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

[Ophiolite]

thanks for taking the time to read this.

You can show that such thanks is genuine if you will take the time to write your next post, not spew it out onto the page like a James Joyce novel. This is a science forum, not the Literary Guild.

 

 

Note: Apologies to Joyce. He worked his butt off to create the illusion of spontaneity.

[simplify3]

You're right, Ophioite. I'm a visitor to your playground; a single thread, no introduction, completely rude of me. Social grace was never one of my strong points, even online Thanks again for the tips. -Ken

[Ophiolite]

Ken, don't try to avoid the heart of the matter by being a smart-ass. I am a visitor here, just like you. Subject to the same rules as you. And I said nothing about requiring an introduction. Why bring it up?

 

I take time to write my posts. Even a short one like this, I check for spelling and grammar, not always successfully it's true.

 

More importantly, I check for the flow and logic of the post. I want to make it as easy as possible for readers to understand my point. You do not seem to do so. By your own admission you do not do so. And that is rude. And that makes it difficult for you to get your message across. And I'm advising you to change that, for your benefit.

 

To be honest, I don't really give an aardvark's ass whether you do or not, but you certainly ought to....give an aardvark's ass, that is.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Ophiolite

[Bignose]

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

...

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.

The major problem here, simplify3, is that all you have at this moment is a story. You've present absolutely nothing in terms of predictions, and how well those predictions agree with observations. In short, you have nothing too terribly scientific.

 

Just to head off at the pass most of the usual arguments we get: yes, an idea does not necessarily need math. But, in order to make objective, clear cut, quantitative predictions, math is needed. Math is also great in that words are fungible -- for example, what you may describe as 'bending' may not be my idea of bending. That's where the math comes in. If you say 5 degrees of bending, then everyone knows exactly what it is.

 

So. My point being: can you actually present something more scientific in terms of objective quantitative predictions? Or is this just a story?

[simplify3]

Bignose,

 

I wouldn't dream of eliminating math. It's completely necessary and works wonderful when you need to quantify (quanta, count) things.

But let's say you want to describe processes - not for scientific purposes but rather for a basic level of comprehension.

In other words, yes, tell a story. Even mathematics is telling a story, using numbers and algorythms bu it is still a story, with many constraints to facilitate mutual understanding, In other words, it is a language with a grammar.

Would it be possible to tell the story of the Universe, or why people don't always understand each other using simple shapes?

I believe at its most basic, interacting triangles can be used. But not perfect triangles - triangles whose angles open up with elastic sides that contort to form other triangles.

So yes, it's for storytelling purposes; a descriptive language that is not comprehensive but which is as accurate as possible, for those who will never delve into the worlds of higher mathematics; perhaps those for whom basic Algebra proves to be too much of a brain squeeze... but can understand moving triangles with music and sounds and words quietly appearing on the side if they wish to research further.

[Strange]

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

 

Analogies are not science. They do not allow you to do any analysis, perform any calculations or draw any conclusions. In other words: a waste of time. (They can be useful if you already have a theory [you don't] and you want to explain it in non-techncial terms.)

 

 

You have a point. (the "point" is a leaky triangle and can be described further but I'll leave it out for the moment)

 

How can a point (zero dimensions) be represented by a triangle (two dimensions)? And why would a point leak?

 

 

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)

 

How can a moment in time be represented by a triangle (leaky or otherwise)? I get the impression that you are just asserting that these things are (everything is?) a "leaky triangle" for no other reason than it fits your imagination.

 

 

You have magnitude - scalar - the scale - two vectors intersecting on a reference frame, forming an angle.

 

If it is a scalar magnitude, then there are zero vectors (and, therefore, no triangle).

 

 

You have a Force, which has magnitude and direction.

 

True. But this is 1 dimensional and so, again, not triangle.

 

 

Direction, which is the relationship between a point on a reference frame and another point

 

Again, a 1D vector, not a triangle.

 

 

Inertial mass: Where things get wonky.

 

How can mass be a triangle. And how is it wonky.

 

 

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

 

Then I am still not sure what the point of this is. You still haven't demonstrated how the concept of "leaky triangles" can be used to calculate or explain anything.

[Bignose]

Ok, let's see that "as accurate as possible" then. Use your triangles to answer a simple physics question. I drop a regulation golf ball from 2m high. How long until it hits the ground? How high does it bounce back up?

