Leaky Triangle Update: 10-25-2014
Thank you, Jerome Feldman, author of From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language for the SEA Cycle
Efimov state. A predicted state of rare balance in a trimer that isn't covered by current theories at this scale, other than Efimov. Shown to be real (see below)
A sierpinski triangle fractal. I was avoiding using the Sierpinski triangle as an example of "leaky triangle" because some say its just math tricks. But yes, it's found in nature. I had to add this because its the easiest way to explain some of the idea. Added 7/24/2014
I think the Universe might be perfectly predictable but our math is all messed up because we get screwed up inbetween dimensions. We still think in grids and get totally confused by the behavior of tetrahedrons, even though they are the simplest 3D form - and can blow up into a sphere very easily. Fix our math - stop expecting perfection and instead use successive approximations. Instead of building up we should start with the Universe, then keep cutting away until we end up with a "close enough" result to what we want. This dependence upon the idea of random, while useful,leads us sometimes into an unnecessarily spooky place - when it doesn't have to be. Can't build new technologies by being spooked by randomness. 7/24/2014 youtube
7/23/2014 - The leaky triangle - these maximized gaps in 3D space allow for smaller things to take place within. Imagine some plain old amino acids settling inside of one of these triangular gaps, perhaps in this case, some nice Zinc/Sulphur rock. Safe and secure in its tetrahedral home, the sunlight spreads its spectrum on the amino acids. The gaps are large enough for water to get inside through rainfall: a perfect chemical factory for life! Given enough time, its conceivable that whatever combinations are necessary to begin life - well, there's millions of years for the biological "computations" to take place, until something new forms; the first proteins perhaps... and whatever else took place since then. I'm not making a theory of life per se - I have no idea what happened - but I know this would be a perfect place for it to happen... safe from harm in a home that's JUST the right size and shape...Carbon-12 - Isotope most crutial for life - has a 'breathing triangle' configuration 7/24/14
Explained better on Carbon Nucleus seen spinning in triangular state where they say 'This suggests that the Hoyle state is a “breathing mode” whereby the equilateral triangle expands. This expanded nucleus can itself be set spinning, resulting in a series of excited states similar to that of the ground-state band of carbon-12.'
I'm expecting to find tetrahedrons and leaky triangles - a self-fulfilling bias on my part. I don't even like triangles much. But when you see a pattern over and over again, it got hard to ignore the importance of the gaps I keep seeing...
Leaky Triangle. This is a gap called a tetrahedral void. But a void isn't nothing: It is a space of weakness in a structure where fractures can occur. In materials engineering, this is well known; hydrogen atoms are so small, they can fit in these little voids inside of the toughest of materials and create nearly invisible weaknesses. But weakness is not the only way to look at these leaks in presumed perfection: think of them as places that very interesting things can happen - and they do; things we at first ignore, focusing on the "big picture". But these gaps, whether physical or metaphorical are opportunities. Zoom in or zoom out or invert the places you find such things and you will be surprised at what you find there: More things, unexpected things and... even more gaps to explore the properties of.
A tetrahedron (a sphere reduced to its simplest form) can't fill space by itself: there is always a gap. A leak. *Something* has to happen in that space. But what? This image shows five of these simple pyramids sitting flat. You cant make them connect together without having to stretch something. But - what stretches? What happens when you stretch it? If you can't stretch it, what takes place in the deepest part of the gap? Something quite interesting, I should think.
We tend to think in lines and squares. It's a flaw in our biology; diagonals are typically interpreted as having other properties such as distance (optical illusions, perspective, etc). But notice how shining regular light through a triangle makes it really simple to measure lights orbital angular momentum. Just count the dots. Normally, it's very mathematical and difficult to get right. Knowing how light spirals is critical in developing light-based technologies. This triangle leaks. It leaks information about light.
Why do I pick triangles (and all of the names given to them?) I could pick a sphere or a cube I'm sure. But here's the thing: Triangles/tetrahedrons/etc have properties that many other shapes do not. For one thing, you can make up any "enclosed" space by using them. It is the simplest. Yet it is also useful. You can determine chirality (left and right) with it, depending on which way its facing, or what shadow its casting. If you want to cut something, you need a triangle; it has a sharp point - it makes a wedge. It fits in the smallest of spaces you can find and it's not all inaccurate and wonky like "points" or "fuzzy spheres" and such. If you want to describe something in more detail, go deeper into the spaces you know little about, and you'll have room for more triangles to fit inside of - more things to explore. We pretend there are 1 and 2 dimensions because they're easy for us to grasp. But the Universe is at least 3D plus Time (and/or Spacetime if you want to go with Einstein too). That pencil mark on the paper? It's 3D. The flat line on your computer screen? Its 3D. I'll get into the spacetime aspect later. Triangles, with 3 points, can represent 3D on a "2D" surface in a way our brains can understand. Of course, even those 3 "points" - are also triangles...
