For the sake of argument I am investigating thoroughly before I commit. Here is a link to start and extend from. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#TD
I am going to determine where the basic logic problem originates [ It could be very local [ even in my head ] :) ]. I hope this reveals some insight that can be applied in a real sense. Because the system is applied mathematically it is possible to assign arbitrary constants without foundation. E=hf has some significance, but fails to deal with the underlying process. I was working on the puzzle thing and have a graph of decision trees and consequence. I had better do that now as it makes all this more understandable.
In the drawing there are 4 paths that correspond to choices. The images represent the puzzle states at various nodes. It serves as an analogy to what I will graph for cosmology. It is quite a bit easier to see where paths become circular, are dead ends and what leads to solutions. It is possible to construct this landscape for any problem. So what I would construct, and it will take some time, is a map of the logic involved and what data is available. The article at UCLA seems to have a good broad overview of the logic that they used to make the decisions. It is very obvious that they have a great number of dependencies and this is the problem with physics. It is possible that it is simply the matter of an inability to encompass the entire logic in one frame and thus it appears confusing. The image above seems to convey everything I know about the puzzle as it is a series of choices to move a specific puzzle piece in a specify direction and there are two paths to solution, Left and Right. I have looked into other paths ( in thought ) and it seems there is a very long dead end in one spot. So it is with cosmology and hopefully I can draw a decision and dependency map that articulates the choices and consequence along with links to the relevant scientific data sources. I will use gimp HTML image map to create this and it will be quite large as the subject covers a lot of topics. I have browsed many discussion on this matter and it is something that irritates people that it makes little common sense. I hope to correct that with a decision chart that extends into what would be a consequence of specific structural models.
It would be interesting to know if I am the only one who thinks this is a simple problem. Perhaps I am over estimating the ability of people in general? It seems that the problem comes down to places where scientists have looked and decided there are two roads and they must take one. The problem is they fail to see that there is another road and once they are well down the path, the become lost in loops. An example is atomic theory. I see the model of electrons orbiting a nucleus as utterly absurd. There is no topology that would allow two electrons to rotate around and not destructively interfere. So they pick something else that is bizarre as they cannot figure out how an electron can sit on the surface of a positively charged nucleus. I know how that works, but that is a separate issue. The point is that they choose from a set that excludes a "move" and as a result never find the solution and instead become mired in an endless recursion.
There was an article about NASA solving the Prius problem and that seems funny as what really needs to be done is to have Google solve NASA's problem with knowing how to massage data and get meaning from it. It is like a vast network of emitters (stars)=( bloggers ) , absorbers (gas, dust, black holes)=( page readers ), and then determining the page rank of the result and doing some analytics. The basic physics is very simple and though one needs to compensate for relativistic delays and bending, absorption and reflection from the surrounding materials, it isn't much different math than doing the calcs for GPS which has its inherent variations that must be compensated for.
IF the variation in space is linear there would be one result and if it is non-linear then it is not the expansion of space. I wish I had the data and I could tell in a few hours whether they screwed the pooch this bad.
I was looking at the FLTK glpuzzle game and I decided the following:
- Number of blocks is 10
- Types of blocks is 4
- matrix is 5x4
- empty space is 2
- object code for moving each type
- a tree that used nodes of max 5
- node paths marked loop,dead,solves
- puzzle states is a 20 digit number
- each node is a puzzle state
- walk the nodes
- DONE
- about two hours to program and test
I won't do it because I can see the whole tree in my head already and it would be anticlimactic and boring to write the code, but I will look and see how they did it.
The star data would require about 40 hours to deal with the problems that would certainly occur, like files too big, what format is data, how valid, so on so on.
After that it would be a matter of correlating a few tests to see how to proceed and see if there was an obvious pointing solution. After that it would be an full on analysis, followed by an attempt to disprove the resulting scenario. If that is successful then it would be worthy to publish that A=B, whatever that outcome would be.
If the universe is uniformly expanding then the data would be an exact match and easily differentiated from another scenario. I already have my opinion, and that makes me a bit dirty, but I could care either way if I were right or wrong. I f2k up all the time and live with it. I suspect I am right based on some simple calculations, that can't be confirmed unless I have access to raw valid data. If I am right they screwed the pooch as bad as the Bohr model of the atom.
The relationships are coalescing like solving that puzzle thing. It takes more time as the pieces are irregular in many dimensions, but the answer seems to be correct. If I am right on this it would really suck to be a physicist. They would be the laughing stock of all sciences. It invalidates bang, and as a consequence much of the theories. I know something else and I don't have to reveal any secrets about how it all works to expose this. It is really scary as this is so simple and they have gone round about and made up dark matter / energy to account for this, and that has to be embarrassing. It is so simple that a talented 7th grader could have come up with this. I don't see any way out of this for them. They would either have to say they are really stupid and should never practice physics again or cover it up some how. I really don't think they have a clean exit strategy for a failure this monumental and I have a sneeky suspicion that they already have a clue that this is true and are trying to figure out how to hide some money in Switzerland so they can go hide somewhere.
This is worse than Earth as the center of the universe and flat Earth together. I do understand how Galileo felt now. They must have wanted to roast him and most certainly almost hanged him. I don't think that is possible now as there is no central authority like the Roman church to burn people for being too smart and thus warlocks. I can't say for certain it is true, but I intend to get my hands on enough data to be certain for myself. I have an old friend who retired from NASA and I bet he knows where to get the good stuff.
As far as glpuzzle.cxx, it doesn't use a tree, though it does use hashes. I just wanted to make a tree so I could look at it like my matrix for the Einstein game, but I don't have the impulse to spend that time on this one right now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment