The Leaky Triangle - system of systems - please poke holes in it - it's mine.

[simplify3]

Hi all. My name is Kenneth Udut. I'm 42 years old, been online since 1988 (started with BBS's and the beginnings of the 'net and never stopped. Otherwise, I'm nobody special).

I started working on my own theory of everything - a systems of system of systems. Yet another middle aged guy trying to find the meaning of life I guess. Anyway, I started putting it together and I want people to poke holes in it.

 

I don't know how to write scientifically but I do have all my references saved. I think I may have found a different way to view the nature of physics and such that's not mathematical or numerical but rather kind of geometrical:

 

The Leaky Triangle.

 

After a year of staying up 'til 5am of studying to finally crack this nut to my own satisfaction, I think I'm there and I just have to keep writing.

But I want people to poke holes in it, ask questions, challenge the hell out of it. There's no math, just unedited stuff on a quick website I threw up to start collecting it.

Thanks - it's http://system-of-systems.com - and it'll just take a couple of minutes. Appreciate it!

-Ken, Naples, Florida USA

[Ophiolite]

It seems rather incoherent Ken. Is it possible to post here a simple summary of your concept in one or two paragraphs?

[hoola]

how does geometry take shape without the mathematics with which to describe it? How do you get triangles ? The point void, if it had a geometry, would be spherical or circular..

[ajb]

Can you please post some synopsis here and present the nessisary details so that we can discuss your ideas without having to consult your website?

[Strange]

HThanks - it's http://system-of-systems.com - and it'll just take a couple of minutes. Appreciate it!

 

The only conclusion I can draw from reading that is that you think "everything leaks". I have no idea what triangles have to do with it. And I'm not sure what problems "everything (including triangles) leaks" solves. Does it provide a more accurate description of gravity than GR (can you use it to calculate the precession of Mercury or gravitational lensing)? Does it explain quantum mechanics? In short, what is for?

 

But if you like triangles, there is some actual science you might like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

Edited July 12, 2014 by Strange

[Ophiolite]

The Leaky Triangle - system of systems - please poke holes in it - it's mine

You cannot poke holes in a cloud.

[Mordred]

"Even black holes leak radiation and leak gravity. Something perfectly boundaried would be entirely invisible, having no effect on the Universe around it; not detectable. Invisible to humans, undetectable by humans, we couldn't see the outside or the inside."

 

this statement is also inaccurate, BH Hawking radiation occurs outside the event horizon, not inside. The virtual particles pairs in Hawking's radiation form outside the event horizon, the positive particle escapes the negative particle falls into the BH.

 

This is the only correlation to anything that refers to a scientific statement that I can find anywhere in your article, and that's even a bit of a stretch. You should also change the word boudaried (which doesn't exist in the English lanquage, to "isolated"

 

something perfectly isolated would have no interactions outside its boundaries would be accurate. However the use of terms here is also inaccurate because a perfectly isolated system wouldn't "Leak". By definition an isolated has no external interactions, therefore a BH is not a perfectly isolated system, as its gravity is able to interact with the rest of the universe.

Your whole paper uses the terms leaks, which has no scientific meaning in the context your using it, I would look into how to define a system according to its "Interactions" this would be a proper way to define a system.

 

You also need to clarify what systems you are referring to and in what terms those systems are defined. Are they being defined according to particle to particle interactions?

 

In this case science already does this in all cases, the scientific method is to first describe the system being examined, defining the boundary conditions, then defining the interactions within and outside that system. This is done in every model. So I don't see how your paper adds to what is already practiced in everyday science.

 

I would recommend as a starting point looking at how the ideal gas laws are used in Cosmology. False vacuum is a good example of the ideal gas laws as applied to an isolated region of spacetime.

 

In this case a higher energy potential region of spacetime with the Higg's field acting as the boundary quantum tunnels the higher energy potential to a lower energy potential region of spacetime. This is just one example. The action of quantum tunneling is analogous to "leaks" however the difference is the methodology to defining the system. This is what your article severely lacks as I mentioned you need to spend the time to learn the proper scientific terminology, to properly define the systems in question and properly defining the interactions of said system. These interactions are also already described in terms of geometry as well.

