Thoughts on the Mathematical Properties of Nasa's Long Term Goal

To the Moon and Mars. What will become of this goal?

Complexity science makes predicting the future and effectiveness
of this goal exceedingly simple. And if you read through you
might see why I have such contempt for this plan.

Complexity science is essentially systems theory combined
with the newer ideas first set out by chaos theory. Which have
grown into the science of self-organizing systems. So complexity
science can be considered the abstract properties of Darwinian
evolution. This kind of analysis is initially very simple once the
concepts are understood.

Nature, or the optimum creative potential, resides at the edge of chaos.
Where the system specific static and chaotic attractor basins are in
an unstable equilibrium with each other.

Picture a cloud.

The static tendency, or attractor, of condensation, and the chaotic tendency
of evaporation are in an unstable equilibrium with each other.
When this happens the dynamic or 'fluid' attractor spontaneously
forms, and a complex system is created. New properties not residing in
each opposite extreme, water or air .... the static and chaotic...
spontaneously organize. The system takes on a life of it's own, order
is increased, and the system potential for creativity and resilience
is optimized.

If the system in our analogy becomes tilted too far to one attractor
or the other, too close to static or chaotic, the system is doomed
to become less than it was, a puddle or the wind. The emergent properties
such as lighting, tornadoes etc are unlikely without the balance
that generates the third dynamic attractor.

Everything in the universe, whether material, living or spiritual order
can be analyzed in this way.


Attractors Everywhere - Order from Chaos
http://www.calresco.org/attract.htm

"One of the main themes within the field of Complex Systems
theory is in what circumstances order can result from the
random interactions of multiple agents."


When using this technique to analyze a goal, or anything, the first
step is to define the system at hand. Step two is to determine the
equal and opposite extremes in possibility space for that system.
Which would define the static and chaotic attractors
..
With a cloud the attractor paradigm is obvious.
The static, dynamic and chaotic attractors take the form
of water, clouds and air. The equal and opposite extremes in
possibilities are simply water and air. If we break that system down
and repeat, then the attractor paradigm for water, for instance, would
be simply ice, water and vapor.

With a 'goal' what are the attractors? The static attractor is the realm
of few variables and simple relationships...classical mechanics or rocks.
The chaotic attractor is the realm of near infinite variables and
random motion....quantum mechanics or gasses. The middle or fluid
dynamic attractor that forms /from/ the extremes is the realm
of thermodynamics or water.



The static, dynamic and chaotic.

solid, liquid and gas.
few variables, many and near infinite
specific, subjective and universal
particle physics, thermodynamics and quantum motion
gravity, inertia and cosmic expansion
science, art and philosophy
body, mind and spirit

Truth, Beauty and Love.



The static, dynamic and chaotic paradigm works everywhere.


This form of analysis allows you to apply the correct science
to the correct problem. It allows you to swim where
objective science sinks.


Self-Organization & Entropy - The Terrible Twins
http://www.calresco.org/extropy.htm

"It seems clear that largely unknown constraints restrict the
valid forms to a narrow subset of those possible (occupying
a small region of state space in the jargon). In other words
stressed systems follow specific paths through the immense
reaches of state space, a directed not ergodic walk."




For a goal, the simple or static realm would be occupied by
tangible benefits. The chaotic realm would be filled by hopes
and dreams of discovery. The third dynamic attractor would
spontaneously form when those two are in an unstable equilibrium
with each other. As in a cloud.

Nasa's goal is almost entirely the hopes and dreams that come
from discovery. In other words, the tangible benefits or static
attractor has been left to form at the ...very end....some twenty
or forty years later. And these benefits are not even being
articulated. The static attractor in this system is virtually
non-existent from it's vagueness and distance.

In short, only the chaotic attractor basin can be 'seen' now.
The static is almost invisible.

This obvious and glaring lack of balance provides a strong
clue as to the future behavior of this system, Nasa's goal.

I am not using an analogy here, not at all, when I say that
Nasa's goal will follow the tendencies of the chaotic
realm that dominates. The goal will behave much like
the gas law.

WHICH IS A DISSIPATIVE SYSTEM

The goal of "To the Moon and Mars" is completely doomed
and destined to evaporate into thin air. This goal is a
chaotic system with no reason for being or
hope for success.

This goal is the result of a Dark Age mentality that
fails to understand nature or reality either in part
or in whole. This goal defines the kind of ignorance
that has plagued this world for millennia.

It cannot succeed!

Fixing this system is also exceedingly simple.

Nasa, out of ignorance, has built a CHAOTIC system
to chart it's long term future. I can't emphasize the absurdity
of this enough. Doesn't anyone think it might be better
to build this system or goal from Simplicity......

..........instead ???????

Is this world that backwards? Exactly....perfectly....mathematically...
BACKWARDS? I'm afraid to say that's the world we live in.
Do any of us have the time and luxury to watch this monstrous mistake
play out?

This system or goal should begin with the static attractor
or tangible benefits. And allow them to form the chaotic
attractor. In this way, and only this way, can BOTH
attractors be 'seen' at the same time.

In this way only can the static and chaotic attractors
exist at the same time.

In this way only can they interact with each other
and form the dynamic attractor and creation.

In this way only can this goal self-organize, take on a life
of it's own and succeed. In fact, in this way only, any goal
will become destined to succeed. It will become as resilient
and adaptive as Nature herself.

It will become unstoppable.

But only if Nature is understood and followed.

The static extreme or basin must to stretched to the limit, must be as large
as possible to optimize the level of success. Which means the
tangible benefits should be set as lofty as possible. Nasa's goal should
be oriented around the very largest problem this world has to offer.
Only in this way does the goal have any meaning or promise.
Applying it to the our dependence on fossil fuels qualifies /and/ is within
Nasa's realm of possibilities.

Space solar power home
http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/

The chaotic attractor of hopes and dreams will immediately flow from
this very tangible new goal, and a complex adaptive system is then
established. Life is breathed into Nasa's future, and the rest will
find a way of taking care of itself as if by invisible hands
.. ..like magic.

Mathematically speaking, the goal of space solar power is of sound
body, mind and spirit. The static, dynamic and chaotic.

It cannot fail.

In all things, Nature aka God, shows the way.


Jonathan





s

Personally, I'd be happy just to find a toaster that evenly toasted without
those bars you see a lot...

Brian

"jonathan" wrote in message
.. .

snip

An unmitigated bunch of caca from another armchair engineer.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
. uk...
Personally, I'd be happy just to find a toaster that evenly toasted
without
those bars you see a lot...

heh, nice one!

Brian Gaff schrieb:
Personally, I'd be happy just to find a toaster that evenly toasted without
those bars you see a lot...

I always thought they build these toasters like this intentionally to mimik the
crispy bars of a grilled steak ...


- Carsten

"Tim K." wrote in message
...

"jonathan" wrote in message
.. .

snip

An unmitigated bunch of caca from another armchair engineer.

Hey, I'm one of those as well!

Actually, what it was was someone trying desperately to apply an
inappropriate law to a system ill suited for it.

Now don't get me started on a discussion of randomness, PLEASE!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________

Disclaimer: I am not a rocket scientist, I am a computer programmer.

Modern engineering management principals keep chaos in the box by
carefully controlling the number of variables in a system and their
range. Simpler, smaller systems are tested via unit test, then, larger
on up, there is a sort of a system test, and so on. With that done
correctly, one can accurately calculate the various risks of failure
for an entire system by combining the risks of failure from all of the
smaller parts.

These principals are cross discipline. The extent to which this is
done is driven by the implications of failure. These concepts work
hand in hand. In a small IT department, you wouldn't necessarily test
as much simply because if the application fails, you can fix it. In
the civil engineering world, engineers want there to be no failure at
all - a bridge that works 95% of the time is not acceptable. So they
focus on very conservative design approaches where the risks are well
established.

In space flight, the very nature of the task requires severe
engineering on every level. To get an object to Earth orbit 300km,
you must accelerate that object to 7.73km/sec. There are no bullets
that fly this fast. To bring that object back from Earth orbit to
earth, must decelerate that object from down to 0. And then it has to
survive all of sorts of heating and cooling effects of being in an
environment with no air. All of these different requirements tend to
have different equations and scientific prinicipals governing them, so
what happens is that you wind up taking a cross sectional slice of all
of them, effectively limiting chaos inherent in your system.

No one person can generally handle the whole shebang, although with
computers getting ever smarter it may be possible in the future. So
you divide up all the problems into teams of people and then you manage
interface points between all of the different subprojects. So there
are physics problems to solve and then there are dependency problems to
solve. The entire process, people, physics, the general problem of
large, complicated projects, is enormously fascinating and is the
subject of much study.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
. uk...

"Tim K." wrote in message
...

"jonathan" wrote in message
.. .

snip

An unmitigated bunch of caca from another armchair engineer.

Hey, I'm one of those as well!

Actually, what it was was someone trying desperately to apply an
inappropriate law to a system ill suited for it.

Now don't get me started on a discussion of randomness, PLEASE!

I was haphazarding a guess...

In article ,
"jonathan" wrote:

I am not using an analogy here, not at all, when I say that
Nasa's goal will follow the tendencies of the chaotic
realm that dominates. The goal will behave much like
the gas law.