Want a cube? Stick two together. Want criss cross lines in 2D at 90 degree angles? flatten it out - but remember the "zero" point has an "up" dimension since it overlaps. Want a sphere? Spin it around in all directions while drawing. Or, if you like, blow up the volume in the middle like a balloon until you get a sphere. They're easy to work with.
Efimov trimer state or Halo state. It's a Scaling factor at the quantum level. Basically, a scaling factor of 4.9 can occur in a 3 body quantum size system. They form themselves in a proportionate size difference that goes all the way from quantum size to bacterium size. Each state is 22.7 times larger but it then becomes 22.7 squared times weaker. It's as if they are projections of themselves. Basically, in this configuration of 3, instead of the 3rd one getting its energy stolen and flinging itself off in disguist as the pair of cozy dimer of particles bond, they form a relationship of 3 where they need each other to survive. It's rare and hard to form but it can happen.
We see this trick all of the time, in real life and especially in video games and art. There's a sound version of this trick used to simulate sounds coming closer and moving further away. We use the REAL triangles by our perception of light to measure distance of stars, or distance of objects by the Doppler effect.We're so fooled by triangles that seem to start bigger near us and seem to get smaller as it goes away from us.
The spinning bunch of triangles gives another illustration. Get enough triangles side by side all touching each other like that, and you get a sphere. But it's not a sphere. It's a whole bunch of triangles. Get enough tiny triangles together and you get a really round sphere. But... it's still triangles all stuck together when it comes down to it. Just because we can't see the crystalline structures hiding underneath doesn't mean they aren't there. The're not perfect triangles, but they're there nonetheless. A triangle is the simplest commplete shape in 2D. There really *is* no 2D (what's *truly* flat?) though. A triangle isn't really a triangle but a leaky triangle. Some force or phenomenon always shoots out or comes in in some higher dimensional way. Just one dimension higher, nothing fancy. The effects are numerous and this is my idea for simplification of many things. Leaky triangles.
I'll write the rest myself but this quick example is perfect. (This site is a mess and painful to read. Play with the boids. But don't bother reading my unedited notes below unless you want to be annoyed by my train-of-thought ramblings). -Kenneth Udut, simplify3 7/14/14 4:31am
I think a lot of 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 found a valid quantum mechanical theory I can work with. Coulson–Fischer can describe the unstable triple point, which helps bring the quantum world into the 'real world' better than molecular orbitals, which I wouldn't abandon but I need something practical when I get down to that zoom level. I have to learn a few terms (I'm not a math guy but I'm good at visualizing concepts spatially once I understand what each of the math symbols represent in reality)
Professor John Platt describes the spirit of the direction I'm shooting for with this introduction to a text book on Valence from the 60s.
"We should not ridicule the ancients for supposing that atoms could be rough or smooth or could have hooks connecting them to each other. The facts of fluidity and rigidity and the characteristic crystal forms of different substances, which require to be explained by some such suppositions, are still the same. These facts were then and are now as obvious to the curious layman or philosopher as to the laboratory scientist. If by “hooks” we mean a small integral number of potentially strong and reproducible linkages around an atom, pointing in particular characteristic directions and resistant to disruption, we are close to the expression in common language of the idea of directed valence or the chemical bond. If by a “smooth” atom—without hooks—we mean one that can be gripped only by weak and non-directional forces, we are close to the idea of a rare-gas atom or any stable uncharged closed-shell electronic configuration."
I just came across this a few minutes ago and I hope this helps you understand my goals here.
Two days ago, I decided to take my horribly written ideas to who I thought would be the toughest critics I could think of: Members of the most active science forum on the 'net (according to a forum search) in the Experimental Physics category. Knowing the group psychology of discussion groups, I knew how the process would go.
My huge thanks for their help (by frustrating a procrastinator (me) enough to finally break down and FIND the best mechanism to start explaining myself. Words weren't cutting it - and I knew they wouldn't.
