The simplest space

The file is a k3d surface file and the image is with conditional boundaries spaces and with surface normals. The file extension is k3ds. I have been working at resolving the sqrt(-1) as it is extended into all mathematics. There is a different perspective to all this that is less contradictory, and allows an easy progression to higher space, but it is like learning math from the ground up in a new way. It doesn't bother me as I switch from language to language all the time in programming and on the net. Sadly, this is the simplest common denominator that I can create and even this is not the whole picture. I have started doing Python in blender to allow things that are only available in other packages like numpy and even gimp or inkscape. The image is of some related surfaces that also have connectivity between them and so this is another dimension and this is just the relationship of three dimensions. I can select surfaces in the 3D space and use them in blender to analyze and comprehend the complex functional space of a signal, gravity, or system.

Name:motey
/* 
Author: motey 
*/
F():(x/y)*(x+y)+
(y/x)*(x+y)+
(x+z)*(x/z)+
(z/x)*(x+z)+
(z/y)*(z+y)+
(y/z)*(y+z)-
15*(cos(x)+
cos(y)+
cos(z))

[x]: -pi , pi
[y]: -pi , pi
[z]: -pi , pi
Cnd: (x^2 + y^2 > 3.14) &
 ( x+y+z > -3.14)
;

When the matrices are included in this it becomes even more complex and this is the foundational relationship of numerical space or measured space and sets.

It is very complex and the rule sets are complex. I see no way to resolve it to anything less simple, in fact it must be 4 infinities more complex than this just to deal with common perception.

There is quite a bit of overlap in the packages, but it seems that Python is the common denominator which can integrate them all. Perl and CPAN is another, but Perl is a little trickier and somewhat obtuse. Python seems to be structured well enough to be understandable, though it lacks speed. This is where the libraries help.

I suppose I will use the blender template with python to integrate all of the math and graphics. It has 3space and time incorporated in the design and so is closer to the manipulation of S3 in S3 and T2 in T2, but that is as close as 3 infinities, but there seems no better way to deal with it or allow visualization.

G and c fall out as it is applied to charge space and so it gives a coherent expansion of the possibilities for matter from the lowest elements to the combinations of them.

An interesting correlation is the nature of information itself and that relationship to the DNA pair AT and also GC. I could say that a specific temperature that GC is boundary and AT is open and thus the combinations of ATⁿ are the information in the same way that 0s and 1s are the foundation of binary logic.

The TED talk by Michael Shermer is very entertaining and it is an interesting equation that deals with Type 1 and Type 2 errors when Type 2 is fatal. It is worth viewing. It does get to the heart of superstition. I would add that superstition and craziness can be a survival parameter in the same way that randomness can be applied to war games to get advantage. Just because some people are illogical and insane does not mean they are absolutely destined for a Darwin award, and in fact the crazy guy and his wife who hide in a cave could be the founder of a new race if there is a global calamity that makes them selected. It seems that there is an underlying survival mechanism that is explored in the "Mote in God's Eye" and that is the "Crazy Eddie" hypothesis. And the moties is the origin of the pseudonym motey that I often use.

Some times an equation is a just a fish

A simple equation, but complex in expression. I am sick of math for a while. It is possible that gravitational magnetism and its induction of motion in the direction of acceleration, is the reason for some variations in stars in a galaxy. It may also be involved in galaxy formation. It certainly is an interesting association. It will require some massive mathematical gymnastics and I am not up to it at the moment. Perhaps in a few days.

Multiple simultaneous frames of motion burn me out.

It seems that it would account for ring formation on planets. I have no equation for it, but eventually I will make that. It is 3 dependent frames of reference,vectors and ratio of spaces in time, so it isn't a simple calculation. There is time and Time but that is just the problem of operator overloading context.

It may also serve as a proof of a sort of gravitational waves and their interference in 3 space. Perhaps it is just the mechanics of computation. For example: F·δr. Oddly enough, it may resolve to Time And Relative Dimension In Space.

Blogging backwards

Checking a post concept to reverse time. Because the concept is so complex I am travelling six minutes back in time for every post so that the individual parts can be read in order. [Part 1]

So it starts with red shift and frame of reference. Firstly, an electron is assumed to be whole unto itself in form and I am not quite sure how one would consider the space or frame of reference of something that is not considered to exist outside the bounds of some small radius.

In the beginning z= ((wavelength observed)-(wavelength emitted))/(wavelength emitted). Which becomes : z= ((wavelength observed)/(wavelength emitted))-1. Thus red shift would result in negative numbers and blue in positive numbers. Also Lorentz γ. which is another symbol overload from ( α β γ ).

In a case where there is a preferred frame of reference, like the ocean, and there is a source which produces a periodic wave and travels with respect to the medium, the formula would be 1/w-v transmitted and received w-v by something at the same velocity and direction. The product is 1. In this case, the velocity of the waves varies by density, temperature and the nature of the medium.

The emission and absorption lines of stars serve as a means to observe the shift in specific absorption lines, such as Lyman α. By using a prism or equivalent, it is possible to produce an energy series with missing wavelengths.

Some of the things I plan to discuss and resolve are the twin paradox and photoelectric effect.

When I was first introduced to physics, it was obvious that the explanation of these effects was incorrect. It seems in reading Wikipedia, that some of this ambiguity has been removed. The twin paradox was explained as being due to acceleration, which is absurd, however a double acceleration is another case all together. I was not aware that some of these problems had already been corrected. There seem to be almost as many bad interpretations as there are people who discuss it.

Some concepts are presented in more convoluted fashion than needs be, it seems to me. Like the Riemannian manifold, Metric space or Quaternion. Since I have developed many of these things independently, perhaps it is just the symbols they use and the way in which it is presented that gives me pause.

This is purely introduction and is not intended to be complete, as it introduces some extremely complex subjects like space-time manifolds. I suppose the best place to start is at the beginnings of science and cover that which is foundational to understanding things as they are known today. I have yet to see gravitational magnetism, but I would not be surprised to see that particular thing appear in some of these equations. It is difficult to deal with the symbol overloading sometimes and one that gets me in this case is Z. I may learn Chinese, just to have a better alphabet. ζ

At the end this will integrate all of this to give a coherent explanation of how all these things relate. Certainly chemistry, nuclear physics, astronomy, electronics, and many other things integrate to be a coherent expression of the underlying structure.