points out these things are linked into a more general picture of the recipe- who is the author of the theory? Where was Einstein original, for example, his synthetic application at an others suggestion to his ideas of motion and electrodynamics of the existing non-Euclidean physics?

Anyway, on the way back home from the coffee shop an equation Coxeter called remarkable by someone I forget the name and Coxeter said not much else about it, kept coming to my mind.
That the sum or orthogons is equal to the product of orthogons. Let those who try to capture theories of number with the sigma and pi summation and product signs keep this in mind.

Perhaps, like the discovery of the Non-Euclidean geometries, or he classification of crystal groups, that statement that many arise individually like violets in the field for discoveries. Or we could be just products of the time, a reaction to the influence of someone like Gauss with the brave insights and interpretations of the young Riemann. I would like to think that when we bring something into this world by thought it already is a part of our shared body of knowledge and learning. But this is philosophy or psychology, clearly if all that is somehow loops back to sustain things- over infinite time such that we ask if we really need to ask where does the information go?
What does this really mean to say as popular in the science fiction- things happen at the portals and between the mouths of wormholes?

Nature, should she preserve every aspect of our life's experience would hold the negative in our dreams too- surely she would give us the mechanisms to close some doors of remembrance, surely some principle in the motion of unique living distinguishes the facticity of our multiple lives and lovers in the abstract possibility of things. The soul and nature guards our privacy's.

So, the aether of the Higgs field may go the way of such aethers- into an illusion of false axioms and phantom wind explained away with other false axioms, then to be at peace or rest as a final term to describe the totality or gravity and relative motion. Again we asked a question that made no ultimate sense in retrospect, and not seeing before hand those who work with real physics and with experiments, do not see such general theories of abstract motion and the violets now of a few people for whatever reason in the field to them can long remain invisible. This was not the answer, they say offering us nothing to replace it, but the alternative approaches are dismissed on general grounds that science will eventually prove them wrong or not relevant.

* * *

*We can assume a designation in any space of a unique position of a coordinate and collectively designate this "abstract position" as in a set of sequence or order of things such that the general consideration of things (knots, loops, vectors) can easily distinguish the handedness including generalizations of this duality concept.

*This assumption of an empty space of rest, or a center containing one with thus a "spacious singularity" (*by that I now realize the definition as a wildcard coordinate and abstract motion) carries over all systems of symmetrical and abstract or real motions.

*The description of abstract motion in terms of 1's and 0's is the cell area contained in some grid (such as the graph lines, spacious, in a quasic plane or the epsilon honeycomb) while the * or wildcard coordinates make more grid to the delta honeycombs than that infinite or finite structure itself. This gives a unique difference between such matrix structures of 1's and 0's and that part of some structure that is just a real with wildcards. The same f and change coordinates and laws of motion apply to say polyhedra like the cube and its set of subcells.(here I designate the symbols slightly different as a square C and ^ lambda but others are welcome. That C is from the civil war cipher, and the ^ is vaguely delta for the similarity to change as is the change symbols backwards 6 as in partial differentials.

*But what we designate as say the 000 to 111 corners of a cube. (or better yet the 00 to 11 corners of a square with 5 other abstract motions within for 9 objects, the notation from the center thus ** we note not an order as if a three base gray or third order logic necessarily- for the order of such abstract motions while describing the same sort of orthogonal subcells centrally determined.) It is clear that on the same dimension in terms of purely ordered 1's and 0's alone we have to represent the space as a binary base or dimension higher in the notations. Thus one motion can be in 8 base or 2 base equivalently, and so on to higher dimensions.

I see from Kea a link to someone "who considers Clifford symmetries in Hilbert spaces" of which the diagram is not that clear but the distinction here with a more formal look at the idea of abstract motions and wildcard notations (the order in the one dimensional case is a successive order 0 * 1.) what is being described and with a real difference is evident. Otherwise these just problems of dualist labellings.

I wish to point out also, Kea, it may not be enough to label the loops of the knots in terms of j k i or some combination of them for we, by the above consideration of where actually not only powers of two are motions but powers of two to the powers of two, have not understood if the systems is 3+1 or and that 1 a hyper-number root of unity up to nine dimensions excluded by our notation (or assumed there is a higher dimensional "twist".