Thanks to: Ophiolite, hoola, ajb, Strange, Mordred, Acme, Sensei, Bignose (in order of appearance, no priority in influence assumed). Without intending to, they helped get me here in just two hours and I now have a series of steps I can follow to work furthur towards my goal. (I'm not being secretive - I don't have a clear goal! I suppose its simply "I want to know everything before I die and be able to teach it to nearly anybody and have it be easily understandable while also being as accurate as possible". Something like that. If you've read this far, please stop now. If you thought the preceeding paragraphs were bad... :P
Should I decide to describe everything, the navigation to those pages will be here. But, as you can see, this is here - and that's ok. The good stuff is below here, anyway. You should probably go now. It's not worth the headache.
Note: The phrase "System of Systems" is also more commonly used to describe a holistic view of human activities, connected by lines. Unfortunately, they all suffer from the same, deep flaw. Six Sigma, US Department of Defense (DoD) "Family of Systems" (FoS) are examples of these.
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.
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.
...most forms in the Universe, from the shapes of the leaky boundaries between a "this" and a "that", all the way to the complicated products of human thought, appear to favor repeatability over happenstance.
Is the future and past linked together in a way ascertainable by humans? Many humans strongly believe so and these complicated descriptions of apparently predictable leaky boundary behaviors are called systems.
These are products of human thought. This includes my (Kenneth Udut) concept of "leaky boundary" (or leaky triangle) as a generalized summation of all systems to their most idealized description (for without boundaries, all things would be the same and without leaks, we humans would have no way of peering within, using whatever methods we have at hand at the point in history we are living in at the time).
This least complicated idea of leaky triangles is Kenneth Udut's attempt of a system of system of systems.
I could stop there and be satisfied at my explanation. But instead, I will use the space available on this server to attempt to describe as many systems as I can, to help facilitate the human need for predictability of the future... a sense of confidence that the past can be used to dictate the future, a mental hug that says "things won't randomly change", a confidence that began at our first games of peek-a-boo at six months of age.
I'm still here.
The near past (everything we think, see and hear is in the past - there's always a slight lag) is quite similar to furthur-away past. Therefore, the future might behave like the near past and the furthur away past.
Our experiences can be easily compressed and stored as patterns or stereotypes for future use and reused and built upon, compressing Time and allowing us to do more with less work.
We like lines. Whether the lines are drawn on paper, as the squiggles we call written language, or invisible lines of boundaries that our minds draw of the world around us before filling in with colors, it appears that we much prefer lines over isolated dots.
A dot or point is this mysterious thing that we try to pick apart and zoom into and draw lines all around the inside of it, describing its nature. Or sometimes we leave the dot as it is but we connect lines from the larger space around it to the dot to "put it in context", to show it as part of a system.
Just as a cat studies and then attacks a moving mouse or a ball of yarn, or as a hen destroys a fellow hen with a blood spot on her, we do our best to either eliminate the mysterious dots or study and try to understand them - understanding their behavior as either happening within its apparent boundaries or in response to external things outside of its boundaries - creating lines connecting the dot to other dots, or turning the dot into a set of lines.
The isolated dot will be connected, destroyed, or left as a mystery which connects it with invisible lines to all things, often making the isolated dot an object of veneration. But somebody always comes along and starts drawing lines to the dot and turns it into another system. Once it is in the form of a system, it has boundaries (lines around it) and it becomes seen as separate from the Universe, even if it is the Universe we are describing by a system.
If they didn't leak, we wouldn't see it. 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.
The Big Bang leaks Time and Space and All that exist on its boundary. No leak, no information. All shapes ultimately can be simplified to Triangles and all triangles leak or we woudn't know they were there. Even to know there is a black box we can't peer into - that black box leaks its own existence by interacting with photons or gravity or *something* we humans can see... some way we can turn it into lines with which we can tell a story.
The problem, which is a human problem, is our need for predictability, to know that Mommy is still there during a peek-a-boo, to believe that the near past confirms the furthur past which allows us to predict the future with confidence. Our confidence levels bias us towards an idea of containment, of certainty. But there is no perfect containment, no perfect certainty, for everything leaks and while the future may *tend* to follow similar patterns as the past, it does not always.
When our near-past ("now") experiences do not match up with our predictions, there is a mismatch. The pattern we use does not match our recent experience and it creates a dot. This dot does not connect. This dot can completely destroy the pattern we were using if we don't have a way to connect lines to it somehow from one of the patterns that have used in the past.
We become ever more precise. Accuracy to many decimal points is a noble goal but as each generation reviews the work of the last, new leaks are found and presumed to be plugged, until the process is repeated by the succeeding generations.