 

as it stands your paper reads like a bunch if gibberish, written by some kid who is just learning science. However as I stated above I don't see anything in this paper that adds to any known science or methodology of science. If anything it merely shows me what you lack in understanding

Edited July 12, 2014 by Mordred

[simplify3]

I'll reply to each in kind but first I wanted to say thank you to all who have responded so far. To those who have taken a moment either ask for a summary or clarification or who have broken it down into pieces, wihch is all on this thread, I appreciate it.

I'm accustomed to, "Wow, you sure are smart Ken!" when I make posts in various places (G+, FB, Vine, wherever) because I have a habit of getting thousands of followers on networks. But I only ever get one or two critcal thinkers on each network who really take the time to do much more than a "wow, you sure are smarter than me!".

Great for the ego, terrible for honing analytical skills.

That's why I brought it here. I expose my unreferenced, first draft, train-of-thought, unpolished thing to you all and I am grateful for the time spent so far.

I'll be back in a few hours (after the insanity of real life settles down and the house goes to sleep) and begin then.

Ken

[Ophiolite]

I'm accustomed to, "Wow, you sure are smart Ken!" <snip>

But I only ever get one or two critcal thinkers on each network who really take the time to do much more than a "wow, you sure are smarter than me!".

I don't want to be discouraging. (It just works out that way.) I don't think you're going to have the same problem here.

 

I'm afraid Mordred has pretty much nailed it in his final paragraph. However, if you can summarise clearly what you are trying to say, perhaps members can suggest study you could undertake to pursue a particular angle.

[simplify3]

My summary of responses:
Hoola - "Triangles? Summary"

Ophiolite + ajb - "Summary"
Strange: "Everything Leaks", Summary

Mordred: My point about black holes is that they don't have perfect boundaries. They leak. In your correction, you restated it in more specific terms and I appreciate that. You also provide some excellent launching points and I appreciate those as well. You took the time to read it and understand it and gave a detailed response.

 

My response to the responses:

I believe there is a basic flaw in assumptions that is hidden underneath a lot of how we tend to approach knowledge.

 

I'm not saying it's "wrong" but rather incomplete. We bump our heads into it over and over again.

 

it's the idea of perfection.

In science (which is primarily mathematical in this point in history, due to the great successes of matching physics and mathematics), there is a search for a greater decimal point or a more accurate pattern prediction method.

In religion, there is usually a perfect "something" called God, or some place you go after you die, or some state of mind you can achieve with the right training and practice.

In Business - specifically mass production, methods such as the Six Sigma is a very useful method of maximizing the elimination of errors using some of the best statistical methods available - a very profitable use of statistics for companies like GM and such (although it rests on a lot of surveys and assumes that people are numbers and don't lie, which is part of its flaw)

All of these things are wonderful and these systems are often so involved and complicated - and, well, they mostly WORK quite well for what they're for.

But the problem can be best summed up using Engineering as an analogy:

In Engineering, blueprints are drawn up in some form (or code), describing a perfected system, often with extreme mathematical precision.

On paper, computer models, all of these things work seemingly flawlessly.

But then comes the time to bring it into the real world.

The real world looks SIMILAR to the best of models of reality that we can come up with, but they DON'T match up perfectly,

As we improve, we put further and further constraints upon what we accept as errors but, like trying to find the most accurate Pi or obtaining a perfectly accurate square root of 2, there's always going to be one more decimal, or one more point of precision.

These efforts will continue and they should continue.

But I'm analogizing all of these things to triangles - as a triangle is the most basic shape representing the least amount of points that can make up a REALISTIC structure in the Universe but a triangle that leaks.

A circle is a collection of infinite triangles and a circle can also be seen as a special ellipse with a single radius - that's why I don't use spheres - they're just fat triangles to me - or a collection of little triangles all smushed up together, side by side.

What is a leak?

Damn near anything.

You have boundaries. How do we know one thing from another? Boundary. It has a lot of names. Not all boundaries are visible - they be theoretical or measured in other ways but they distinguish one thing from another.

But there are always interactions between things on the surface of a boundary with whatever is on one side or another.

It always leaks. It may leak in, it may leak out. It may leak side to side within itself, creating different pressures or making for weaker or stronger areas. But it always leaks.

