The Quasication of Mass

The Quasication of Mass

L. Edgar Otto   15 March, 2013

We cannot fold a sheet of paper more than seven times.  I cannot say I understood how this comes to be in a way that it was derived but after reading it in Darling's book where he said try it I finally got around to it tonight.  I had not looked at the obvious so was surprised that it made a plane of sixty four squares.  This immediately raised several connections from my abstract treatment of numbers in a quasic plane.

As a child I was fascinated with magnets, how they influenced each other invisibly and in any direction.  I was particularly amazed how they fought back as I moved them near or past each other in a stronger way than in my electrostatic experiments.  It seemed in the moving of them I hit in the ghostly space what felt like the ground as if a brick wall.  This was the same feeling when I tried to make the eighth fold.

The result of this primitive speculation or intuition is to make certain distinctions for the idea of inertial forces for after all I was working on extended variations of sequences of color in the binary grid as divisions of five and how these from a given isolated size may tile a plane and what illusions of cross-eyed depth we may find.  (I add that in my drawing I think there is an error of colors in the lower quadrants as the symmetry does not look right, probably because of trying to keep in my mind changes in color order with substitutiions). So, the idea of resonances in a structure of Higgs-like counts as a generational phenomenon is part of a wider relation between say our idea of gravity and mass.  There is also this idea of folding.

We can double the zero volume dihedron or with the idea that the unified theory of matter and gravity fold them within bounds and over quasic geometry of generational space.  Such a unitary theory takes place in the extended and multiple boundaries of the plane (or brane) in a choice of ways we may see it as super symmetry theories.

The reduction in supposed familiar dimensional physics is understandable that we may legitimately suggest a partial theory where we hold certain values as linear only- as in the velocity of light (as one commenter on Gibbs page suggests in the relation to the energy and mass equation.) or as others who contribute to the theory of everything we may regard the constant of action as identical to mass itself or some other traditional physical parameter, likewise see that value as variable or of certain discrete values in shifting ratios much like the generational principle nature uses to triplicate particles. 

A remark I just heard on a PBS show quotes someone who pointed out the problem (I think the one on Western civilization in the world) is not that in the loss of core values we no longer believe in some things thus in nothing but we then can believe in anything.  I find this a stronger objection or restraint than the often quoted logic 101 that nothing can be proven from a stance on negation.  This wins the debate on its own level but not the general picture.

There is of course the flow back from the Chinese civilization that in its own right had golden eras of science in its stance and times.  This is all the insights, binary as in the I Ching that looks remarkably like the 64 regions of codon combinotorics... but 5 simply cannot simply divide into 64 for here we meet such hidden symmetries if there in number patterns, thus four of the ideograms stand for the four seasons so as there are six times 64 we have 384 to which we subtract 24 for 360-  the sun and moon calendars are universal for our cyclic models as civilizations gaze at the sky.  We even have to add at the beginning or end of place holding empty cycles a few extra days in the count.

But can we fold a three space with no more than 3 or some multiple of the 9 slice cuts in a higher abstract space?  And in the onion like count of regions over the 64 as Euclidean representations do we not interpret the natural dimensions involved as well the symmetry across the quasic plane?  What four codons may be said to be excluded from the triplicate twenty that code for proteins smoothly?  What sort of algorithm do they use for electric circuits that can fold themselves like origami?

I find it perhaps trivially interesting that these illustrations of the folding when viewed crossed eyed as a certain distance between the colored fold lines, here green, that one of the colors can vanish from perception.  This I vaguely decided was why in some of the higher jazz scale extensions to make a chord of four or five notes we exclude the root or other notes sometimes in the inversions. Note there seems more than four ways to rewrite a melody, in the implied four space we can have at least eight ways.  Jazz misses some whole new expanded 4ths like scales I conjecture and certianly could test.

Wes from the Gibbs discussion on theories of everything commented on my post on the cosmic code conclave and I reread it and did see it was exceptionally written compared to other post (perhaps because of the experience of a wider world than my usual limited county the days before).  This one is more down to earth so if any of you topologists out there can tell me why we cannot go beyond seven folding (I naively thought of it like how many pages in a phone book does one reach to tear it in half) I would appreciate it.

We find in the nano world inorganic structures similar to those of our natural organic DNA but I do not think such an algebra or geometry is more fundamental than the organic itself- likely a lesser level, say that of 16 cells or one of these sorts of squared generations applies.  Also note the prevalence of 14, 28, 21 ...and all such numbers that apply in the number theory as in Pascal triangles or associahedra and so on... does such an associahedron as generational really exist in the same way unique for each natural dimension or is there a wider topology involved here?  What of the Fano plane? 

What moreover of the 5 colors needed as we abstractly in a wider span of symmetry draw things to count the dihedral group upon a cube one face is hidden in that count? And many other simple questions hard to ask simply occur to me in this simplistic post that has to start somewhere like how many colors met in the three squares to an edge of the hypercube?  I have to review some simple things I no longer see as obvious in the count, how many edges to a soccer ball pattern?   Wider view needs a little more solid feel to ground the abstract force of confluence of symmetric objects for congruence though intelligible is not simply enough to erect a wider theory of everything by the less artful methods.

A thought or a statement perhaps,  I do not feel a compulsion to write an to share ideas becomes less so.  It is more a ritual and like a job. This is important for the PBS show last week mentioned hypergraphia- so I apologize to anyone whom I may have had doubts due to their prolific output for the game is to find a simplified theory for our ideal I think.  Then again, as reported when people are lost in the desert without water, they tend to write leaving the tale of their plight, and often with their blood.

One small observation, I now find I can fold maps a lot easier than on the trip down to Illinois and songs I vaguely imagined in my head as to how I wanted them to eventually sound now come easy in the timing and playing, all at once.

* * * * *