Quote:
Originally Posted by nomad  Appreciated your post, Everymansmedium. Yes, I did encounter ITEK from time to time. We put together a modal test system for testing the Orbiter in the OPF or on the launch pad at Kennedy Space Center (I was based out of Houston, JSC). Our control room with computers and data acquisition system was in an Air Stream house trailer. Another trailer was used to haul shakers, power amps and other ancillary equipment. We used PCB signal conditioning, Zonic data acquisition and multi-shaker FRF post-processing, etc., along with HP workstations. We were given a 24 hour window to do the modal test. I also did finite element models and merged the modal test model with the FEM to do damage detection after flights (started with before-flight baseline modal test and FEM).
You put a lot of ideas out there. At some point I realized my brain had missed a turn in the road (or the road was continuing straight when I swerved). I've got to study your ideas. You are quite creative in your thinking.
I didn't mean to leave time out of the picture in my previous post. The established picture in the usual presentation of Special Relativity has every observer moving straight forward along his own 4th dimension (time axis) at the spead of light. I was just raising the question of who or what is really doing the moving, since the spacetime diagrams of Special Relativity always imply that all material structure (including physical living bodies, i.e., brain neurons, etc.) must be configured as static 4-D structures. Therefore the material bodies could not be in motion. The only thing left to move would be something we don't yet understand--that embodies consciousness. Perhaps something like a wave of consciousness, moving at the speed of light along the 4th dimension--maybe it's a universal consciousness, maybe there are just local consciousnesses associated with each individual brain).
It's exactly analogous to watching a movie. But, instead of the movie film strip moving through the projector, our consciousness flies at the speed of light along the 4th dimension watching a stream of a continuous sequence of 3-D frames. Each frame may be separated by a Planck time (10^-43 sec), although the frequency response of our consciousness averages out the sequence to yield the impression of a continuous flow of time. Maybe that's the kind of thing Einstein had in mind when he referred to reality as an illusion. |
Hello nomad:
Sorry about the delay. It seems as of lately I have a bit less time to spend here. Though I am retired from contract assignments, My own work is now getting out of control and becoming more of a task then the contracting was. My time with ITEK was 1983 through 1987. I was at Measurements systems division. (MSD) MSD was involved with optical encoders. My main project there was an SDI project. 12 – 21 bit encoders. 8 of these were for flight the others were development units and qualifiers. This resulted in 4 x-y positioners. One of these, I think, was lost in the shuttle crash along with one of our large format cameras. So I guess that you were handling the systems, may have seen some of the things that helped to support me and my family also. It was interesting times. We spent many nights talking about the very subject material we talk about here, while waiting for a T-VAC chamber to come to temp so we could perform a test.
My thoughts on the development of a TOE or a UFT (I see these as 2 separate issues.) are based on my feeling that we have an error in the past that has become part of the tool box that we use to define and understand our physical existence medium. If this is the case then we are trying to fix a problem by using the same tools as the tools that we used to create the problem. There is a list of thoughts that I call the “Principals of the acceptance of a concept by the scientific community.”
Note: I did not generate any of these principals. I simply post the list as I found them at:
http://www.physicsnews1.com/
The Authority Principle
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
Galileo Galilei - 1626
The Acceptance Principle
No concept shall attain acceptance without firm and logical support nor retain that acceptance after the loss of such support.
The Advancement Principle
The advancement of physics always involves the destruction of the majority opinion.
Samuel Ting - 2003
The Six Stages Of Truth
Stage 1: The truth is revealed.
Stage 2: The truth is ignored.
Stage 3: The truth is ridiculed.
Stage 4: The truth is violently opposed.
Stage 5: The truth is tolerated while awaiting a general changing of the guard.
Stage 6: The truth is accepted as logical and self-evident.
Stages 3, 4, & 6, Arthur Schopenhauer - 1850
Stages 1, 2, & 5, Ethan Skyler - 2004
The Lost-Logic Principle
Once an illogical concept is accepted within a science as true, the science itself becomes illogical. As long as the original illogical concept is retained, it is not possible to restore logic to the science as a whole since future concepts accepted within the science must be equally illogical to remain compatible with the original. Thus logic and progress become forever lost to the science until such time as all illogical concepts, including the original, are correctly identified and set aside.
The Confusion Principle
The more complex and confusing the solution, the less likely it will face proper challenge and the more likely it will one day be proven incorrect.
If you look at each one of these and think about the situation that we are in presently, you will see that there is not much thought given to these concepts. It appears to me at this point that our community should read and think about, The Advancement Principle, The stages of truth, The Lost-Logic Principle, and The Confusion Principle.
Now I will give you one more principal of my own:
“The older error principal.”
“The older an error is, the more difficult it will be to find and the greater will be the changes that are needed to fix the problem.” EMM.
I am sorry about the confusion that I sometimes create by trying to put too much information in a single communication. This has always been an attribute of what I write. I guess it is relative to the way that I think. I have better results of people understanding me when I go over my writing and spread out each individual thought. This typically generates 3 or 4 times as many words as the original document. I am in the process of learning how to write so that I will be understood. It seems that this is a much more difficult task for me than the original writing of the concepts. I was the one that was always asked to write the incident documents in the test log. You know, as short as possible but covering all the bases, easy to understand was not a requirement.
The thoughts that lead me to my present feeling about the TOE was best summed up by a document that I had registered with the L.O.C. in 1987. This document is posted on line just as it was written, still containing the same typos and misspellings. I kept it this way so that it was obviously not changed sense 1987.
http://unit-unity-community.com/UUC.txt
This document lead to my feeling that our primary force is a bipole.
As:
Gravity(space,matter,energy) – Continue(time,being,creation)
The idea of CONTINUE as a constant at the basis of life and also of time itself is the motivating thought that shows many more coincidental occurrences of compliance to this idea than it is possible to generate by random occurrence alone. There is obviously something related to this idea that is either behind the thoughts that have been documented by mankind all through out history or the idea of probability itself has gone wrong in this area. If you follow this concept to a conclusion you will answer all of the questions that mankind has ever asked. The problem with this is that the tool box that we use to understand the existing principals of physics may now be in question back to the point of deciding that gravity is a monopole.
I have been living with these thoughts now for 38 years. It actually began in 1970 though I did not share anything until 1987. When I registered “Unit Unity Community”.
Presently the predicate that indicates this idea is as follows: The membrane is as might be generated by M-theory. Though I do not have the ability to generate the math as is used by M-theory it is quite common that there are many such membranes of 11 dimensions with 2 existence mediums and a membrane as the interface that have been defined by people that work in this arena. The best that I can do is to form the domain for a system of prolog to check for logic and symmetry by the use of predicate calculus.
The other thing that I should mention is that the membrane must have a twist as is found in a Mobius strip.
I found these things by trying to create an environment for my AI, Robot operating system executive (ROSE).
The Membrane =
Bipole(membrane (side(gravity(space,matter,energy)3)),
(edge(continue(time,being,creation)1)),
(side(continue(time,being,creation)3)),
(edge(gravity(space,matter,energy)1)))).
John.
. Thanks for the post.