Diagrams forthcoming. To get the full scope of this diagram (I tried to simplify it some) one has to consider a quasic grid actually for the 000-111 as eight corners of a 3x3x3 cube thus embedded in 2^6 space for the 27 things in only 0 and 1 terms.

But in these matters of structure and motion it is clear that both types apply in the additions and products in a more unified theory of such motions and to what sort of physics and assumptions of such forces and spaces than apply even if independently so seeming.

It is hoped that those who have intuitively explored such spaces are better able to find patterns of things and general principles than those not as at home in such a place of abstract thinking.

[The chiral designation of such knots by a certain cdefgabc ordering of space and of course these same wildcard principles applied to such structures a forthcoming diagram in a future post, as per the other proposed Feb 2011 project. In this sort of ordering, generated really by the idea of a matrix of columns where one element is the knights move of 2 and 1 abstract motions- why is there a limit to 11 elements? Something in a stray library book I read about in 60 or 61 or so?]



* * *

Ulla has a most interesting zone reflex post today on nerve transmission and a simple model. (old ideas come back sometimes, and new ones in error tend to persist)

A stray poetic thought to do with the metaphor or analogy of all this to the senses, confusing enough what is taste (fundamentally like salt) and smell. The most complicated idea of touch- we combine ideas like cocaine and alcohol to make a deeper toxic the liver produces, cocaine-ethanol. Well, I doubt the motive was as in Ulla's zone reflex blog link- that the motive in exploring DNA or here the subtle analogies of protein and fat in the membranes (much as if cables of information as in the ideas of Pearson in the 80's or for that matter the pragmatic look into any of the alternative medicines)that "if we understand the molecules we understand the nature of life" even if Crick and Watson cited this idea as a motivation. Such reductionism has its place. Anyway, my choice for touch as a triplet of things which merely assures us that life and physical processes are intelligible- would be:
Creamy (non-lye soaps), Shea (Butter) and lanolin. -thank you Dr Oz and the Doctors popular daytime television shows. Why do we use things in partial knowing of the chemistry that said to aid our hair for example is that which drys or makes it fall out? I doubt these senses labels will move toward useful physics descriptions even if we do sort out the synaethesia of structure and flavor.

On the other hand it may be of some use to label 00 and so on as my usual KLMN... but the wildcard directions as center, and NSEW, the usual differences between the triangular and square orthogon motions as the powers of 3 and 4 and 5 here considered.

* * *

Kea has some wonderful links in her update 50. Reading some of them I feel very much at home- save for their use of terms like I coined- quasi-this or that :-) some of which seem read clearly as if the same.

So in reading the links, I am trying to see why there are any objections to these theories at all- and I am wondering, the the suggested applications to physics- what after all will be advances and original new contributions here- I mean, what is the wider area of something like "quantum loop gravity" that is not already understood but in rather strange language and symbols?

I tried the cdefgabc diagrams but they proved to become too cluttered even starting with simple elements for now. The elements were of course cubes.

Perhaps, as we all have the same objective vision as the world is intelligible, it is just a matter of translating the language from one vision to the next.

I had some thoughts today on how we see (or do not see) color in terms of all this- especially if we limit things to FF FF FF and another one FF for black and white- but is the 24 bits not part of the issue here in the notations of higher color space? And what does the machine read if we jumble the notations and balance them? That is it will only default to 24 bit color? Certainly, even in things we cannot see or visualize, the algebra can be intelligible until we find a representative pattern that might be visible- that or we grow better eyes like say the birds- yet, do they navigate by something magnetic or by something like scent? or is that just a unification of some space by complex organic things with deep connections on he microlevel ?

Based on some of these interesting links I regret not posting in detail or from higher levels of such quasi-space a few dimensions up- consider it a sketch- but then again those of you in the know have the full scope of the picture anyway.

I note the science daily article of a star starting with a black hole- of course from the creative view this is not a surprise.

Now what do we explore?
* * *