There is no perfect triangle, nevermind a perfect circle or sphere. They're theoretical - they are ideas - nice ideas, nice to work with but when the rubber meets the road, its only an approximation to reality.

This doesn't take away from their usefulness.

So, to answer Strange's very good question: "What's it for?"

Prediction itself is flawed and always will be flawed.

Every system anybody comes up with will leak, no matter how tight it is. It may be useful and practical but it will always be flawed.

It is ALSO a very basic description of physics as an... analogizer? (i'm sure not a word)

Trianges = nouns
Leaks = verbs

It should be possible to describe some of the most complicated systems - in non mathemtical terms - using a series of leaky triangles that have been given names.

Quantum mechanics for four year olds, yet scientifically accurate, when the triangles and the leaks are substituted with whatever the popular terminology of the day happens to be.

That's what its for.

Thoughts?

Oh I'm not discouraged at all. I wanted criticism and you have all come through with flying colors. I expect to be summarily dismissed too by some as well. Each response is helpful to me as it forces me to clarify furthur, not to end up with an "airtight argument" - I don't think that is possible. Today's airtight argument is tomorrows folly. But it helps me through a series of successive approximations, come a little closer to presenting my ideas in a form with the flavor and texture that you're more accustomed to. I know I sound like gibberish now - but I don't want to always. I'm working to improve.

[Acme]

...

You have boundaries. ...

For that we have topology; the study of continuity and connectivity.

 

Thoughts?

Leaky logic.

 

Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic. ~ Lewis Carroll source

[simplify3]

Acme - Leaky logic - thank you Two contradictory things, in the *real world* can be true and are often true, leading to a lot of confusion when we're taught from an early age that it's possible to eliminate contradictions with the right logical framework

I have been greatly inspired by topology - my references are all here - and research into topology is a large portion of it.

I *almost* thought I had found the answer in topology a few months back until I reached here:

"The empty set is in ."

And there it was. The leaky triangle in topology. It's not a flaw per se but that the foundations of each system has, at its base, a set of assumptions. Topology, which is a favorite pasttime - a professor of mine at college inspired interest in it with his obsessions with the Tourus and Fractals.

We tend to avoid looking at the "paradoxes" - but the paradox at the heart of much study isn't the problem. It's the assumptions that creates the idea of a paradox that might be the issue. What is the nature of a paradox? Quite simply, from my perspective, the point where the system of assumptions being used breaks down and no longer works. Therefore, there may be greater rule that governs it.

I do enjoy topology.

[Ophiolite]

Thoughts? This is painful, since I don't wish to offend you, but if I tell it straight I very well may.

 

What you have written is lightweight, inconsequential, juvenile pseudo-philosophy. There are a handful of pertinent thoughts in it, that are - however - trivial and generally accepted.

 

There are also some monumental misunderstandings on your part. In engineering we are not striving for perfection, or yet another decimal place. We are trying to use as few decimal places as possible - in dimensions and compositions and processes - commensurate with having the device work. Fewer decimal places means lower manufacturing costs: pretty basic, but you seem unaware of that.

 

It should be possible to describe some of the most complicated systems - in non mathemtical terms - using a series of leaky triangles that have been given names

Demonstrate that is possible for even one system and you might get our attention.

 

 

I believe there is a basic flaw in assumptions that is hidden underneath a lot of how we tend to approach knowledge. .......it's the idea of perfection

I've worked in knowledge management. We sure as hell weren't striving for perfection, but quality and accessibility and relevance.

 

 

What is a leak? Damn near anything.

Please explain how each of the following is a leak?

1. Natural selection.

2. Fractional crystallisation.

3. Planetary accretion processes.

 

 

I do enjoy topology.

I'm not fit enough. You have to be in shape for that.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Ophiolite

[Acme]

Acme - Leaky logic - thank you

De nada.

 

We tend to avoid looking at the "paradoxes" - but the paradox at the heart of much study isn't the problem. It's the assumptions that creates the idea of a paradox that might be the issue. What is the nature of a paradox? Quite simply, from my perspective, the point where the system of assumptions being used breaks down and no longer works. Therefore, there may be greater rule that governs it.

 

I do enjoy topology.

