Jack, Occasionally I see concepts expressed in your essays for which my limited cranial capacity has the capacity to follow, more-or-less. For example, in your latest post you mentioned the design of a simple antenna based on a fractal design... presto we end up with cell phone technology with excellent reception without having to attach a six foot long wire snaked down a pant leg. Yes, indeed, who would have figerred that one would'a werked!
Over the years I've personally explored a number of celestial mechanical problems by writing computer simulations. Perhaps working at the Space Astronomy Lab at the University of Wisconsin back in the 80s helped spark my interest in the field of astro-physics, but who knows. I was already a sci-fi enthusiast long before I was hired to write computer programs at the Lab. I wrote GSE programs (Ground Support Equipment) primarily in the FORTH programming language for the purpose of analyzing telemetry received from a package that eventually flew in a couple of Space Shuttle missions. (It was called "Project Astro") Let me forward to the present. I have found myself fascinated by the amount of patterns generated out of chaos introduced into the simplest of computer models, like a single satellite (a moon) orbiting a planet. Wolfram (of Mathematica fame) has already written an extensive treatise on similar subjects concerning chaos and fractals. Indeed, there is so much more research that is needed this area. I discovered interesting patterns and characteristics that I would have never perceived, let alone comprehend had I not performed extensive... and I mean EXTENSIVE computer simulations. I didn't limit my simulations to using the classic Newtonian iterative square of the distance law. Besides the classic 1/R**2 algorithms I also tried all sorts of alternative combinations including 1/r, 1/r**3, and constant forces. Each new variation introduced additional surprises and unexpected patterns. Lately, my studies into the celestial mechanics arena may be on the verge of branching into a whole new arena of exploration as I begin pondering how I would go about performing simulations based on positive and negative charges, and by association, magnetic attraction and repulsion principals. I have no idea where this new branch of exploration might eventually lead me, or truth be told, whether I'll have the cranial capacity to design the necessary code. I know it will involve a lot of trigonometry and lots of algorithms utilizing interpolation techniques. If I do succeed in writing reasonably accurate code that will allow me to explore these basic physics principals, I suspect I'll probably in for additional surprises. Lucky me! One thing I have learned in my own personal research, such as in regards to my celestial mechanics work, is that using lots of complex multi-worded omni-techno-terminology didn't help me all that much in my occasional attempts to explain to otheres what it was that I was trying to do. Other than impressing myself - because I could use lots of OMNI-scientific-like terminology, I noticed that the only individual who seemed duly impressed was me. Despite my diatribe deliberately aimed at your expense, I find myself pondering the truly profound ramifications of your last statement: > Bottom line: Your 'pscyo-intuitive' cognizant pattern- > recognition MIND bears much more accepting-as-relevant, > & with full-credence than we have been trained to > recognize. It all 'fits.' DO THE MATH. Get in touch > with your INNER-TESLA Ah... yeah, I think I agree with you on that one. Really! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
