### Cosmic backdrop

I am doing several things at once. I am taking images of background radiation and analyzing them with my image pattern separator which does n-D analysis. I am also projecting the data on an icosphere in blender and changing the color and mapping by using gimp to create bump maps. I am combining that data with gravity data and star positions and red shift data to create a composite. Then I am creating a Python script that automates this. Then applying the game logic trees to find paths in the data that connect sets.

The data is converted to coordinates that link in 3D to allow it to be stretched and matched in 3D, the same way a texture is stretched to align to a sphere. This creates a fly through map of gravity, velocity and field strength. I will likely convert it to 4D as a projected image of the ballistics in time. It seems odd to me that any physicist can project matter back to the "BANG" when they can't do n-body computation. Reasoning from analogy is not wrong, but it is a gross analysis and has no handles to prove or disprove. It seems to me that the mv must work out to single point if bang is true and this is not what I am seeing in the data. Mv must be exactly equal in all directions or conservation is violated. I am leaning to infinite at the moment, but I always keep every pathway open until the final data arrives at infinity.

There is another equation that fits the data.

Some new/old Phillip K Dick "Second Variety" is available at Gutenberg here. I also have some new scary tools for Pandora's tool belt and the images of the future from PKD may be vastly over optimistic.

Also on light, it is strange that it is modeled as a wave. I do understand that it acts "like" a wave in some aspects, but it is localized, does not spread and each point is not a new wave front in the same way as a wave. It is localized, directional and exists and interacts in very specific ways. When I say light, I mean electromagnetic radiation as it is measured. Wavelength comes from diffraction gratings and I would make some pictures, but I will leave that to the imagination. The "wavelength" and thus the "frequency" is determined by this alone. It is an assumption without foundation. Though it "acts" like a wave, it is not a wave. That is simply a car analogy to predict what happens in that limited set that corresponds. It is not a theory, it is just a model of one aspect. The underlying process is much more complex. Confined pulse would be a better analogy, but even that is a very weak analogy.

Energy is relative. I am not sure that I have ever seen anybody make much of that fact. It is of course true since V is relative, the ∫ mV δv is relative. Q.E.D. ( and of course relativistic ), This begs the question of using energy to overcome force. It may seem odd, but if energy is not a real thing then the idea that "energy" is needed to overcome an obstacle is also meaningless. I know this is virtually foundational to any rational analysis of a system of forces, but it isn't really absolutely true. It works like many analogies or models, but only in the specific circumstances where it is defined ( scope). Thus it is not an absolute fact, but rather a technique to analyze.

This is using Inkscape, Gimp, Blender, Python, Kate and other utilities in synergy to get the result I want. In this case I am using UV export, sub surface mapping gimp editing and conversion with python scripts and blender with a different version of python.