But does topology enjoy you? Gödel's incompleteness theorems govern 'it'. For an enlightening perspective on Gödel, paradox, and thought itself I never tire of recommending Hofstadter's I Am A Strange Loop. (I do tire of so few takers however. )

[Sensei]

simplify3, you basically don't even know what ToE (Theory of Everything) has to be about...

 

ToE MUST predict energy of photon, rest and kinetic energy of electron, the all particles, the all decay modes, calculate the all half-lives, calculate ionization energies of every atom/isotope, calculate spectral lines of every atom/isotope, etc. etc. etc.

 

f.e. I am asking in what temperature, pressure, volume some molecule will be solid, liquid, gaseous and you straight away should tell me, if you have ToE..

 

ToE should be able to calculate everything..

[Mordred]

here is a problem with the use of triangles,

lets take for example object A,B and C whose influences upon each other has a 3 dimensional influence upon each other, with a geometry described by a triangle, lets call this influence force x,

the minute you add a Quote "leak" you add another reference object (after all you need an object to measure said leak), so now you can no longer describe this range of interaction in the terms of a triangle, you now have 4 objects. now you need a parallelogram. See the problem with over simplification?

 

As I stated you need to provide a greater attention to detail,

 

now the others have posted that science is not about greater decimal points, its about being able to accurately define a system within a reasonable approximation.

 

for example I mentioned the ideal gas laws, I can describe the Early universe dynamics by a variety of acceptable methods, each method will provide a reasonable approximation, however I cannot describe how every single particle interacts, to attempt to do so would be futile an useless. Just like a gas in a container the ideal gas laws approximate the processes involved, they do not show how every single molecule interacts with every other molecule. That is simply out of the realm of usefulness.

 

In every complex system there comes a time when a scientist must develop a reasonable approximation to explain the system in relevant terms, he does not waste time trying to solve every single interaction to the highest possible degree, he only needs to be able to use his model to make reasonable predictions about said system.

 

a vast majority of the physics you think of as being exacting are in fact good approximations, scientists tend to favor the metrics that can offer the same results with the least amount of complexity, and the least amount of asumptions This is often referred to as Occum's razor

 

"Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

 

a systems complexity grows with the number of degrees of freedom involved, however lets examine a very basic system where each object has only 2 degrees of freedom. (binary)

 

# of particles degrees of freedom

1 2

2 4

3 8

4 16

5 32

6 64

 

etc see how fast the simple system grows in complexity? trust me science is about reasonable approximations the more exact we get is simply due to needing a higher degree of accuracy to describe a problem set.

 

Here is another good example does it make sense to say scientists worry about every single decimal point when the LCDM model that describes the universe expansion dynamics is a 6 parameter model? If they really worried about every single decimal point and interaction there would be no way they can describe the universe's expansion history with a mere 6 parameters. LCDM provides a good approximation only, it is not exacting

 

lets try a third example

 

[latex]f_1=G\frac{m1m2}{r^2}[/latex]

 

do you think the above equation is exact? what about the amount of matter variations due to every mountain range? (lateral anisotropies), Earth's rotational effects? The Earth for example is not a perfect circle, there is variations in its shape and subsequentially there will be variations of the force of gravity due to those variations in its topology, however as a good approximation the force of gravity at sea level is 9.8 m/s² the above commonly used formula provides that approximation, however it is by no means exact (draw a line from object A to the center of the Earth, the force of gravity will depend on the amount of mass along that line, over the oceans the amount of mass will be different than the amount of mass over say mount Everest. for practical purposes does this matter?)

 

take the CMB from its temperature I can correlate the number of photons via 2 methods, I can use the FLRW metric approximation or I can use a far more complex Bose-Einstein distribution formula, neither formula will give me the exact number of photons, however both will give me a reasonable approximation.

 

the problem here is what you think is an exacting process isn't, the majority of systems in any form of science is in fact reasonable approximations of complex processes, the models that are favored are the ones that provide the greater accuracy with the least amount of complexity within reason.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Mordred

[simplify3]

Yes, thank you. You are all giving me good examples of leaky triangles.

I'm not trying to contradict what's already been done and what continues to be done.

I find the history of different approaches to truth to be interesting.

Each of these systems are necessarily imperfect. They are attempts at "the perfect triangle" - the self-enclosed system that needs nothing from the outside and all facts within this triangle are all that are necessary for completeness.

