Massive Binary Numbers

Massive Binary Numbers L. Edgar Otto September 10, 2011

By massive (because of posting to the question of Ulla's on "What is Mass?" and coming up with speculation (1), to convey some idea about strange numbers encountered briefly a couple of nights ago- and perhaps for Matti's take on this for it does involve some ideas of irrational numbers) I mean if we read a decimal number when it would read in binary or if it contains a zero or one we call it semi-massive. Around these bogus binary numbers a structure is there as a pattern and for all I know it is a trivial artifact or something known in the literature. The count of the massive and semi massive numbers and god-fer-sure numbers also has an interesting relation at least in the lower finite dimensions.

After all the clue to this was the geometry from many views that connected involving 8 objects such as in the hypercube and shadows or especially the color coding of the analog to the 16-cell 4D octahedron analog polytope and the color labeling of 9 objects.

This of course can be done with the golden sequences of numbers as binary where substitutions between 0 1 and 10 do generate recursive and golden patterns. In fact the decimal of the Fibonacci numbers shifted and added sum up to 1/89 and there are repeating patterns (as multiples of 15 and powers of ten) for this slowest of the converging irrationals. Apparently Pitkanen tries to relate such numbers to the idea of mass also- again as the difference in finite or continuous groups I imagine. But in my system it is hardly just about absolute nothing or infinity but it can be the slow expression of inertia as existence in between.

Damn, the primes by the digits continue to elude even the quasic system but that is always in the back of my mind. I also keep in mind the lady MENSA who suggested that any mathematical system can be made that we desire or seek. I think only because it is not as complete or complex enough in the compass of our enumerations.
And while the groups are so powerful as an explanation they are not the end in themselves as physics is the desired end by the physicists and not the method of getting there as Rowlands suggests.

But what the heck, existentially speaking, perhaps my subconscious was still thinking or resting somewhere deeper while I was trying to take a rest in the awakened world? I am not sure if this is useful as a concept or a way to see numbers any more than the surreal uses of certain binaries in multiplication but I give you another pretty picture that quasics was supposed to aid in our visualizations.

There are three types of numbers, the binary, those with some digit as 1 or 0, and as I said the bonafied numbers, some sort of in betweeness as if a little off or between the Cantorian diagonalization of the continua. It will be interesting to see what relationship there is from irrationals that splice out such digits such as different fundamental values for pi or e and so on... It may be a bridge between the more linear (and the NP hard problem in fact as quasi-finite enumeration) and those authors who are still enamored of systems dismissed as simply non-linear.

Of course a number theorist worth his salt will find the formulas involved in the standard equations and who knows, even look at them from the imaginary number stance.
But again, is any number system intrinsically complete in its defining itself- is any form of what we mean by mass or inertia? Can we really distinguish the ideal domains from that of the physical world or will those ancient notions converge?

The fuzzy photo above counts from 0 to 255 and a little beyond and the magenta dot circled by black is the all 1 or 0 decimal numbers which come in pairs- but we could say these are bare masses or massless numbers among those with concrete mass or somewhere in between. While the quasic cells do the Z ordering or 4 linear ones in 4^3 representation the circuit of the tetrahedron and of its inverse as the stella octanga we can find a sort of Z ordering again, this time in the square root of 3 as well as of 1 and two in the twospace motion between the nodes. I may mention from the previous post and ilustration such an ordering there as an octahedron but in reality it has a partner- so in a sense there are two intersecting at a 9th point or 17th as per the axiom of four space: two planes (branes) intersect in a point- although this principle does seem to get lost when one is more used to seeing things more in the higher spaces condensed themselves as well the notion that we really have three or four colors in the count where I have drawn but two of them and where many glimpse what is a hint of how such trialities are handled in higher space or even in three space. It is no accident the first representations of a nucleon was about concentric parton spheres rather than the more abstract quark representation.

* * *

Well,(to Matti)

I made another post from the speculation 1 What is Matter called "massive binary numbers"

I did not include the idea of what is energy as such. But if we can represent the energy of the maximum diameter of the universe how can this be so for a flat universe? The again we know now that the plane makes the perfect lens! What sort of voodoo idea do we need to make this idea more acceptable?

Anyway, if you have time you might comment on this strange pattern of numbers especially since it does involve 89 as do the golden sequences.

The PeSla

* * *