Chaos engine

Chaos is certainly real and I would say that it is something that is not predictable. There are certainly degrees of chaos and aspects of systems that can be chaotic when the entire system is not. An internal combustion engine is certainly chaotic at the atomic level, but is predictable and usable at the mechanical level. The interaction of n-bodies as I have studied tonight is chaotic because it is dependent on factors which cannot be measured accurately enough to establish the path of a system when it is in a critical state.

I makes me wonder how, people who talk about protecting the Earth from asteroids, would be able to predict the process, if n-bodies is by its nature chaotic. If you consider the asteroid belt, it only requires a few odd interactions for the system to become chaotic and unpredictable in the same way that a collision with space junk could send a satellite careening on a billiard ball path to interfere with, and destabilize, every satellite. Once the system became chaotic, the ability to apply thrust to correct it would be impossible, because there would be no predictive algorithm available.

It may be possible to model systems in larger aspects, however that is no proof that it does not have a strange attractor at some level below the threshold of computation.

While considering photo-realistic modeling it is obvious to me that it would never be real in the universal sense. It could be represented at a level that nobody could tell the difference, but because every particle interacts with every other particle in the universe, it is factorial by nature and thus is not predictable in its exact result.

I see some ways that n-body problems could be solved, however it does lead to some things that are indifferent to computation because of the ability to measure and the same problem I described , which is that the complexity of the modeling system must be higher than the thing it models. A model of the process of a system would be usable to describe a system like the solar system when it is not subject to unusual external forces, but it would also imply that chaotic systems work against themselves and decay to stable, though less energetic, configurations.

However, I could surmise that ( without a super computer or PHD ) from playing with a rope, a slinky, or a yo-yo.

Having said all that, there is possibly a way to have a proper model that emulates the system at a lower degree of complexity and then corrects as the observed result varies and thus track back to change the process and restart it at a point that results in the observed result, thereby determining the real state that it would have been in, by the observation of how it evolved. That would be some really messy software to program without a good plan. To the best of my knowledge, no computer program exists today that can track backwards from real data and restart with the new information incorporated to compensate for measure errors. This is an interesting thing and I may include "reverse restart calculation" in antfarmgl.