**Happy Trails to You**

**( until we meet again if we do )***L. Edgar Otto*16 July, 2012

*Two trails may intersect into a larger trail.

*A trail may naturally divide in its arithmetical mirrors given sufficient information in the resolving or suspended ordering.

*A trail my undergo such transformations if the context of the trail changes the grounding of its dimensions of abstract motion.

*A trail as a loop may undergo chance mutation variations and spontaneously relate error correction arithmetic.

*Two trails may pass through each other without interaction.

*A trail (dimmer) may split or compress the field it surrounds. Or make analogies to different levels of its complexity of information in reduction or transcendence.

*This can be seen as an action, or a directed action, as well as a state of being.

*An aggregate of trails acting independently may orient in different directions which have no external influence nor internal influence necessarily as to the coherence of the trail and field system.

*Trails may become tangled without touching in reference to each other as if a boundary irreducible knotting in the field.

*The topology of one sided figures applies but is lesser than the general logic of the unified field.

* * * * *

Poetic Terms earlier this morning evoked from seeing the term "Higgsteria" in internet commentary... (some from a bygone era of questionable taste yet of my childhood social environment):

*Higgments of Imagination*

*Higgroes and Higgininnies*

*Higgress*

*Higgritude*

*Higgs in a Blanket*

*Higgston Contraction*

*Higglets*

*Higgmalion*

*Higgsteria*

* * * * *

The pentagonal and pentagram illustrations come from an observation that the 5-cell (tetrahedron with a fifth center point) I use for a research symbol (alternatively the star in a pentagon so to describe this graph) can be seen as a fifth of the totality. That is an abstract two dimension flat space projected into an abstract three dimensional space- of which here we can imagine from two D to 4D with the 5 fold symmetry.

When we imagine from three knowns the fourth one, say the hight by corresponding triangles, this is a relationship of the means and extremes- yet in a sense we can say given 4 knowns the fifth one is implied, provided we distinguish and do not take foregranted the information or lose it in the context of the field.

Let me add also that this supposed one of 240 nodes in the quason does seem to have the general properties of these higgs-like objects as far as how we view the symmetry operations as the unknowns in sight but not of reachable touch as this sense of a new physics as if a super symmetry.

It is here that we exceed the simple idea of rotation of a Riemann sphere or Lorentz invariance in a hyperbolic cone in the z direction and go beyond the ideas of Complex number spaces and of the resolution into ideas of partial views such as twistors and so on... the key is also how we treat the information insofar as the totality of such signals may transmit information over some interval of absolute idea distance. It should be obvious also that we have to explore these concepts in higher spaces to gain further reduction in how these apply to physical structures. Clearly in the atom quason the kernels are doubled in the series 1 2 8 18 is it not clear that the 14 and 14 left over are outside the Otto-Conway matrix and thus in a sense are part of not only a shielded but higher dimensional perspective?

BTW there is more than one way to fill two space with these 5 fold objects if we keep the idea of color in mind- it certainly applies to material configurations of this nonnecessary field privileging of central focus. We tend to think that once we have established a field in which we need not consider things unseen beyond the boundaries so do not understand there is more than one way to fill a space. When we isolate from a flat plane a point and all its connections so as to find a spherical space (as in Lubos today discussing the complex numbers and the Riemann sphere rotations) we do not simply get an isolated region necessarily nor by inversions do we stay always on one side of some dark mirror- although he seems to see that in a sense all geometries do stand logically together in abstract theory considerations.) Is it me or do our great bloogers seem to be now on a raised bar of the debates and discussion?

* * * *

## No comments:

## Post a Comment