Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The Coherence of Pinwheel Complements
The Coherence of Pinwheel Complements
L. Edgar Otto November 1, 2011
While the pantheon of theorists debate if some data is true or error I continue to press on in the usual directions that give as much an overview as to see deeply into the discrete world below those recognized by mere particle diagrams. I mention this as a feeling because I hope that some can understand my progressively complex writings on such foundational notions- and that it brings them to a more sensible level- not that so many are not brilliant, more so than I. It does not matter if I am recognized or not for some contribution- it matters to me a great deal that in the cases where such contributions would have made a difference that those who wanted so desperately to understand their lives and the world can walk in these abstractions so concrete as to be real with me finding the wisdom if they really want it and not the quest or the fame - shining and not like failed stars.
*If we view the simple quasic plane, the first and simplest of the small pictures in the illustration, as 128 rather than 64 cells so the odd dimension, we find a pattern also where the unit cell in the 8 colors make a gel of 16, which is even. In terms of numbering as in the large pinwheel above, these amount to the questions involving the 8n + 1 sequence and kinds of numbers. What all this amounts to really is a philosophy of patterns emphasized from a philosophy of number theory. This is an example more than the coordinate information of the quaternion - octonion transitions over quasicity.
*If everything got bigger (or smaller) would we know it. It is interesting that the new camera will be up soon with several measurements to be taken on the nature of dark energy. But we do notice some things smaller or larger compared with others in our environment (today my apartment building seems a level smaller yet the world a little larger- this I attributed to circumstances changing or my state of mind- yet I did realize it as significant. So, the expansion of the universe (one of three known ways to define energy) accelerates (and tachyonicly decelerates as if in a mirror). We know also that we can imagine along these lines light slowing down. That leaves h or action which in a sense is neutral, invariant, and stable in relation to the quasic field. In this sense h involves the discrete or granularity while vacuum change as expansion and light as invariant become viewed as continuous. We can imagine then the galaxies going further apart while the matter within them, the gravity so to speak bringing what is left on that level together.
*This then a question of what is the depth-span or span-depths of the quasic field and that a squaring of things at least. Such absolute concepts needs not be assumed always positive nor what it decides as to the signs it contains as visible in the solution to such equations. In another sense any of these on the physical level can be imagined the reference frame, so to their combinations for example we may see here in the mass differences of depth a hyper combination of Einstein and Mach backgrounds together, as we find a mirror for the Newton and Leibniz backgrounds. Then all of these as part of a more unified theory.
*I have some recurring dreams the significance of what I do not know if anything- as I said my dreams are very normal again. Two forms of some sort of sauce that go into pot of stew and in each dream I think about the differences between them- but they are more like the clear and vague sea creatures the sauce is made from. By this I do not mean to claim the simple presentation of things expanding or shrinking stand as high in wisdom as the insights of the quasic plane itself.
* * * *
The foundations of physics... well, Lorentz transformations are not foundational. Nor are they a facade and will be here to stay even in a deeper reality.
While the truth of it, its group concept and so on, will stand even if some reference frame is space acceleration, invariant light constants, or a finer grain for reality than h and all working together in the mystery of all our crazy paper crazy enough to come to light.
Our thoughts or speculations can be superluminal in this metaphorical sense- but it is not clear that the truth of them objectively depends or not on someone else to hear it.
These are foundational issues and I praise the efforts and hopes of all you alternative theorists so do not give up- for one thing I would welcome any new insights expanding my interest in the universe and showing where we all are still in a fog or in error.
Ray, I was going to mention that quote myself and I agree, thanks.
* * * *
Facebook status on the 1st of November:
L. Edgar Otto
The more we understand how the universe works the more secure we feel about being in the world, the more important seems our relations to each other, and our concepts of God still far above all that while we incubate in the womb of light- the decay of science in this nation will add to the chaos in the hearts of the people.
* * * *
More Dialog thru comments with Pitkanen:
http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/10/more-about-strange-charged-trilepton.html and posts before and after it in the comments
Thank you for the reply.
The idea of sparticles seems to me a little vague to base theories on.
I agree that the planes are more fundamental than just a point like idea- "that in a sense a quantum grounding is a prime one..." more or less as in your next postings.
But you have said, in the idea of quantum uncertainty that some particle values approach a p-adic prime so not necessarily an absolute value of such a prime.
Thus in the question of what is a number the class idea of an integer can be a rather quantum concept yet have discrete values to great accuracy.
Yes this raises issues of non-conservation and proton lifetimes- but is this not a question at remote cosmology? In any case non-conservation is a matter of something more discrete as measure (Rowlands)and outside of something continuous.
So in the TGD framework do you think such privileged parity asymmetry is an intrinsic property of the physics of space- or just a phenomenon resulting from such laws of particles?
* * *