I'm aware of the search for the ToE in physics. I think it is a fantastic effort and great strides are made with each generation of Theoretical Physicists. But it rests on an assumption that many great systems of thought, such as Physics rests upon: That it is possible, with any ONE system, to explain Everything.

Let's say the best ToE possible is revealed.

Every known interaction accounted for. Let's even assume we end up living in a deterministic Universe and our computers have the power and agility to wade through the calculations and predict the exact Weather 175 years from now.

Then it should know my next thought in 24 hours time. Thinking is a physical process. It should be possible to do so.

But will it?

It may come up with best guesses, approximations, but at the moment, even to say "These are the 7 most likely things that Kenneth Udut will be thinking about tomorrow at 12:10am, 24 hours from now"... at the moment, the idea of being able to predict human thought with such accuracy is but a pipe dream.

Yet we do it all of the time in "real life". Witness the typical gossiping done by regular people all of the time. They're always trying to figure out what someone is thinking or will do in the future - absolutely certain of their answers and usually wrong (unless the person they're gossiping about tends to follow VERY habitual patterns of behavior)

Physics has some of the answers but not all of them. A prediction system that can't get you a date on a Saturday night is a system with VERY limited scope indeed. It's useful for what it's useful for. I'm not mocking physics - it gets more and more precise with fewer errors, better accuracy and some of the creative work in making subatomic computing a reality is quite impressive.

It's easy to describe things far away from our experience. But the closer to home we get, the harder it becomes. We can't accurately predict the location of the moon in two month's time - we can only approximate. The most accurate lunar and solar calendars involve OBSERVATION rather than mathematical PREDICTION of the locations. But eventually, I imagine we'll get there and be able to predict the position of the moon or sun with enough accuracy to get their true locations at some point in the future.

The point of the leaky triangle is just that: reasonable approximations of predicting the future or even of describing past events IS the best we can do.

The systems with the greatest complexity in prediction have an amazingly complicated amount of code involved. The systems used to predict the weather - millions of line of code, most of it in FORTRAN because that was the current language used when they started programming computers to predict the weather... it constantly GROWS as new constraints are found for the system.

And it's a marveous feat.

Imagine the weather predicting system as a triangle - a complete "something".

The leak is the difference between observation and prediction.

Each line of code is an effort to plug the leak, to make the perfect triangle.

1. Natural selection.

2. Fractional crystallisation.

3. Planetary accretion processes.

They are each great examples of leaky triangles.

Natural Selection:

I don't claim to understand what favors one particular mutation over another.

But the leaky triangle comes into play in that there ARE mutations - transcription errors... some say cosmic rays, others use other environmental clues, and some consider it simply a part of the not fully predictable behavior on a quantum scale.

I honestly have no idea which best describes the systems as a whole.

But the processes are not enclosed processes. They are affected by the environment in SOME fashion. There are leaks. Whether they come from the outside or inside or sideways - an example of sideways would be deviations in, I dont know, the timing of RNA polymerase adding the complementary RNA nucleotides? It's a process that takes place over Time and unexpected things can happen within any process that is not instantaneous.

Fractional crystallisation: The area the process takes place in would be the triangle, the temperature changes would be the leak in the triangle. Each of the molecules are not enclosed - they are affected by their environment they find themselves in and exhibit different behaviors when they have different shapes, at different energy levels and what they find themselves next to. Electron meets electron hole that's of a compatible configuration, negative meets positive and they connect like Lego blocks.

Or two triangles - the hole of one is just the right size for the body of the other to fit inside of and they connect. The triangle is an analogy for a "bucket" shape. (I'm not talking about Newton's buckets") - how a bucket can fit inside of a bucket one way, but the other way it does not. Perhaps incompeted triangle would be better than leaky

Oversimplification? Absolutely. Is it wrong? Probably.

Planetary accretion processes. I like the electrostatic --> large enough chunks where gravity can take over model, and gravitation instabilities lead to some parts breakng off, others clumping together.

If < is a leaky triangle (see the whole back end of it is leaking its inside and can be influenced and influence its environment) then a negative and positive charge would be << - the point meets the open end of the triangle. Two positive charges would be >< two negative charges would be <>

Things work one way at one scale but work differently at different scales. But I believe they're all the interaction of shapes - whether the shapes be wavelengths or the shapes formed in Spacetime as the Universe continues to expand, affecting Gravity.