[Strange]

But let's say you want to describe processes - not for scientific purposes but rather for a basic level of comprehension.

In other words, yes, tell a story. Even mathematics is telling a story, using numbers and algorythms bu it is still a story, with many constraints to facilitate mutual understanding, In other words, it is a language with a grammar.

 

Would it be possible to tell the story of the Universe, or why people don't always understand each other using simple shapes?

 

I believe at its most basic, interacting triangles can be used. But not perfect triangles - triangles whose angles open up with elastic sides that contort to form other triangles..

 

You seem to have this backward, though. IF you have a theory, THEN you can invent some story to explain it. You seem to have invented a story which explains nothing; which has no formalism of any sort behind it.

[simplify3]

The golf ball is drawn by a series of triangles, including the dimples.

The air molecules drawn by spinning triangles, including their electron holes and electrons, also spinning.

What you see, depends on the level of zoom you choose.

The earth would be series of triangles built together until they form an ellipse.

Forces we can measure but not see would be represented by a different color triangle than visible objects or measurable objects.

Gravity would be represented by a different colored triangle *as if* it was visible, connected to the centers of mass (other triangles of the same color) within the Earth and the golf ball.

Conceivably the moon and sun could also be included on a further out zoom.

Time would be represented by a different colored triangle, "clicking" the system forward, step by step and the user would have control over Time, to witness each part of the process. The amount of each "step" in Time could also be controlled and linked mathematically to the other parts of the system.

The magnitude of the effects would be represented by changes in triangle size or deformations of the triangles.

All of the math would hidden from the user - all completely there, all completely accurate as much as is possible.

And with a click, it could be revealed and described, or links provided for those who want to understand more of how the processes work.

[Bignose]

The golf ball is drawn by a series of triangles, including the dimples.

 

The air molecules drawn by spinning triangles, including their electron holes and electrons, also spinning.

 

What you see, depends on the level of zoom you choose.

 

The earth would be series of triangles built together until they form an ellipse.

 

Forces we can measure but not see would be represented by a different color triangle than visible objects or measurable objects.

 

Gravity would be represented by a different colored triangle *as if* it was visible, connected to the centers of mass (other triangles of the same color) within the Earth and the golf ball.

 

Conceivably the moon and sun could also be included on a further out zoom.

 

Time would be represented by a different colored triangle, "clicking" the system forward, step by step and the user would have control over Time, to witness each part of the process. The amount of each "step" in Time could also be controlled and linked mathematically to the other parts of the system.

 

The magnitude of the effects would be represented by changes in triangle size or deformations of the triangles.

 

All of the math would hidden from the user - all completely there, all completely accurate as much as is possible.

 

And with a click, it could be revealed and described, or links provided for those who want to understand more of how the processes work.

Wow. Just wow. All that text, and you didn't actually answer my question. I have no other conclusion to make other than your system does not work as well as the current best system. If this is the best way you can demonstrate your accuracy, you have a long, long way to go before you're going to get any interest from anyone actually working in science. I don't write this to be mean. Just trying to be realistic about what you have presented so far.

[Ophiolite]

And still, Ken, you ignore all the input you are getting. I'm sorry, your contribution is lightweight pseudo-science that would be understandable in a bar after five pints, but is not justified on a science forum when you are posting sober. I'm done here.

[Strange]

All of the math would hidden from the user - all completely there, all completely accurate as much as is possible.

 

Can you show us this math? How do you use all these triangles to calculate the path of the ball?

[simplify3]

The triangles would be demonstrating the interactions, much like other analogies are used to describe interactions.

In the past, gears have been used for example.

A gear can be simplified to a collection of triangles.

It's all basic computer graphics, my gosh.

The forces being described are the leaks. They could be represented by lines or arrows - just as we do when we describe processes visually.

Interactions that involve the observer simply be a triangle connecting the observer's vision as an angle in the triangle, connecting with the observed material or energy - which forms a triangular shape (a loop really but a loop can be represented by a triangle just as easily).

but since it is not an isolated system (no system is isolated except perhaps for the universe as a whole) - the environment can interact with the loop or triangle that's formed; that's part of the leakiness.

It's ok. I'll just use a basic javascript physics library to do the math.