But the triangle always leaks. It must. This doesn't mean that there is anything bad about the search for perfection, for plugging every hole, for eliminating every error. The process fuels the economies of the world and ever more precise technology makes the world more predictable; our expectations and the realities we seek become ever closer and closer.
It comes at a cost, however. We our not perfect. Our systems are not perfect. We ignore certain flaws (leaks) in order to contain leaks elsewhere. I don't expect it to ever end nor would I suggest that it should, but an awareness of the leakiness of all things might, perhaps, relieve some anxieties and frustrations when the lines drawn in the mind and on paper that speak "Perfection!" do not match up to our efforts in the 4D (3D + Time) world we live in.
Our minds are part of that system too and they leak. The lines on paper or on the computer are three dimensional in nature as are the lines we draw inside of our mind. They are not flat. They may seem so but it is only because the resolution of our equipment isn't fine tuned enough to see the leaks; We focus on perfection by ignoring zoom and scale but looking a little closer or a little furthur away and the leaks are all quite clear.
Ignoring the leaks is a path to success; staying within the boundaries of our systems, we feel secure, comfortable like a baby being cradled to sleep by a caregiver.
But there will always be that nagging doubt that something is still not quite perfect. That is because it isn't.
A consequence of the leakiness of all things is that solidity exists as a very practical quality for human use but certainties can easily made uncertain with just the right word or equipment or way of thinking.
Every system can be hacked into, broken. Human societies depend on cooperation and a single maverick that understands the artificial walls put up by society's assumptions about "the way things are" can break through the system with complete freedom. This can be used for society's good or for personal gain but however it is used; every wall is a human construction.
This doesn't take away from is usefulness for humans; but every wall is a game of cooperation. Not everybody plays that game and once you have played the game long enough, the roleplaying takes over your thinking and you forget you are playing until something comes along to destroy your fantasy about "the way things are". Very disturbing and emotional experience and entirely avoidable once you understand the games we play and recognize them as such.
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 is the true difference between gravity and acceleration?
What's a point?
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.
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.
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 :P
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.
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.
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.
Orthogonality is a fancy term. It has a lot of meanings but they typically have to do with the idea that two things can be independent of each other. But they are not. In math/geometry - a perpendicular is when a right angle is formed. But when happens when you form a right angle? You get a triangle. A diagonal line is instantly formed - even if it is invisible - it is there.
Interesting things happen along the diagonal. If you want to make a structure stable, you form a triangle. That's the leak: Something new is created - *strength* of the entire structure once you add the piece that makes the diagonal.
Strange thing about diagonals - you can't make them out of either of the first two dimensions by themselves. If all you have is blocks to work with, you can't make a smooth diagonal, no matter how small you make the blocks. Players of Minecraft who try to make a perfect diagonal roof or try to make a circle or sphere run into this problem all of the time.
Humans are continually confused by diagonal lines. If you want to create the illusion of 3D, simply use diagonals in the right fashion and it appears an object is moving towards or away from you. Perspective is all about diagonals (which are triangles - remember a diagonal goes from a horizontal to a vertical line) that converge at your eye and also extend out to the limits of your vision.
I have a lot more to say about this - including how it relates the idea of a paradox and how, in short, there are no paradoxes that can't be resolved (you have to change one of the rules) coming later.
Inertia and hysteresis have a lot in common. A whole lot.
Only 3 days ago did I realize that I think more like an Engineer than a Scientist. I care about whether something works as a heuristic (rule of thumb). The precision depends on the needs of the customer, restrained by whatever systems I have to work around. I was under the mistaken impression that science and engineering were one and the same. But after reading "The Essentials Engineer" and "Why Things Break", plus doing further research on my own, I realize that what I've been thinking of as science is actually engineering. I'm trying put together a rule of thumb that, when its finished, will be extraordinarily simple, easy to understand, easy to apply and correct *enough*. It's a work-in-progress; a mess right now and will be for some time to come. But understand this: I don't think there *are* paradoxes per se - just an insufficient way of thinking. Any task can be accomplished in some form. To anybody who dares venture past this part, I apologize. These are a place to collect my notes, not to show a completed idea yet. IMPORTANT: I AM NOT AN ENGINEER (or a scientist) - so don't think they're all like me. I would make a poor representative of any "group" of people :P
System of Systems: Here, have a headache. Kenneth Udut's beginnings of a Theory of Everything. July 11, 2014 5:27am Updated: July 15, 2014, 9:43pm