Science versus Art in Reverse

drcharbonneau

This is inspired from a physicist's first purusal of Blender's manual. Blender appears to have been developed by something of a "physarticist" that understands some basic ideas that, for a number of years now, have emerged into a theory that fails, if not dismisses, the Big Bang Theory (BBT). I found it fascinating that software intended for artistic animation has grown so far beyond Walt Disney and Walter Lantz cartoons. Now the artist, especially in days when the subject of hyperspace prods our creativity, is trading places with the scientist, not unlike the old masters evolving full circle after the so-called "dumb painter" was brought about by the color men ending the need for the artist to make his own paints. The science behind animation is destined to put the BBT to bed.

Quite a few years back, FermiLab derived enough information from their accelerator to declare that the universe expanded to its full volume in 10 ^-43 EarthSeconds. That is roughly Planck Time, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time ), still it has been observed, through the motion of stars, gallaxies and intergalactic clouds of hydrogen that all that has been around for close to 15 billion Earth Years. Even gold would succumb to entropy by that time unless entropy ceases. The fact is it does at absolute zero, but, as in many man articulated standards, absolute zero is unattainable and, beyond that, man's standard of absolute absolutely falls short of the standard of nature. Entropy would only cease at the restoration point of outward expansion, similar to the ball tossed in the air reaches equilibrium an hovers for a split second before gravity overtakes it again and equal force brings it back to Earth.

In the cases of universal origins, the same force that caused that initial expansion would affect it equally and will return it to its point of origin, though, with shearing forces surrounding it, at about 10^-43 / 5 EarthSeconds. The lag, tells us that a particle's journey requires about 6 tP. That is a frame of time. In that single frame, collisions and bifurcations will occur with both returning particles and those outbound from the next frame, thus we find an interleave. Within that interleave is reality as we know it. A region, or perhaps even a shell or layer, where mass cannot exceed the speed of light. Still, gravity, like the Higgs boson, has infinite range. That requires the capacity of infinite velocity. Somewhere in these frames our eyes receive all of these outbound and inbound particles, but we only detect those slow enough to become photons.

Worse yet, we only can process a maximum of a hundred photon frames per Earth Second. Even artificial instruments are limited although to a lesser degree. Particles in the outermost regions of what I generally refer to as positive existence never reach us till they are on the return journey. That is defined as hypospace. Particles near the epicenter move to fast for anything in the light speed layer(s) to detect, or so it seems. Consequentally they define hyperspace... the 5th dimension.

Blender is oriented toward FrameTheory (FT). It includes the ability to compensate for that lag from a frame that forces our minds to interpret the blur of reality. The physics of that blur gives us this theory that potentially fails the BBT, using our own natural perception as a source of evidence. The creator(s) of Blender seemed to understand that. I find that fascinating of its own merit. Now I simply need to learn how to use it.

The picture depicts this process. The ring in the middle depicts the light speed area of the universe, meaning all that we can detect.

Chohole

Moved to Nuts and Bolts, because it doesn't belong in the Freepository as it is not an offer of a freebie.

drcharbonneau

My error in reading the Freepository TOS. It seemed more like a place to learn about art and animation, thus I Freely dePosited it there... free of charge... :red:

Chohole

THe DAZ 3D Froum TOS is an announcement which is forum wide, and thus appears at the top of each individual forum. THe Specific announcement for the Freepository, explaining all about what it is for is this one http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/56_41/

drcharbonneau

Got it.

Back to the regularly scheduled discussion...

zigraphix

Interesting. I was unable to find any references to Frame Theory or a comparison between Frame Theory and the Big Bang theory (or other GUTs or TOEs.) Can you provide a link to a review of the theory, please? A journal article would be fine.

drcharbonneau

Sadly, no. Although it's my theory I've been developing since 2000, much is supported by other theories, such as string, P-brane, M-brane, supersymmetry and the likes.

Recently I had a google spambot attack a forum I was building using Drupal code, resulting in the hosting company blaming me for something they failed to do, meaning put a few simple lines in their own scripts to prevent such. In short they terminated my account and all my work. Otherwise I'd have some of that to link to. I decided to take a break and work on illustrations for a novel I wrote and was selling on one of my sites, so when I go at it again, I'll have a better site anyway.

I found Blender had an update, said "What the heck," downloaded it, DAZ and now I'm here asking questions. Blender looks great, but when I saw it was based around some ideas I had started back in the early 90's, as in particle rendering and the physics behind it, I became inspired enough to share some added depth to what Blender had (no pun intended...). You have the guy here to answer questions about FT and I hope it can provide some food for creative thought.

It's not what we see that carries the most weight, but the other 99.999999% we don't.

StratDragon

the words "Blender" and "Simply learn to use it" should never appear in the same sentence, this is known as the "P-Brain" theory which is what happens to the brain after you go "Insane in the M-Brane" trying to learn Blender. If the concepts behind Blender are based on your theories you should have no trouble adapting to it, otherwise strap yerself in n' get your helmet on.

drcharbonneau

Hi SD,

I doubt if the Blender creators even know I exist or that a theory like FT does either. The concepts would be more properly defined as aligning with my work. (You'll notice upon closer inspection that the never, never words were in the same paragraph, but not the same sentence...) I started Raytracing with POV Ray, then AutoCAD 12 and Accurender, so much of Blender will be learning their particular algorhythm. In fact it bears some (very advanced) similarities to Cybermotion. I was actually wondering if Herr Epp was on the team that programmed it since he's only a border away in Deutchland.