I explain very complicated things to children on a regular basis; part of what I do. They understand and branch off in their own directions creatively and come up with mental models of the way things work that's not limited to one particular worldview.

The drama here is very similar to the drama I see working with kids and with women. I have a high level of patience with them, so I'm used to it.

Ophiolite - a nice ragequit by the way I'm more into marketing, advertising, psychology, sociology and historical development of various systems over time, especially regarding fads and trends. Science and mathematics contain many systems equally influenced by fads, cliques, and current (rather than historically developed process) thinking as fangirls do with One Direction or boys with Minecraft.

I'll do the best I can with what's available on the 'net for my project - taking into account all that you've said and further researching.

I had hoped to find somebody who wouldn't over-react dramatically here, although I expected as such; its the norm for youtube commenters and most forums alike. I DON'T have the answers, but I'm developing a product or products. The more input I get, the more accurate it will be to reflect reality as best we understand it.

and you've all helped. Thanks!

[Strange]

I'll just use a basic javascript physics library to do the math.

 

As you don't seem to be adding anything new in terms of the mathematical formalisms (theories) that we use, I am still not sure what the purpose of your idea is.

 

For the example of the trajectory of a golf ball, a very simple diagram can be drawn using just two vectors that explains perfectly what happens AND is perfectly aligned with the maths.

 

Instead of this simple diagram you want to introduce something far more complicated (a infinite number of triangles to represent a circle for example - something that is done, by the way, when learning calculus). I don't see how this helps.

[simplify3]

It helps because I believe that a lot of our teaching methods are oversimplified.

The oversimplification gets carried forward from schooling through to adult life and affects decision-making that can ruin lives.

One example: Heredity.

In schools, they still tend to teach the idea that four grandparents with brown eyes can't have a grandchild with blue eyes.

We know that that's not true, when you zoom into the level of RNA/DNA transcription.

Anybody who has seen large families knows that's not true. Of course it's possible.

But we still teach it because it's simple and lots of textbooks are written using it - based on the assumption that further refinements will come later.

Unfortunately, such refinements don't always come. One of the litmus tests for custody in ... oh gosh is it Scotland - England? I don't remember where - involves social working looking at the color of the eyes as a metric to identify parentage.

Long story short, children are taken away from parents based on systems put together based on very old science still taught in schools for simplification purposes, ignoring modern knowledge for the sake of expediency.

No system is isolated.

You all know far more physics than I do. I'm a lifelong Dr. Who fan, wrote my first paper on black holes in the 8th grade (before Hawking wrote his Brief History of Time - the year before it) - it still holds up against what I've read (I didn't have hawking radiation because I didn't know about it but I was describing gravitational effects using analogies as best my 12-13 year old mind could.

But I got a D in Calculus. Anything beyond basic Trig, I simply don't process the math. I've tried. I wrote up a Life Simulator in Microsoft Excel and VBA translating code from an old paper into a useful format. But I can't do Calculus or comprehend mathematical formulas when I read them..

I'm also a musician who can barely read music but I can hear and play anything you throw at me, given 5 minutes of figuring out the chords and notes.

I don't think like most people.

Adding a near infinity of triangles is important to me for education purposes. If someone wants to know: "Ok what is happening here?" they can zoom in and find out.

There's no reason calculus can't be learned conceptually at 7 years of age through the use of triangles, colors, movement and interaction, even without words or math - just interacting with a visual computer system.. That's my belief.

[Strange]

 

It helps because I believe that a lot of our teaching methods are oversimplified.

 

That argument can be made. But if that is true, the correct solution is to teach a more realistic model, NOT to make up an over-complex model that bears no relation to the real world and adds no explanatory power.

[simplify3]

It's not an overcomplicated model though.

It's triangles and their interactions.

Human brains see solid lines best. We perceive the world in mental lines before we fill them in with another part of the brain.

We see in 2D but extrapolate into 3D in our minds, at varying degrees of ability. (optical illusions play with that brain feature).

One basic shape, different sizes. Different interactions depending on what's being described.

It's an abstraction to its simplest form.

It's not "our Universe"; its an abstraction of our Universe. But Mathematics itself is an abstraction of our Universe. So is language.

How do we generate shapes on the computer? How do you project 3D to 2D? Meshes. Triangles. I'm not inventing something new here. It's already being done today. I'm just repurposing it for a set of products and hoping for some help from people far smarter than I. Whether it's "worth doing" is a value judgement. It's being done. Whether I can do it *better* is why I came here - and you have all been quite helpful so far.

