so if A to B photon travel takes less multiverse configs (less sheaves and A to C has more metric distance and has more sheaves --->
how could then the state iteration of from referential frame e.g. at E -> there is e.g n system eigenstates having distinct referential frame. to E as if there is some time of ordered posets from A to B to C then.
how sum of E's eigenstates could go in most cases such direction which then it confuses as time whilch is actually a probabilistic sum of ordered posets iteration but not that there passes time. its something like for all that thing, it could be even a single eigenstate to stay forever.
so the sum of eigenstates of E of its possible near probable versions, there must be some mechanism that sum of its probable states most possible version would have such a poset dynamics. -> so that the eigenstates change instantaneously but their change is also similar to a permuation grp that at a one time it has one config, at a second moment it can stay like that and or change. so changes of permutations somehow results in this A to B eigenstate eigenstates and to C direction in the permutation grps of represented summed reference frame's most probable iteration.
so there are also new queries in this topic ->
for all that we know
it could be alike a permutation grp change from ES(eigenstage combine e.g. qwerty alike status) to then qwwwwwerty alike permutation grp iterations of one of the eigenstates could iterate through. among those random iterations, there is some most probabalistic iteration sequence that the highest probablity caused by both multiversal 2.d thermodynamics principle possibly and both probability wise more probability distance definitions based. so when assessing probability distribution of suhc mix of many eigenstates E in multiverse somehow the measured probability for some poset ordered iteration makes up the most sheaves count.
so its that AtoB distance has less sheaves count but posets start from there instead of BtoC directly. or even C directly. e.g. for E its could have been CCCCCCCCC or BBBBCCCCC or whatever, but somewhat ordered version of AAAABBCCCCCC alike poset versions takes up more sheaves count /more probable. why? why is not it CCCCCCBBBBBA or BBBAAACCCCC instead?
because in locality it tries to maximize sheave count when hmm i dont know. currently thinking of.
about how could time concept for photon could emerge from no time actually? :) for E i mean. for A to C they say for photon there is no time passage alike.
i think its because that there is the state of ES(eigenstate1) could be any value in between A to C at that time. for C it stays at C for B it transitions to C (B-C) since there is the more sheaves count direction for A same wise it could transition to C directly most possibly. but overall probablity sums of these must result in more frequent expected value somewhat some ordered poset behaviour alike -> so thats the maths wise to be proven point. of discovering such maybe some permutation grp alike change of state behaviour's most expected value to come up the most probable probabiluty set expectation being the poset ordered version. which creates the perception of time concept.
yep still have not revisited grp topic but i think as a starting idea permutation grp might as a hypothethical thinking method (metaphorical, not homomorphism nor isomorphism wise thinking nor topologically unchanged type thinking) so metaphorically permutation grps might be initially thought upon. (I mean it might not be the perfect metaphorical representation but lets start with that, but the actual more suited grp might not be even homomorphic to permutation grps concept behaviour any at all)
so this task's this side of task would include relearning statistics sometopics of measuristic probability theory topics and borel sets etc whatever methods are used or so some expectation calculation methods of some Expectation maximizer alike algorithms i remember or markov methods but dont exactly remember, would need restudying to figure out the most expected permutation grp changes iterations of E so that it observes a poset behaviour alike that a linear time perception emerges. whilst to the photon at A its at the same time at C it takes 0 time. no time. (0 dimension) but to the E side, it emerges a poset there and that is actually again possibly related to 2.d thermodynamics but proof of would require some task of revisiting statistics and probability knowledge and borel sets alike possible tools and markov topics etc to figure out how to get to calculate the most probable among all multiverse the permutation grp's iteration of changes sequence. so that we see there a poset -> which poset ordering property is like linked to distance metric from A to C where distance means actually not exact metric distance but proportional to it because of the condensed multiverse eigenstates counts between A to C. so a differnt metric there would come to define the poset order. and that metric would be again some probabilistic metric. of rrelated to sheaves count but would be somehow related proportional to distance metric there.
so one component actually effector parameter is this distance metric (but not standard distance concept but different to be devised) and to prove that E's permutation grp's most expected value is among all that has posets ordered with increasing distance of metric defined.
