Re: All you (n)ever wanted to know about the Ferochromon

--- "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@...> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 09:02:30PM +0100, Simon
> Clarkstone wrote:
> > On 4/21/05, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...>
> wrote:
> > > For the sake of keeping it to a sane length, I
> decided to omit the
> > > history of the Ebisédi, which incidentally is
> already covered by
> > > another document, and stick only to the
> large-scale physical structure
> > > of the Ferochromon. Anyway, you may read it
> here:
> > >
> > >
>
http://conlang.eusebeia.dyndns.org/ferochromon/cosmohist.html
> > One slight problem: I was totally confused until I
> realised that by
> > "function", you don't mean mathematical function,
> but purpose or use.
>
> Yeah, that's the problem with the polysemy of the
> English word
> "function". I don't know what other term to use,
> though. I guess it
> gets doubly bad when I start talking about
> differentiation, which
> isn't referring to the calculus operation, but
> rather a specialization
> in function.
>
> The basic idea is that high energy FE is akin to a
> ball sitting at the
> top of a hill, which can decide which valley
> (function/mode) it wants
> to fall into, whereas a low energy FE is a ball that
> has fallen into
> the valley and doesn't have enough energy to climb
> the sides of the
> valley (can't change function/mode anymore).
>
>
> > Also, I make the dimensionality of the Hyperether
> to be 3 that the
> > lattices correspond to (each is a spacial
> dimension of the
> > corresponding realm) + 2 that all three realms
> have (the other two
> > dimensions of space for the realms) + (at least) 1
> along the line
> > between the two poles = (at least) 6.
> >
> > AFAICT, the realms have dimensions u-v-x, u-v-y,
> and u-v-z, where x,
> > y, and z correspond to the three lattices, so the
> realms are (flat)
> > 3-manifolds embedded in a 5(or higher)-manifold.
>
> Yeah, in my conception of it, the realms are
> essentially 3-manifolds
> embedded in higher-dimensional space.
>
> Although, in my mind lattice "orientation" is more
> the "shape" of the
> lattices themselves, such that only compatible
> shapes can tile
> together.  To use a 2D example, one "orientation"
> might be squares,
> and another might be hexagons. Squares produce a
> regular tiling that
> covers (2D) space as do hexagons, but a mixture of
> squares and
> hexagons can't form a gapless tiling.
>
> In this analysis, the undifferentiated state would
> correspond with a
> higher dimensional space such that the shapes become
> compatible. What
> I have in mind here is something like this: the
> "squares" and
> "hexagons" that tile the 2D plane are actually 3D
> cubes confined in a
> 2D plane in different orientations. Cubes that got
> embedded in the
> plane perpendicular to their axis occupy a square
> area in the plane
> (because the perpendicular intersection of the cube
> with the plane is
> a square), whereas cubes that got embedded in a
> tilted orientation
> occupy a hexagonal area (the maximal intersection of
> the cube with the
> plane is a hexagon). Because they are now stuck to
> the 2D plane, they
> can no longer rotate in 3D, so the "hexagons" and
> the "squares" can no
> longer interconvert. So even though the same cubes
> could tile 3D space
> seamlessly, they behave as though they were
> different shapes in 2D,
> because they are oriented differently when they got
> stuck on the 2D
> plane.
>
> In other words, the lattices are higher-dimensional
> space-tiling
> polytopes that got entrapped in a lower-dimensional
> manifold, so that
> they form different space-tiling shapes depending on
> their orientation
> at the time they got entrapped.
>
>
> BTW, out of curiosity, what do you have in mind
> w.r.t. how to approach
> creating equations that describe the Ferochromon?
> I've attempted this
> a few times but gave up because it just got way too
> complicated. The
> bit that requires constant force to remain in motion
> is easy, but I
> have a hard time coming up with precise equations
> that would predict
> such things as approaching objects spiralling
> inwards rather than
> collide head-on, or how objects in curved motion
> would be drawn
> inwards in the direction of the curve, etc..

Head... splody... ARGH

-The Sock

"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com