Versions of "Your idea is stupid and wrong (and here's why)" - well, that's commonplace and easy to find. What's *uncommon* is, "Ok, I see what you're trying to do here. Maybe I can help you do it better."

That's why I'm here, while my 9 yr old nephew is hanging on my shoulder begging me to play the new Minecraft map he made.

Think of things from a first person point of view. I'm looking out to the world. I am the point of a triangle where they meet.

I witness something happening as I travel by at a high rate of speed.

Is it not unreasonable for the Doppler effect to be described by a triangle connecting you, the reference frame and the object you're looking at, as the triangle skews?

I'm not looking for perfection (one of the points of the leaky triangle idea is that a perfect model *is* impossible) - just a reasonable approximation using the least amount of features to describe a system without words while being accurate to their interactions as best as possible.

The system isn't just for physics. It's for describing human interactions - how misinterpretatons form... how to handle bullying. How to learn new things - how to not forget. How to solve problems when you don't have enough information, etc.

It's a learning system. Physics is a part of it, not the entirety of it.

[Sensei]

It's not an overcomplicated model though.

 

Simply, you simply don't understand how Universe is working..

Sorry to be honest.

Model has to predict something, with higher or lower precision, but being able to predict anything.

Your model is predicting nothing.

Meshes is 3d applications, 3d games are made of triangles because it's the elementary object with area (line has area = 0), which can be used to created any other 3d object.

 

But if you would be able to zoom in quantum world, you would see empty space with just some electrons and nucleus instead of solid surface.

[Bignose]

It's not an overcomplicated model though.

You keep saying this. Yet, you can't demonstrate how to use your idea to calculate my very simple example. Why is this?

[simplify3]

The future can't be predicted with absolute accuracy. We approximate using calculations but then REALITY happens when we put them into play and unexpected things happen.
The interface between idea and making it real.
I'm trying to simplify a very complicated concept: What you think you'll see and what you actually see are often two different things.
It doesn't matter if I'm speaking about the predictions of math, or predicting what your neighbor will be dreaming about tomorrow night at 3:02am.
We learn to expect it to be that way and take it for granted that 'that's the way things are' but nobody but children and simple people like me ever seen to question it.
*sigh* as the product I'm working on is geared for kids and non-technical types, I'll just have to show it when its done.
Then perhaps it will make more sense.
I've got an online waiting audience of 5600 kids and mostly non-technical adults, many with extreme learning disabilities, and I haven't much time and not much money to work with.

-Ken

[Strange]

It's not an overcomplicated model though.

 

It's triangles and their interactions.

 

It is more complicated than describing the movement of a golf ball in terms of just two vectors - which is all that is needed (and is not an oversimplification).

 

You have not described (quantitatively) how these triangles interact. Therefore, they add nothing to the model in terms of descriptive or predictive power.

 

 

How do we generate shapes on the computer? How do you project 3D to 2D? Meshes. Triangles.

 

Yes, and there is mathematics that describes how to do that in two dimensions. (You have not provided an equivalent for the 3D world, or for 4D space-time.) And then there is mathematics to describe how to transform and render those triangles.

 

But all of that is irrelevant. Even if a CGI rendering of a golf ball is done using triangles, the physics of its movement will be done using two vectors.

 

You still have not explained the advantage of your model.

 

 

just a reasonable approximation using the least amount of features to describe a system without words while being accurate to their interactions as best as possible.

 

That can often be done using a single point (e.g. the golf ball example). So why do we need thousands of triangles?

The future can't be predicted with absolute accuracy. We approximate using calculations but then REALITY happens when we put them into play and unexpected things happen.

 

And how does your model help us do that?

[simplify3]

I just wanted to say thanks to all. I found what I needed. http://system-of-systems.com has an example on top - of flocking birds. I didn't write the flocking birds, but it's exactly what I was looking for: it utilizing Processing, a language written for artists. I'm not an artist but a programmer.

 

I've been looking for something like this for a little over a year but it wasn't until my frustration in trying to explain myself to some pretty tough critics (you guys) that I finally just went ahead and found it. It works how I think. Using it reminds me of being 11 years old with my color computer and hacking my way through BASIC for the first time. I learned more Math by learning BASIC than I ever did in Math classes.