I see the shapes in spacetime formed by mass and experienced as gravity formed by mass as triangular dents in spacetime - and again, leaky. They affect things that pass by and are affected by things that pass by.

I can't do math. I can't draw. I can't form a logical argument. But I do see in pictures and visualize processes.

Explaining what I see in my mind when I try to understand the nature of "how" and "what" isn't easy, because I think differently than most.

I don't expect agreement. I expect to be seen as a kook. Religious people I talk to see me as an atheist scientist. Science people keep waiting for me to switch to a religious argument. But I'm neither scientific nor religious. I'm just a guy trying to piece together how things work, not in a perfect way but rather to show how the imperfections of our human understandings of things can both get in the way of progress and also propel us in new directions, as long as we remain aware of the prejudices of our thinking processes.

[Mordred]

and yet another poster that doesn't wish to learn real science be well, have fun with your leaky model

by the way I'm not a physicist either, I'm just smart enough to study what is already understood, where you choose to limits based on philosophy

 

 

compare your article to two of the ones I wrote,

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion
http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

 

which is more scientific in understanding?

either way I won't waste my time on trying to teach those with no interest in learning real science

Edited July 13, 2014 by Mordred

[simplify3]

Thank you, Mordred. I shall - no sarcasm intended. The "us" "not us" way of thinking has been found even in the behaviors of bacteria. They don't act until there is a high enough density of their own - comparing chemical signals from their own kind, to a shorter, more general "I am bacteria" signal. Then they act.

As an isolated prokaryotic evolved to human form, I've got no "us" group. The rest of the world is smarter than me in their own fields and the little I'm able to comprehend of this vast experience of being human, is a constant challenge to express to the world outside. I'm only 133 IQ and while I got 99.9% on most standardized testing (Math, most of English), the areas related to "context" (or "what is the authors intentions") I'd always get 60% or so. I genuinely *don't* think like most people.

I ask questions most would think are stupid, "What if everybody was right about everything? What would have to change in our perceptions of reality?"; yet, I find philosophy droll. Linguistics fit more closely, Chomsky a personal hero yet the allure of the predictability of future events given by Physics always makes it intriguing.

But then I ask questions. "Is our perception of Time correct?" and the deeper I dig, the more I find we depend upon a deterministic view of Time - our very clocks synchronized to a Cesium atom who was calibrated by observations of the moon while they used Ephemeris Time for a short while. Yet all clocks are wrong. Time is relative but we use it as if it is deterministic.

I appreciate the Time you have each given to me, but I understand that this is your playground and I'm on your equipment. I'm honestly hoping for help in fleshing out my ideas; I need people with experience and inelligence in areas that I lack But I know it will be difficult to find those with both the knowledge and the interest in trying to understand what I'm getting at at the core.

[Ophiolite]

1. Natural selection.

2. Fractional crystallisation.

3. Planetary accretion processes.

 

They are each great examples of leaky triangles.

 

Natural Selection:

I don't claim to understand what favors one particular mutation over another.

 

But the leaky triangle comes into play in that there ARE mutations - transcription errors... some say cosmic rays, others use other environmental clues, and some consider it simply a part of the not fully predictable behavior on a quantum scale.

 

I honestly have no idea which best describes the systems as a whole.

 

But the processes are not enclosed processes. They are affected by the environment in SOME fashion. There are leaks. Whether they come from the outside or inside or sideways - an example of sideways would be deviations in, I dont know, the timing of RNA polymerase adding the complementary RNA nucleotides? It's a process that takes place over Time and unexpected things can happen within any process that is not instantaneous.

This is silly. It is barely worthy of a response.

 

You are using triangles as a metaphor to describe interaction that are, in many cases, far more active than a leak, and which are understood, qualitatively and quantitatively, in far greater detail, depth and richness, than a fourth rate metaphor. In a couple of hours I could come up with a better metaphor to describe what you are trying to describe, that was more intelligible, more relevant and more interesting than what you've produced. However, I wouldn't embarrass myself and waste other peoples time by parading it publicly.

