The Parallelogram Fold

In my last post, The Other Fold, I presented the second reflection model required to describe Folded Model of reflective gravity. I had devised the other folding model qualitatively, by reorienting a few elements of the Pentagon Fold -post. While I was semi-confident in the model, I had the wisdom to say:

“However, I won’t make pronouncements stronger than this. It’s just so easy to be wrong, when extrapolating from incomplete data, even when the incompleteness doesn’t seem very big.”

With one day’s hindsight, I’m happy that I did, because a closer inspection of the model just didn’t feel right. It took a while for me to understand what exactly was wrong, but now I think I know what it was. I thought that the model required this ‘horizontal reflection’ to be comprised of almost identical reflection patterns.  But now it seems much more likely that the reflection shape here also consists of a flyby segment and a reflection segment. But unlike in the ‘vertical reflection’ model, the two triangles that make up the flyby segment are fused into a single large triangle. And if my logic holds, the reflective components are also fused into a single element. But this element isn’t a triangle, but rather a parallelogram, making the repeating reflection pattern to look like this:

The curious thing is that if this ‘horizontal reflection’ repeats like this, it’s possible that the repetition of the ‘vertical reflection’ follows the same logic, meaning that my folded reflection model needs to be tweaked a bit.

However, the only thing I know for sure is that I need to check my model meticulously for any errors. It’s possible that I’m really close to the final solution, or then I’m on the verge of finding a fatal flaw that collapses this house of cards. I think the first option is closer to the truth but I can’t rule out the second one either. But whichever one it is, I’ll sure post about it.