so this is a probability task indeed. i mean maths of probability topics. of understanding why linear iteration perception happens as the most probable and most sheaves count having version of any status at any time. so this is the current task 1 of solving the topic i wondered when listened to that documentary about photon.
so this task requires some advanced maths calculations as mentioned before and some methods/algorithms either at the same time. but i beleive i would be able to manage to solve it somehow anyhow. but would need to revisit some probability and markov and EM topics alike topics befofre and also measuristic probability measure deisgn methods borel topics etc etc. to be checked upon. hmm so then we can understand the reason of the such poset ordering property of the permutation grp of eigenstate iterations in its sum state of aggregate eigenstate particles of E. yep.
then from those, to redefien the QFT field definitons if required to enable the metrics defined for particle systems. and then build abstractions which could program the time flow at even boltzmann grid of E. which think of it that how-> think of botlzmann many configurations, some of them would's sum behaviour would definitely not poset behaviour. and via some configs that could see photon travels from C to A (reverse ) instead. but those configs are not the expectation. the expectation is which create the poset in original order. so how then you configure boltzmann so that it starts with a config that does not iterate to the expected value? that also requires some design to add some Y component of eigenstate. these would be checked but i think with some designs, the E would be able to see photon back to A in some config. so that these are further challenges for time and space warp ideas. but first we need to prove the idea has a point with seeing if such system of such metaphoric permutation grp has such expected poset iteration behaviour alike. then if so, then the reinforcement learning algorithms even can try out finding designs that creates time warp for E or space warp for E. yep. but first its required to figure out if theory makes sense. if makes sense. then its time to investigate designs of E and possibly K component added to the system to figure out. so i mean in case probability expectation shows the poset theorem is true and is what is time perception, then we can try out not only reinforcement learning algorithms but many methods could be used to figure out designs where time and space warp for E is possible. so this is just a starting idea. might not be correct. we would see. if the multiversal thermodynamics 2.d principle makes sense or whether if the poset theorem there of being expected measure of E's sum of states is also correct or not. and if both are correct and if QFT already supports the theory itself by its default form, then could then switch to initial warp design ideas by then. this is just a starting idea. it might not work out surely. i mean these are hypothethical ideas. it could be like this but maybe hypotheis is incorrect and might be alternate formulations/theories alike. but least we have a starting point to design. (although we had enormous assumptions in this initial starting theory about analysis and topological spatial concepts but lets start like that those abstractions could be altered in 2.d hypothesis this is just the first hypothesis theorem idea to be checked out if makes sense and if makes sense with defined maths then we could start investigating the warp ideas followingly of how what kindof designs could come up to warp enablers.
gosh this probabilistic calculations for a many particles eigenstate topic is would be very challenging surely. lets recheck borel side and such books about suhc mehtods and markov methods and many other such methods. but then if this starting idea makes sense/turns out feasible to be complete and sound, then yep even reinforcement learning neural networks then could then design a method to design space /time warp mechaisms. yep. or other such methods. yep. or some reinforcement learning based on some algebraic geomety designs alike thats coded with algebraicly to the reinforcement learning system. i mean from there on lots of things to try out in figuring out the warp designs.
hmm so when seeing how people try to invent warp on einstein's 4d space time curve concept (which we dont find accurate) and see this abstraft algebraic reconceptualization attempts methods of spacetime which we think might be more accurate space time modeling methods. we dont think einsteins' 4d space time is any accurate nor its theorem any complete.
so i mean there is actually a logical fallacy in einstein's argument of 4d space time surface.
i meany if you claim something then prove algebraicablly why?? just giving a metaphor does not prove its existence is like that. you have to then prove why its like that that 4d space time observation occures of caused by which mechanism? that if you do metaphors to do science without algebraically saying why is a logical fallacy i believe so. and dogma that such theorem is followed in currently even.