FT is a theory that allows time travel into the past. Blender might actually allow it to be illustrated as a technical concept. In here, as I imply, it's food for thought to suggest what might work and what probably won't. I think in the commons I did an intro, stripping down a lot of the personal stuff, but mentioned I wrote a novel that revisits The Time Machine. HG Wells didn't do much to describe how time travel works because he had no real idea. Somewhere between Tesla and Einstein, the fantasy became a possibility. Add Tipler

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

to the bunch, Casimer, Kluza-Klein theory, Mallet, Chernobrov(?), Hawking and Carl Sagan, naming a few, the possibility has become a probability. Even NASA has a program looking for a warp drive. (Warp Drive When as keywords). The BBT, per Hawking, prevents time travel to the past. The rest of those guys might argue that point. I don't argue the point of chronology protection per Hawking, nor the inability of the BBT to allow time travel to the past, but protest the fallabilty of the BBT itself.

cridgit

Redacted

drcharbonneau

Whether a finite set of frames continually travel from origin to perimeter, or whether there is a continual stream of “fresh” frames from an infinite source of frames, and once each frame returns to the source it disappears, I don’t know.

Let's back up to the beginning and use a single particle as our voyager. Keep in mind that where there is matter, there is heat. Where there is heat there is entropy, or the atoms disintegrating back to what is probably the famous Higgs boson, recently confirmed at both CERN' Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and FermiLab. As the particle sheds matter it acquires space. Still, entropy isn't in lockstep with generation. As we approach zero heat, entropy drops off because the particle is shedding space instead of matter. This is where String Theory (ST) derives its compacted, smallest 3space dimension. It is like a filament, analogous to our nerve fibers compared to the nerves themselves. How does that filament get there?

At one stretch of arbitrary time, there had to be absolutely nothing. That is mind boggling. Even a mind the size of the entire material universe would run out of capacity to imagine forever save as an understanding in concept. As artists, most of us by now understand the meaning of a gradient. With these machines we envision the gradient with permanence, but also with those filamental elements dimensioning, as in measurement. The analogue we imagine is digitized and eventually divided to a minimum element. As the radius expands so does the quantity of those elements. In material space, the gradient increases in heat and pressure as the elements increase in number. In vacuum space, or the void, cold and vacuum energy increase the same way, till the vacuum forces become infinite. The cold, or negative heat as thermodynamics defines it numerically, becomes infinite. A center develops, then a particle with radius approaching zero erupts at velocity approaching infinity.

That particle immediately will become subject to the forces of vacuum surrounding it, losing speed till what began at infinite velocity, like the ball, curves and is sucked back toward that violent center. Still it cannot regain all of its initial velocity because, like the ball, it no longer has anything to impart energy to it. There is no hand in the air to throw it back down above freefall velocity. It never quite returns to the void, instead likely becomes what we define as dark matter. In that, just like Einstein protested, matter cannot be destroyed... only changed.

What this alludes to is that the frames keep on coming like the Energizer Bunny at the rate of 10^42 frames each Earth Second. Each frame has volume like that torus and we are just a speck within a speck within a speck ad infinitum within that solid ring area, shedding frames as fast as they are made and collide, the frames shedding space as they fall out of this lightspeed, interference area.

I'll take a break there and let my two Malamutes back in before they terrorize the passersby...

cridgit

Redacted

drcharbonneau

That makes sense for a single particle, but as soon as the particle appeared out of the vacuum, there was matter which means no longer an infinite cold/vacuum and therefore there would not follow a second particle, right? So the particle becomes dark matter and there we are stuck with a single piece of dark matter which used to be but one particle.

I had about five paragraphs written and a pic. When I clicked submit, the server gave me a 404! (A mouse tossing moment...)

Here's the pic. DG Tau B with an overlay of its gravity field derived from the flow of incoming matter during the star system's formation. I'll get back to this tomorrow. Servers can make a gorilla go bald...

drcharbonneau

This seems counter-intuitive. I’d expect a real-world object to acquire space (i.e. volume) by accumulating matter and releasing volume by shedding matter. Perhaps particles don’t play by the same rules, but I’m not sure I understand the inversion.

The Higgs mechanism is little understood. Keep in mind FT is a gestating theory. "Not quite right" is better defined as "not quite finished." Still there's a lot more work on the canvas than mere gesso.

Go watch "Honey, I shrunk the kids." Listen to Rick Moranus' explanation of matter.

cdordoni

drcharbonneau said:

Add Tipler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipler_cylinder

Tipler is definitely interesting and controversial. Many of his peers were not happy with his "The Physics of Immortality". But if you don't look at the requirement for proof, you could say its a religion.

I read it when it first came out, so my recollection is a bit hazy, but I believe he also challenges the idea of free will.

drcharbonneau

Like the rest of those mentioned, it's food for thought. Lot's of theories, charlatans and claims of monster fish that "got away." Tesla was probably the closest to finding anything close to the real McCoy, but only a fleeting accident. Nowadays you don't just build a 50 foot accelerator in your back yard...

drcharbonneau

My apology for not getting back to this sooner. I've been up to my ears in alligators, still trying to get to the primary purpose, which was to drain the swamp.... :D

I've been downloading tuts on Blender. That can take a lot of computer time.

As I've been perusing those downloads, I've found it impressive that the guys who wrote Blender, had such a handle on physics. The mathematical routines to place a single line in 2D representing 3D perspective takes a couple pages of code that the software will call time after time again. Direct X translates the frame quickly, but, as some have pointed out, a video accelerator card can be a bottleneck.

I do think that Blender will eventually offer me a good tool to represent what, as is evident here, a tough concept to explain in words. It can take a plethora of words to explain what the animation can in a minute's worth of frames.