lacenaire
09-10-06, 10:02 PM
The Valenzetti Equation
It allegedly predicts the future.
This is what I have imagined.
Please share how you have imagined it works.
I have the opinion that this Valenzetti is not Nostradamus type,
he is a scientist and he approached the task scientifically,
so he simply took a 4D «geometric» approach to the problem «of avoiding the future»
If «history» represents an object moving along a «timeline»,
a trayectory accross the space-time continuum,
I guess he figured that changing the trayectory of the object
would cause «history» to change
as the Earth would be travelling on a different «timeline».
It would be like changing the whole to produce individual changes
rather than changing individual things to cause a change of the whole.
«Human history» would be an epiphenomenon,
like the specs of dust over a surface,
if you try to change one by one or to create a chain reaction
could take you a lot of time and energy.
Maybe it's just easier to move the whole surface and have
all the specs of dust find a new position.
How to change the orbit of the Earth?
Playing with the Electromagnetic Field maybe?
Unifying Gravity with the other 3 forces.
This is what S. Hawking wrote in ‘A brief history of time’
... the movement of the earth in its orbit round the sun produces gravitational waves. The effect of the energy loss will be to change the orbit of the earth so that gradually it gets nearer and nearer to the sun, eventually collides with it, and settles down to a stationary state. The rate of energy loss in the case of the earth and the sun is very low - about enough to run a small electric heater. This means it will take about a thousand million million million million years for the earth to run into the sun... 94
I have seen people playing with the numbers
and trying to obtain them using mere sums, substractions or multiplications.
It also seems to me that they think the numbers are the result, the solution.
That seems quite simplistic, honestly.
As this Valenzetti imagined a geometric solution
I have looked for a similar problem that might help me understand him.
I have found this Perturbation Theory Problem.
Perturbation theory comprises mathematical methods that are used to find an approximate solution to a problem which cannot be solved exactly, by starting from the exact solution of a related problem. Perturbation theory is applicable if the problem at hand can be formulated by adding a "small" term to the mathematical description of the exactly solvable problem.
It sounds a bit like when that computer on HItchhiker's guide to the galaxy
said that the answer to the meaning of life is 42. The computer calculated
millions of equations and variables and it finally came up with an approximation.
Since the people who asked did not know what was that thing the answer
was an approximation to, they were quite embarrassed.
You know, there's no stupid answers, just stupid questions.
I would suggest Yung to check out these notes because they tie together
a lot of what he says in his thread with this approach to Perturbation Theory
and the Valenzetti equation.
http://pierre.mit.edu/805/lecturenotes/gifs/7.1n.html
So, as it is an «approximation method» well, I guess it leaves an ample margin for an incident to arise, right?
The way I see it:
- It is related to changing and predicting movements across elliptical orbits, which fits nicely with the «changing Earth's trayectory" premise.
- It is related to Symmetry, Chirality and Quantum theory via the Schrodinger-Raleigh equation.
- It uses 6 incognitae equation systems (the numbers could be the value those incognitae take, not the value that the equation takes).
- About changing the parameters and all that that is coming from the ARG, I find this quote quite enlightening:
Perturbation theory leads to an expression for the desired solution in terms of a power series in some "small" parameter that quantifies the deviation from the exactly solvable problem. The leading term in this power series is the solution of the exactly solvable problem, while further terms describe the deviation in the solution, due to the deviation from the initial problem
So, these were the articles that I found that echo my hunch about the equation.
I am not a mathematician, so don't ask me. I just focus on the language used, the words and what they suggest, which is ultimately what sci-fiction does. The writer creates «suggestive science with words», not real science.
Perturbation theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory)
Perturbation theory in quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory_%28quantum_mechanics%29)
And now to the incident.
Ok, so the Equation can predict when the end is coming.
It can give us how to change the trayectory of the Earth accross the Space-time continuum.
Hanso created the means to apply those changes, electromagnetically.
Ok, thus far everything is quite realistic and believable. LOL.
«Enter the incident»: So, Humanity has survived, but HOW?
I am thinking in terms of UCHRONIE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uchronie). Alternate realities. Alternate Universe.
In Marvel, they've coined the term «ultimate universes». They are the same thing really.
Remember, Lindelof is an «ultimatist».
Think fourth-dimensionally, like Doc E. Brown said in Back to the Future.
And with the PKDick vibe to this show could there be some kind of a scenario similar to ‘The Man in the High Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_in_the_high_castle)’?
Maybe Humanity is safe because Genghis Khan is inmortal and rules with an iron fist. Maybe it is Napoleon who won in Waterloo. I don't know, the number of alternate realities is so large that anything is possible. I just think that the potential for —unintended— comedy (too much tragedy equals comedy) is quite high imo. This could make Lost a satire (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17283), rather than a drama. They move the axis a little bit off the mark and now everyone has donkey ears and walks backwards.
Now, the whole interpretation of the show based only on the Valenzetti equation
crumbles down when I come to think that all of this does not explain the crash of flight 815,
it does not explain the mystery of the island
because it does not explain anything BEFORE the equation was formulated.