It's probably why I went towards Excel rather than Matlab.

I have some learning to do, but I gave you all proper credit on the page, which is not ready for prime time but I exposed it to your critiquing.

It'll be easier to show rather than tell. I'm a writer who was trying to write about what I see in my mind and I was at a complete loss of words to describe it accurately. I knew I needed to draw and animate but I can't draw or animate well. Now I have the proper tool.

I won't justify thousands of triangles verbally. I'll just have to make it work and I'll show you when its ready. Might take a while.

Thanks again!

 

-Ken

[Strange]

I just wanted to say thanks to all. I found what I needed. http://system-of-systems.com has an example on top - of flocking birds.

 

I assume this fits your idea because the birds are simplified to triangles? But they could be equally well represented by points, lines, squares or circles....

 

On the other hand, the flocking behaviour is described by just three rules so I suppose you can consider there to be a "triangle" at the heart of it (if you are more interested in art than science).

[simplify3]

Points; No good because they're hypothetical. What we consider a point can be zoomed in on and is a "something".
Line: No good. A 1D line doesn't exist in my view. Everything in the Universe has 3 dimensions + Time at the very least. Probably 4 + time. (perhaps more but I decided to go with what we got for now)

Square: No good because there's no parallel lines. Spacetime itself is curved.
Circles: They're a special form of ellipse with a single radius. Plus the whole "trying to make a line into a curve" and getting ridiculous irrational numbers is maddening. I know It's necessary and again, I'm not taking away from its usefulness in GENERAL. Just not for my purposes.

Even a triangle isn't perfect. But it's the simplest I could rationalize in my mind. I can't prove it with words - I've tried - but I should be able to prove it with animations.


And Yes. The triangle isn't limited to what you learn in geometry class. I'm glad you saw that - thanks!

The triangle is also descriptive of trios of rules or "somethings" that generate a something that goes well beyond what any of the three alone could have done.

I'm interested in the science but want to be able to teach it in a very simple form. The way I see things in my mind is a simple form.

From chirality, magnetic moment, electron spin, how temperate affects the behavior of an ideal gas... how vision works for humans and how it separates into two parts and how it comes together... the process of chemical reactions -- these things show up as pictures in my mind as I read.

Simple interacting triangles. Big and small, opening and closing. flipping, spinning, rotating, skewing...

When i see a line, it's just a triangle on its back with the other end pointed away from me, out of my direct sight. Or a triangle whose "top point" is on the same plane as the bottom two points.

It's a weird way of seeing the world but it's how I see it.

Human interactions, I see the same way.

I want to describe all systems in the simplest possible form I can think of. I couldn't go any simpler than a triangle without sacrificing zoom.

And since a moving triangle has 4 coordinates - xy yz xz time - it makes them easy to work with. Plus they have volume. AND they have interest (the vectors formed) and the angles. Curve a triangle in the 3rd dimension and you get a geodesic coordinate system. Quite useful thing, triangles.

[Strange]

The only thing I hope that you learn from this thread is that what you are doing has nothing at all to do with science. Not even science communication. It may be an artistic or imaginative endeavour and have some intrinsic value because of that. But that's it.

 

 

Points; No good because they're hypothetical. What we consider a point can be zoomed in on and is a "something".
Line: No good. A 1D line doesn't exist in my view.

 

I meant purely in terms of how the birds are drawn on the screen (as that was the only connection with triangles that I could discern). They could equally well have been drawn as points, lines, circles, hexagons or random blobs.

 

They could have been drawn as photorealistic renderings. This would not require them to be represented by triangles.

 

 

When i see a line, it's just a triangle on its back with the other end pointed away from me, out of my direct sight. Or a triangle whose "top point" is on the same plane as the bottom two points.

 

So, yes, you can impose triangles on things but that says more about you than it does about reality.

They could have been drawn as photorealistic renderings. This would not require them to be represented by triangles.

 

For example, consider ray-tracing. In this case, the simplest object to represent is a sphere. To model a triangle is significantly more complex as you have to define the equation for the surface (which is more complex than for the sphere) and the boundary conditions.

 

In fact, in almost all physics, modelling things as spheres or circles is the simpler option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

Edited July 14, 2014 by Strange