 

Excuse my harshness, but really you have absolutely nothing here. Stop wasting your time and take some serious courses in a branch of science that interests you.

 

 

Fractional crystallisation: The area the process takes place in would be the triangle, the temperature changes would be the leak in the triangle. Each of the molecules are not enclosed - they are affected by their environment they find themselves in and exhibit different behaviors when they have different shapes, at different energy levels and what they find themselves next to. Electron meets electron hole that's of a compatible configuration, negative meets positive and they connect like Lego blocks.

 

Or two triangles - the hole of one is just the right size for the body of the other to fit inside of and they connect. The triangle is an analogy for a "bucket" shape. (I'm not talking about Newton's buckets") - how a bucket can fit inside of a bucket one way, but the other way it does not. Perhaps incompeted triangle would be better than leaky

 

Oversimplification? Absolutely. Is it wrong? Probably

So, you don't understand fractional crystallisation - no shame there - but you can't even make your triangle metaphor apply in a meaningful way. Wrong? Certainly.

 

I can't do math. I can't draw. I can't form a logical argument.

I can't do the first two either. So, I leave tasks that require those skills to people who can. Anything else is arrogance.

[Mordred]

the problem is your limiting yourself, by your own admissions, I am an electronics engineer, Not a physicist all it takes to learn science is dedication in study. As well as the right material. Never limit yourself. We can post the tools to learn by, however you need to show us a willingness to learn. I've already described numerous examples where your logic is flawed. Take the time to understand why I can be so certain as to that answer. Don't use a cop out like its not my field. Anyone on this forum is willing to assist you in understanding any aspect you need help in. However you need to show your willing to learn, otherwise its a waste of our time

Edited July 13, 2014 by Mordred

[simplify3]

Thank you Ophiolite. for your time in responding.

Yes, it's active leaks - extraordinarily active leaks. For a metaphor, triangles and leaks are certainly quite weak - terrible in fact. I paraded my ignorance in the place where I expected to find the most intelligent group of people I could think of:

I chose the most active science forum on the 'net.

I expected to get quick responses by people who could quickly point out my flaws accurately and decisively and was not disappointed. A two day turnaround. You listened and responded and dismissed me but not before responding. You were each more helpful than you may realize.

Thank you - I'll give you each credit when the time comes. (by forum and username but I won't quote anybody - what you helped me do is give me an intelligent wall to bounce my ideas off of and helped me clarify my own thought processes, as I had reached an impasse).

One thing about the world of writing: you don't have to be completely right to get published and sell books

I'm sure I'll find my science consultants somewhere but you have each helped quite a lot. Thanks!

Kenneth Udut - oh, I exposed about 700 of my hard to read notes on http://kennethudut.com 'til I got bored of scanning a few months back. Completely illegible and total nonsense but life is too short to have to be completely precise before acting. Thanks again guys/gals.

Oh I'm going to research further, based on your responses. Mordred. That's why I said that you've been more helpful than you know.

It's going to take a lot more research on my part: I came to what I perceived as experts - and none of you disappointed me. Each of the ideas you each presented, I'm going to research carefully and perhaps come back in a few weeks or months when I get some better understandings and more ideas - ones more intelligent than the ones I presented so far. Thank you again - I have a lot of work ahead of me.

Re: I am a strange loop.
Yes - the conclusion I came up with how the "I" works is best summarized in http://www.cognitivedesignsolutions.com/images/Learning_double-loop2.png

I've seen this darn pattern in so many systems (and in so many patents!!) and across different fields of knowledge,, I figured it's got to be right.

Also, yes - degrees of freedom is a big part of my thinking as well. I just started writing my incoherent notes down on that site two days ago; hardly started yet. http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2006-09/msg02000.html is a more complete thought I wrote out about 8 years ago; the system of systems site is currently babble because its train of thought and none of the "how I got there" is incorporated yet. Plus I have a lot of research to do

(oh nvm that old usenet article - my thinking was so basic 8 yrs ago - hah, it still is)

Anyway, thanks again; hopefully I'll be able to come back in a few months with strong revisions or a complete overhaul that can better pass the firing line of educated opinion

[Strange]

 

In science (which is primarily mathematical in this point in history, due to the great successes of matching physics and mathematics), there is a search for a greater decimal point or a more accurate pattern prediction method.