so see whats correct method in this imho is -> e.g. from 0 dimension to a poset alike structure how does time form? i mean just saying yep space time is a 4d surface with measured lorentzian factor inside is not enough and is having some logical fallacy type. of logical fallacy which tries to do a make an argument more valid with doing metaphors but whilst doing metaphors do not prove any of the topic. i mean just because you do metaphor does not prove the theorem. it rather creates a rigid false conceptualization and 100 years of intellectual lag of new physics designs based on such rigid logical fallacy having false conceptualization which tries to design something scientific but with unscientific method of metaphor. metaphor is only valid if you prove the system of isomorphism homomorphism fully not with doing some visual metaphors in minds and throwing outside a rigid conceptualization of 4d space time concept which made lagged physics inventions in post 100 yearstime with people creating a god of einstein strangely whilst he introduced very pseudo fallacy having rigid abstractions which created a lag to inventions of pshycis science even very later.
so maybe someone should also define the spock's logical fallacies series for science to advance science methods. so that you dont introduce rigid pseudo abstractions to a field with no whatsoever any validation that its like that. i mean for validation we mean isomorphic homomorphic like or grp theoretic definitions of every defintiion of the defined abstraction, just validate it define it in grp theoretic wide then say our theorem is valid. but just throw a theorem abstraction and to try to prove it use some metaphoric visual examples of 4d surface concept. just creating a surface concept is not enough for scientific method -> you have to show why its like that if it were so. otherwise you have chance of introducing superflous unnecessary abstractions to a science field which then lags the entire science field for even a century followingly afterwards. although it were not einstein's issue since by then abstract maths were not very common/popular that much. einstein did designed theorems based on by his times science paradigsm. the thing we reject that its still used as if its a dogma in current time although science methods of current time is much developed. (visibly abstract algebra were not very popular or even might not be very existing by einsteins times reason those times did had such mindset in science method is becaus ethose time science deisng paradigms were like that )
specifically abstract algebra should be popularized more and that the einstein method of doing a metaphor to try to give more legitimacy to an actually pseudo- superflous abstraction concept is must be a logical fallacy type of one of logical fallacies there.
--------------------------------------
so the query is then finding with existing methodologies the expected value of such permutation grp's state changes of its overall probability measure/definition / (sum of its behaviour\s expected value)
although it would be funny if einstein turned out correct. but i dont believe so.
and his incorrect theory is why physicists struggle to create a workable warp craft. all these 100 years of lag of scientific accomplishments is on einstein's burden. but einstein had no responsibiloity in that either, because those time's paradigms did not include abstract algebra methods alot. some of included but not popular paradigm by then that much. so noone expected einstein to design a more complete abstraction in those times yep. (science paradigms were like that by those times)
but maybe I am wrong and my idea would turn out wrong (I mean my warp idea based on my intiial space time abstraction idea of initial theory 1 (there would be least 20 more theoreis i think more least) since there is lots of changeable parameters e.g. even topology of spatiality of.
(but maybe my theorem is wrong and einstein is right. lets see. )
lets see whether i can prove einstein's theorem is incomplete (adds unnecessayr incorrect abstraction) might be sound but definitely most possibly incomplete. (adds superflous incorrect abstraction)
i believe so. but lets see. lets start with theorem 1 as of mentioned and checks its maths and see if its plauisbile and more complete? then would check with reinformcemet learning neural networks to design by ai some warp materials ideas based on that.
so i upon listening science documentaries, I wanted to raise my opinion against the einstein cult i saw in physics science which there is dogmatic followers of einstein cult :)
its so insane how science behaves like a cult in this topic :) and considers einstein's theorem as if natural law is :) and tries to even invent warp tech based on such abstraction whilst it visibly creates alot issues to even that. very limited by its abstraction type theorem and there is no validification of its abstraction idea nor reason of its such definition either. just as if einstein decided to say yep i want this to be like this -> (but with no reason? :) no rationality at all? ok that metaphor comes from where ? :) no, lorentzian factor existence is not any enough reason to verify/validate such abstraction any :) logical fallacy :) ) and that metaphor is i believe reason physics science lagged alot following 100 years alike :)
but it might not be related to einstein since by his time science paradigms/methods were like that. its that somewhat in post period, people lacked to stop cult behaviour to einstein's theories very weirdly :)
as if einstein's theories are as if natural laws :)
moment when my blog were very funny satirical against einstein :) and his cult and dogmas even 100 years later :)
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder