Clementine Project Information

Clementine was a joint project between the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization and NASA. The objective of the mission was to test sensors and spacecraft components under extended exposure to the space environment and to make scientific observations of the Moon and the near-Earth asteroid 1620 Geographos. The observations included imaging at various wavelengths including ultraviolet and infrared, laser ranging altimetry, and charged particle measurements. These observations were originally for the purposes of assessing the surface mineralogy of the Moon and Geographos, obtaining lunar altimetry from 60N to 60S latitude, and determining the size, shape, rotational characteristics, surface properties, and cratering statistics of Geographos.

Look at Clementine and the moon. The way they measured gravity there( the satellite lag)? The geological perspective gained from mapping the moon? The frames of reference are thus quite dynamical when you use this perspective to gain new insights developed from the work of Einstein.

Green Cheese?

The Clementine gravity experiment used measurements of perturbations in the motion of the spacecraft to infer the lunar gravity field

The complexity of measuring events in the cosmos, was to see information contained in what exists around us now. Using various locations they are trying to ascertain simultaneous correspondances in the signals from these cosmological locations, as a well as use the distance between these earth based locations.

Gravity for instance, varies with Time

Gravity is "flavor blind," so when a microscopic blackhole evaporates it produces all the Standard Model particles with equal probability. Once one accounts for spin and color, it turns out that particles produced when a blackhole decays are about 72 percent quarks and Gluons, 18 percent leptons, and the rest are bosons. Such a distinctive shower of particles would be hard to miss. So there is the possibility that the Pierre Auger Observatory will detect blackholes.

Page 262, Out of this World, by Stephen Webb

In a complex world of uncertainty this is hard to do, so you look for the ways to see how the cosmic rays create the situations for particle production. So you look for the origins of any number system that began, and how it was used to explain the natural world.

An Excursion into the Dimensions of Numbered Systems

An example here would be using Pascal's triangle. If you "blanket" using resonances pertaining to all number deveopements, then we might understand the harmonies created? Topological movements?

In a euclidean world, the developing geometries will lead somewhere, but how did you every arrive from topological states to euclidean frames of reference? You had to understand the physics process.

So from space to earth, the earth, a final physical state. But you understand that it existed in other states as well? That's where you learn to use the physics.

Mathematics Meets the Mind's Eye

Mathematics is not the rigid and rigidity-producing schema that the layman thinks it is; rather, in it we find ourselves at that meeting point of constraint and freedom that is the very essence of human nature.

- Hermann Weyl


If you have all these mathematics which lie at the heart of creation, what was this mathematics describing? The initial conditions would have to been a "natural phenomena" in order for any mathematics to be derived?



Arthur Miller

Einstein and Schrödinger never fully accepted the highly abstract nature of Heisenberg's quantum mechanics, says Miller. They agreed with Galileo's assertion that "the book of nature is written in mathematics", but they also realized the power of using visual imagery to represent mathematical symbols.

There is a greater potential once the mathematical realm meets a cohesive visualization? A culmination of sorts. The move to higher visualization would requires consistent mathematical descriptions of what could have arisen from what might be thought of theoretically? Is the vision leading the theoretics or is the theoretics leading the vision?

Iconic images

Once upon a time the illustrations in physics and astronomy papers were mostly line diagrams, plus the occasional black and white photograph, but advances in imaging technology and computer power mean that some results now resemble works of art. Here we examine three images that have been so widely used on the covers of books and magazines - and on posters, calendars, mouse-mats and elsewhere - that they qualify for some sort of iconic status

SOHO Reads the Solar Flares

Measurements of the Sun's oscillations provide a window into the invisible interior of the Sun allowing scientists to infer the structure and composition as well as the rotation and dynamics of the solar interior.

(Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope) images the solar atmosphere at several wavelengths, and therefore, shows solar material at different temperatures. In the images taken at 304 Angstroms the bright material is at 60,000 to 80,000 degrees Kelvin. In those taken at 171, at 1 million degrees. 195 Angstrom images correspond to about 1.5 million Kelvin. 284 Angstrom, to 2 million degrees. The hotter the temperature, the higher you look in the solar atmosphere.


p-Modes

The mysterious source of these oscillations was identified by way of theoretical arguments in 1970 and confirmed by observations in 1975. The oscillations we see on the surface are due to sound waves generated and trapped inside the sun. Sound waves are produced by pressure fluctuations in the turbulent convective motions of the sun's interior. As the waves move outward they reflect off of the sun's surface (the photosphere) where the density and pressure decrease rapidly..

Where to Now?

Once you see parts of the picture, belonging to the whole, then it becomes clear what a nice picture we will have?:) I used it originally for the question of the idea of a royal road to geometry, but have since progressed.

If you look dead center Plato reveals this one thing for us to consider, and to Aristotle, the question contained in the heading of this Blog.

It is beyond me sometimes to wonder how minds who are involved in the approaches of physics and mathematics might have never understood the world Gauss and Reimann revealled to us. The same imaging that moves such a mind for consideration, would have also seen how the dimensional values would have been very discriptive tool for understanding the dynamics at the quantum level?

As part of this process of comprehension for me, was trying to see this evolution of ordering of geometries and the topological integration we are lead too, in our apprehension of the dynamics of high energy considerations. If you follow Gr you understand the evolution too what became inclusive of the geometry developement, to know the physics must be further extended as a basis of our developing comprehension of the small and the large. It is such a easy deduction to understand that if you are facing energy problems in terms of what can be used in terms of our experimentation, that it must be moved to the cosmological pallette for determinations.