 

This is not a search for "perfection"; this is an attempt to prove the model wrong - to find out where it breaks. This can only be done quantitatively. Which is why there is little value in your idea. How do we test it? What would prove you wrong?

[Mordred]

Oh I'm going to research further, based on your responses. Mordred. That's why I said that you've been more helpful than you know.

 

It's going to take a lot more research on my part: I came to what I perceived as experts - and none of you disappointed me. Each of the ideas you each presented, I'm going to research carefully and perhaps come back in a few weeks or months when I get some better understandings and more ideas - ones more intelligent than the ones I presented so far. Thank you again - I have a lot of work ahead of me.

 

good glad to hear your planning on studying, you may find the materials on my signature handy as a starting point. As you didn't specify a field of research though you may or may not

 

if you can afford a good textbook there is one I found incredibly helpful in regards to the mathematics used in various physics. Though its not directly related to any particular field of physics.

 

"Roads to Reality" by Roger Penrose. he does a great job of taking some of the complexity out of various geometric relations. Its particularly suited to your ideas

Edited July 13, 2014 by Mordred

[simplify3]

Here. I'll give an example of the leaky triangle as analogizing:

When we describe systems for purposes of education, many times things are reduced from three dimensions to two dimensions.

They are drawn on a piece of paper or a computer screen.

Our brains do not handle 3D very well; mentally rotating objects in 3D space in the mind over Time, for example, is a skill that people have to different degrees (somewhat built-in, somewhat learned - I don't see a nature/nurture distinction but they're complementary).

So, we eliminate a dimension to explain things more easily. Information is lost in the process but its considered acceptable.

You have a point. (the "point" is a leaky triangle and can be described further but I'll leave it out for the moment)
You have a moment. (a "fixed point" in Time, another leaky triangle that is not static but I'll leave it out for the moment)

You have magnitude - scalar - the scale - two vectors intersecting on a reference frame, forming an angle.
You have a Force, which has magnitude and direction.
Direction, which is the relationship between a point on a reference frame and another point, often representating the center of inertial mass - and how it has changed from one point in time to another (or two states)
Inertial mass: Where things get wonky.

Inertia: a body's resistance to change. Easy enough on Earth - Easily enough for situations on Earth where the air doesn't move much and the object does most of the moving. You've got the relationship of mass to gravity to velocity on a reference frame over time (usually a rate - a fixed measurement of state change using a standardized reference frame for Time)

But then... what's inertia?

What's mass?

What's gravity?

What is the true difference between gravity and acceleration?

What's a point?

What's Time?

What can be used as a steady set of coordinates? - what's the 'fixed point?" to attach these things to?

We can safely make a lot of assumptions because things tend to behave, in general, as Newton set them out. Certainly enough to get us to the moon -- but not enough to coordinate the effect of gravity to Time when trying to synchronize GPS satelittes to GPS receivers in relationship to the electron jumping within a cesium atom.

But Newton made a distinction within Inertia between acting from within and acting from without - ie - what is the source of the change?

He had it as an innate quality, "built-in" - an impetus - whereas now we tend to think of think of it as a thing that happens.

Einstein had to reformulate all of space, time and gravity to reconcile Special Relativity to include acceleration of reference frames or coordinate systems. A deforming coordinate system - bending the paper we draw on - was quite a stroke of genius and seemingly obvious once it was done (at least conceptually - I wouldn't dare to attempt the math of Tensors or beyond but I can certainly picture it in my mind via elasticity of forms)

I'm not claiming to have answers to any of these things.

But I think a lot of these concepts can be described, in two dimensions over time, through the use of triangles leaking out their forces to other triangles and showing their interactions on animations and such, combined with descriptions, building one upon another until quite complicated phenomenon can be described at different scales.

I'm sure I'm riddled with holes here. This is all top-of-the-head; I'm not used to talking about these things I only think about - I didn't check my facts here. That's why I need help with some who understand what I'm trying to get at here and can help interpret what I'm trying to accomplish with the necessary corrections for accuracy's sake.

thanks for taking the time to read this.

ah Roads to Reality - I looked at a description of it: Yes, yes, that does seem right up my alley. Thank you.