I have decided that I should put my skills to a task and a test. My opinion on the big burp is still out and though there seems to be evidence that content of heavier elements is lower in stars of greater red shift, I will verify that myself. The real problem is the connectivity and effect of hyperspace and the implication of a temporal consistency and extent independent of position in the universe ( shape of the universe ). It requires some heavy lifting and syntactic gymnastics to analyze the facts and as elegant as it sounds, it suffers from reality rot in many ways. What I mean by that is the theories have a way of convolving to fit the data and when finished become perfect, complete and absolute truth until next Tuesday when the new data arrives.
The second part of this process is to correlate the math and consider the evolution of explanations over human time. Without any gain of insight or new observable it remains a supposition without proof. The purpose is to familiarize myself with the nomenclature, become adept at the math, and fluent enough in the principles to smell bull shit. The equations are tensors and it seems that theoretical physics abounds with experts, but some seem to be self certified in their genius.
I am not all that impressed with the math or the consistency or even the rule sets that define who is correct when so few can even speak the language. I hope to simply the relationships and remove the cosmic leet ( γαφ∇ ) speak to express something that Alice Infinity can use as a guide tool for her data acquisition and correlation. SO.. I will start with Tensors and n-space manifolds as well as temporal gravity distortions.
It seems that much of the problem with cosmology is that it exists in a vacuum ( pun intended ) of complete consistency of the nature of matter. It is an open ended process where the real nature of matter at the smallest scale is still in flux and the observable universe fails to be consistent on the large without some dark creamy pudding matter.
I am hoping that I can make some sort of bank shot off the data to get some more insight. By that I mean that the influence of the unseen or unmeasurable can be inferred in many cases.
0 = T^{\mu \nu}{}_{;\nu}
= \nabla_{\nu} T^{\mu \nu}
= T^{\mu \nu}{}_{,\nu}
+ T^{\sigma \nu} \Gamma^{\mu}{}_{\sigma \nu}
+ T^{\mu \sigma} \Gamma^{\nu}{}_{\sigma \nu}
It does seem that this will resolve to a complete system which should have a set of measurable elements that can be described and listed. I don't see why it is necessary to use α for a variable instead of "a", but it is just nomenclature and as such it has no intrinsic value except to make it look cooler and more scholarly. There are transforms and tensors that can be applied to the data to resolve the assumptions of structure and I suspect that the result will be somewhat of a shock. As Hofstadter suggests, we should jump out of the system as it can provide the solution to intractable complexities. I have found in my experience dealing with troubleshooting complex systems that this is very often the case when every expert has tried and failed, it is likely something really odd and "out of the box".
There seems to be sufficient information to resolve the issue and establish a model that can be programmed into an interface to allow observation and analysis. Perhaps I will make a near light speed WebGL widget that allows travel as it would be seen from the accelerated object. If an electron were intelligent it would know that it was accelerated and not the other way around against a heavy mass. It is illogical to assume that the entire universe is blue shifted and thus accelerated by itself to some fantastic velocity. This is another disagreement that I have with relativistic "frames of reference" and their supposed equivalence. Of course an electron has no memory, but I do.
Eventually I will have a good predictive model, I am sure. Something is very wrong in the whole picture of cosmology and I can't seem to put my finger on a more sensible explanation than those offered, but they kind of stink. It would seem that if every point is the center of a flat universe that what they are suggesting is that it is infinite and unbounded as well as spatially isolated and temporally limited. Oh well, I will work through the math and evidence to see where it leads.
Continuing: The best way to view this is with a wxPython interface and it is possible to make a perspective viewer that takes into account all the relevant equations and then allows me to pin the equations to their respective interactions. It does seem to depend on how a person defines and understands the interaction of matter at the level of nuclear force. I think I am on the right track and it requires one more massive computational leap. I need to take my new equation of 4 space waves and combine that in a deterministic structure that is consistent with the evidence, but is not a simple product of that data. N-space analysis is no more problematic to tackle than matrices with many columns and rows. It has properties and methods, solutions and products. Two elements give me an advantage in this, one is the nature of gravity and the other is the nature of the nucleus as well as the anti-time interaction of electron wave function with the nuclear wave function. It appears that it will all resolve to a single coherent method of analysis, but that is not a single equation or even an equation in the usual application of the term. Alice Infinity has collected the data that I need to correlate this, including raw accelerator particle data. I have a technique to better analyze complex 4-space wave functions that extends Fourier analysis to a degree of certainty complexity that I suspect is sufficient to model and predict the interaction of matter on the proton scale. The space metrics and equations are understood. So, onward to the next step.
0 comments:
Post a Comment