As much as we are lead to understand Gr and its cyclical rotation of Taylor and hulse, Mercuries orbits set our mind on how we shall perceive this quantum harmonic oscillator on such a grand scale,that such relevance between the quantum and cosmological world are really never to far apart?

As I have speculated in previous links and bringing to a fruitation, the methods of apprehension in euclidean determinations classically lead the mind into the further dynamcis brought into reality by saccheri was incorporated into Einsteins model of GR. Had Grossman not have shown Einstein of these geoemtrical tendencies would Einstein completed the comprehsive picture that we now see of what is signified as Gravity?

So lets assume then, that brane world is a very dynamcial understanding that hold many visual apparatus for consideration. For instance, how would three sphere might evolve from this?

Proper understanding of three sphere is essential in understanding how this would arise in what I understood of brane considerations.

Spherical considerations to higher dimensions.

Spheres can be generalized to higher dimensions. For any natural number n, an n-sphere is the set of points in n-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point of that space, where r is, as before, a positive real number.

a 1-sphere is a pair of points ( - r,r)
a 2-sphere is a circle of radius r
a 3-sphere is an ordinary sphere
a 4-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space
However, see the note above about the ambiguity of n-sphere.
Spheres for n ≥ 5 are sometimes called hyperspheres. The n-sphere of unit radius centred at the origin is denoted Sn and is often referred to as "the" n-sphere.

INtegration of geometry with topological consideration then would have found this continuance in how we percieve the road leading to topolgical considerations of this sphere. Thus we would find the definition of sphere extended to higher in dimensions and value in brane world considerations as thus:



In topology, an n-sphere is defined as the boundary of an (n+1)-ball; thus, it is homeomorphic to the Euclidean n-sphere described above under Geometry, but perhaps lacking its metric. It is denoted Sn and is an n-manifold. A sphere need not be smooth; if it is smooth, it need not be diffeomorphic to the Euclidean sphere.

a 0-sphere is a pair of points with the discrete topology
a 1-sphere is a circle
a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere
An n-sphere is an example of a compact n-manifold without boundary.

The Heine-Borel theorem is used in a short proof that an n-sphere is compact. The sphere is the inverse image of a one-point set under the continuous function ||x||. Therefore the sphere is closed. Sn is also bounded. Therefore it is compact.

Sometimes it is very hard not to imagine this sphere would have these closed strings that would issue from its poles and expand to its circumference, as in some poincare projection of a radius value seen in 1r. It is troubling to me that the exchange from energy to matter considerations would have seen this topological expression turn itself inside/out only after collapsing, that pre definition of expression would have found the evoltuion to this sphere necessary.

Escher's imaging is very interesting here. The tree structure of these strings going along the length of the cylinder would vary in the structure of its cosmic string length based on this energy determination of the KK tower. The imaging of this closed string is very powerful when seen in the context of how it moves along the length of that cylinder. Along the cosmic string.

To get to this point:) and having shown a Platonic expression of simplices of the sphere, also integration of higher dimension values determined from a monte carlo effect determnation of quantum gravity. John Baez migh have been proud of such a model with such discrete functions?:) But how the heck would you determine the toplogical function of that sphere in higher dimensional vaues other then in nodal point flippings of energy concentration, revealled in that monte carlo model?

Topological consideration would need to be smooth, and without this structure how would you define such collpases in our universe, if you did not consider the blackhole?

So part of the developement here was to understand where I should go with the physics, to point out the evolving consideration in experimentation that would move our minds to consider how such supersymmetrical realities would have been realized in the models of the early universe understanding. How such views would have been revealled in our understanding within that cosmo?

One needed to be able to understand the scale feature of gravity from the very strong to the very weak in order to explain this developing concept of geometry and topological consideration no less then what Einstein did for us, we must do again in some comprehensive model of application.

Mirror Symmetry and Chirality?

What is the mathematical reasoning, for reducing GR down to the quantum world? How would these application be considered in a supersymmetrical world?

Is the figure-eight knot the same knot as its mirror-image? The property of "being the same as your mirror-image" is called chirality by knot theorists. The image sequence below shows the figure-eight knot being transformed into its mirror image -- such knots are called achiral

You have to remember this is the year 2000, article was produced below.

Physicists Finally Find a Way to Test Superstring Theory

As the unification quest has forged ahead, physicists have found it necessary to expand superstring theory to include vibrating membranes -- called branes for short. These are not just two-dimensional surfaces, like the skin of a drum or the world of the Flatlanders. Hard as it may be to picture, there can be branes with three, four, five or more dimensions. These "surfaces" can be tiny like the strings but they can also span across light-years.

by George Johnson

I know this may seem a little slow but if the cosmic string was considered in context of the Fresnel lens and I apologize for my ignorance, how would reverse imaging account for gravitational lensing?

The gravitational lensing has to reveal the warp field as such a possibility? Yet, in that distant time, such alteration of the shapes, amongst it event, would have show two points, but would also have indication that one was the reverse of the other. What signatures would we see of this?



So in keeping with the direction we were given by Lubos in his article, I a am trying to comprehend.

This page is the beginning of a demonstration of strong gravitational lensing about a pseudo-isothermal elliptical mass distribution (PID). You can look at a simple animation or read about the mathematics behind the PID lensing.