WHICH IS A DISSIPATIVE SYSTEM

The goal of "To the Moon and Mars" is completely doomed
and destined to evaporate into thin air. This goal is a
chaotic system with no reason for being or
hope for success.

This goal is the result of a Dark Age mentality that
fails to understand nature or reality either in part
or in whole. This goal defines the kind of ignorance
that has plagued this world for millennia.

It cannot succeed!
....
Is this world that backwards? Exactly....perfectly....mathematically...
BACKWARDS? I'm afraid to say that's the world we live in.

Jonathan, you can tell mathematics because it involves symbols and
numbers, not poetic pseudoscientific babble. You've done nothing more
than taken your own personal philosophy (NOT science, not anything
rigorous or certain at all, just your opinion) and tried to dress it up
in the clothes of chaos theory. It's no better than the religious
fundies who try to explain in scientific terms why the Earth is only
10000 years old and everything in the Bible is literally true.

Applying it to the our dependence on fossil fuels qualifies /and/ is within
Nasa's realm of possibilities.

Space solar power home
http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/

Ugh. I think space solar power is a great idea, and deserves far more
development funding than it currently gets, which is why I wish you
would stop associating yourself with it. When you write nonsense like
this post, and then finish by pushing SSP, the net effect is likely to
be that more people will see SSP as a kooky concept advocated by
net.kooks.

If you can't stop advocating SSP, for its own good, at least tone it
down and try to stick to rational, coherent arguments. Tell us your
guess about how current plans may play out, but don't try to claim that
you have a scientific basis, nor throw around quotes and terms from
chaos theory to bolster your case. Adding nonsense to a decent argument
makes it weaker, not stronger.

Mathematically speaking, the goal of space solar power is of sound
body, mind and spirit. The static, dynamic and chaotic.

It cannot fail.

In all things, Nature aka God, shows the way.

Oh fer crying out loud. Maybe it'd be best if you just gave away your
computer. Seriously. The above is the writing of somebody who's gone
off the deep end, and you're not doing your cause one bit of good at all.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"jonathan" wrote:



Jonathan, you can tell mathematics because it involves symbols and
numbers, not poetic pseudoscientific babble.


It only seems like babble since you don't understand the
concepts. Any mathematician that can't convert a mathematical
relationship to English doesn't understand the concepts, and
needs to learn more about them. Anyone that can't read a
sentence and see the mathematical concepts they explain
needs to learn more about reading.

That's a hint.



You've done nothing more
than taken your own personal philosophy (NOT science, not anything
rigorous or certain at all, just your opinion) and tried to dress it up
in the clothes of chaos theory.


This statement implies you know something about 'chaos' theory.
What is that science called today? I bet you don't even know
the name of this discipline, yet try to lecture me. What is
the 'integral' of chaos theory?




It's no better than the religious
fundies who try to explain in scientific terms why the Earth is only
10000 years old and everything in the Bible is literally true.

Applying it to the our dependence on fossil fuels qualifies /and/ is within
Nasa's realm of possibilities.

Space solar power home
http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/

Ugh. I think space solar power is a great idea, and deserves far more
development funding than it currently gets, which is why I wish you
would stop associating yourself with it. When you write nonsense like
this post,


What is nonsense about it? I was merely trying to explain
attractor theory, a well-established science, in terms simple
enough for any reader. Do you know what attractors are?




and then finish by pushing SSP, the net effect is likely to
be that more people will see SSP as a kooky concept advocated by
net.kooks.

If you can't stop advocating SSP, for its own good, at least tone it
down and try to stick to rational, coherent arguments.



I have yet to find just one of those in your reply. You've said
nothing more than 'no it isn't' as if you were a fourth grader.
Am I supposed to say 'yes it is' and take my ball and glove?



Tell us your
guess about how current plans may play out, but don't try to claim that
you have a scientific basis, nor throw around quotes and terms from
chaos theory to bolster your case. Adding nonsense to a decent argument
makes it weaker, not stronger.


Show one statement I made you believe is not 'scientific'.



Mathematically speaking, the goal of space solar power is of sound
body, mind and spirit. The static, dynamic and chaotic.

It cannot fail.

In all things, Nature aka God, shows the way.

Oh fer crying out loud. Maybe it'd be best if you just gave away your
computer. Seriously. The above is the writing of somebody who's gone
off the deep end, and you're not doing your cause one bit of good at all.



Your reply is entirely empty. It's nothing more than childish
ridicule of a subject you know nothing about. This kind of
response only highlights your ignorance. As a flame I rate
this a resounding failure. Not once did you undermine a
single word I said. Not once did you take issue with the
subject of the post or embarrass or anger me.

You have a choice, you can spend some time frantically
trying to learn an entire science so you can attempt a
real response. Or you can slither away and hope no
one noticed your petty post.


Jonathan

s





,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'