PS. This post is as serious as it seems.
It allegedly predicts the future.
This is what I have imagined.
Please share how you have imagined it works.
I have the opinion that this Valenzetti is not Nostradamus type,
he is a scientist and he approached the task scientifically,
so he simply took a 4D «geometric» approach to the problem «of avoiding the future»
If «history» represents an object moving along a «timeline»,
a trayectory accross the space-time continuum,
I guess he figured that changing the trayectory of the object
would cause «history» to change
as the Earth would be travelling on a different «timeline».
It would be like changing the whole to produce individual changes
rather than changing individual things to cause a change of the whole.
«Human history» would be an epiphenomenon,
like the specs of dust over a surface,
if you try to change one by one or to create a chain reaction
could take you a lot of time and energy.
Maybe it's just easier to move the whole surface and have
all the specs of dust find a new position.
How to change the orbit of the Earth?
Playing with the Electromagnetic Field maybe?
Unifying Gravity with the other 3 forces.
This is what S. Hawking wrote in ‘A brief history of time’
... the movement of the earth in its orbit round the sun produces gravitational waves. The effect of the energy loss will be to change the orbit of the earth so that gradually it gets nearer and nearer to the sun, eventually collides with it, and settles down to a stationary state. The rate of energy loss in the case of the earth and the sun is very low - about enough to run a small electric heater. This means it will take about a thousand million million million million years for the earth to run into the sun... 94
I have seen people playing with the numbers
and trying to obtain them using mere sums, substractions or multiplications.
It also seems to me that they think the numbers are the result, the solution.
That seems quite simplistic, honestly.
As this Valenzetti imagined a geometric solution
I have looked for a similar problem that might help me understand him.
I have found this Perturbation Theory Problem.
Perturbation theory comprises mathematical methods that are used to find an approximate solution to a problem which cannot be solved exactly, by starting from the exact solution of a related problem. Perturbation theory is applicable if the problem at hand can be formulated by adding a "small" term to the mathematical description of the exactly solvable problem.
It sounds a bit like when that computer on HItchhiker's guide to the galaxy
said that the answer to the meaning of life is 42. The computer calculated
millions of equations and variables and it finally came up with an approximation.
Since the people who asked did not know what was that thing the answer
was an approximation to, they were quite embarrassed.
You know, there's no stupid answers, just stupid questions.
I would suggest Yung to check out these notes because they tie together
a lot of what he says in his thread with this approach to Perturbation Theory
and the Valenzetti equation.
http://pierre.mit.edu/805/lecturenotes/gifs/7.1n.html
So, as it is an «approximation method» well, I guess it leaves an ample margin for an incident to arise, right?
The way I see it:
- It is related to changing and predicting movements across elliptical orbits, which fits nicely with the «changing Earth's trayectory" premise.
- It is related to Symmetry, Chirality and Quantum theory via the Schrodinger-Raleigh equation.
- It uses 6 incognitae equation systems (the numbers could be the value those incognitae take, not the value that the equation takes).
- About changing the parameters and all that that is coming from the ARG, I find this quote quite enlightening:
Perturbation theory leads to an expression for the desired solution in terms of a power series in some "small" parameter that quantifies the deviation from the exactly solvable problem. The leading term in this power series is the solution of the exactly solvable problem, while further terms describe the deviation in the solution, due to the deviation from the initial problem
So, these were the articles that I found that echo my hunch about the equation.
I am not a mathematician, so don't ask me. I just focus on the language used, the words and what they suggest, which is ultimately what sci-fiction does. The writer creates «suggestive science with words», not real science.
Perturbation theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory)
Perturbation theory in quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory_%28quantum_mechanics%29)
And now to the incident.
Ok, so the Equation can predict when the end is coming.
It can give us how to change the trayectory of the Earth accross the Space-time continuum.
Hanso created the means to apply those changes, electromagnetically.
Ok, thus far everything is quite realistic and believable. LOL.
«Enter the incident»: So, Humanity has survived, but HOW?
I am thinking in terms of UCHRONIE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uchronie). Alternate realities. Alternate Universe.
In Marvel, they've coined the term «ultimate universes». They are the same thing really.
Remember, Lindelof is an «ultimatist».
Think fourth-dimensionally, like Doc E. Brown said in Back to the Future.
And with the PKDick vibe to this show could there be some kind of a scenario similar to ‘The Man in the High Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_in_the_high_castle)’?
Maybe Humanity is safe because Genghis Khan is inmortal and rules with an iron fist. Maybe it is Napoleon who won in Waterloo. I don't know, the number of alternate realities is so large that anything is possible. I just think that the potential for —unintended— comedy (too much tragedy equals comedy) is quite high imo. This could make Lost a satire (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17283), rather than a drama. They move the axis a little bit off the mark and now everyone has donkey ears and walks backwards.
Now, the whole interpretation of the show based only on the Valenzetti equation
crumbles down when I come to think that all of this does not explain the crash of flight 815,
it does not explain the mystery of the island
because it does not explain anything BEFORE the equation was formulated.
PS. This post is as serious as it seems.