If A Kind Soul Would Be Willing - Reality Check

[apt403]

Hey all, I'm working on a short hard-sci-fi story, and I'm a bit unsure of the foundational accuracy of my work. If anyone is willing, I'd appreciate some critical analysis of some of the appendices, to either make sure I'm kinda on the ball as far as accurately portraying the concepts go, or to identify where I'm way off, so I can work on fixing things. I like hard sci-fi, and I'm writing this under the guise of really, really, really, hard sci-fi. The appendices take up more text than the actual story body, thus far.

The Fly-Wheel Paradox

It starts with a simple concept: a flywheel. There's beautiful philosophy behind a flywheel. Image a four dimensional construction;
The Universe, in this example, is simply a 3D box, associated with a fourth variable, of dynamic character: the variable of time. The other three dimensions are obvious, the three spatial coordinates. So we normally represent the position of a three dimensional object in the form of an ordered triple of Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z). The fourth variable, the chronological development (t) of the physical system that is the flywheel-in-box amalgam, which completes the four dimensional system, is represented, as a whole, as a tuple of n=4 elements (x,y,z,t).
This geometrical construction, even though it lacks the complexity of a realistic situation, can appropriately act as a analogous representation, under which to form a series of axioms, through which we can derive our external world.

Appendix 1:

*The Universe, as a construction, should be infinite spatially, and finite, chronologically, to the observer. An observer, for example, on Earth, can study the Universe as it is observable: that means, within the confines of the observable limit of that big thing that is the Universe, as a physical entity (even though all light, even back to the time of the Big Bang, is observable, some portions of our 'Verse are so distant, photons cannot travel fast enough to compensate for the increased expansion of our sphere of reality [take a valid, representative, abstract construction of our 'Verse. We're going for an asymptotically flat space-time here, a Lorentzian manifold.** You've got all these photons flying around, fighting against the speed of the expansion of the Universe. Because we've got a roughly infinite amount of space available, the observational limit to the observer is finite, based on the transmission limits of the data involved in making the observation (photons cannot travel with an infinite amount of speed, obviously). So, at a certain point, ****'s so far away, it just doesn't matter. Like, it doesn't truly exist to the observer (us on Earth) because it's too far away to be able to have an effect on our reality. The entire observational action is a bit specific to the observer. The 'sphere of observation' is unique to the observer, that is, two spheres of observation do not necessarily have to overlap. Here's a better explanation. Examples are cool:
“If a particle is moving at a constant velocity in a non-expanding universe free of gravitational fields, any event that occurs in that universe will eventually be observable by the particle, because the forward light cones from these events intersect the particle's world line. On the other hand, if the particle is accelerating, in some situations light cones from some events never intersect the particle's world line. Under these conditions, an apparent horizon is present in the particle's (accelerating) reference frame, representing a boundary beyond which events are unobservable.
For example, this occurs with a uniformly accelerated particle. As the particle accelerates, it approaches, but never reaches, the speed of light with respect to its original reference frame. On the space-time diagram, its path is a hyperbola, which asymptotically approaches a 45 degree line (the path of a light ray). An event whose light cone's edge is this asymptote or is farther away than this asymptote can never be observed by the accelerating particle. In the particle's reference frame, there appears to be a boundary behind it from which no signals can escape (an apparent horizon).” Thanks wiki.
\**a manifold is simply a topological space, of a curved nature, which appears, for all intents and purposes, as a standard, actually flat, Euclidean-space. This is cool, considering flat geometry is a **** load easier to analyze than curved, which involves some really ****ed up math. Manifolds are cool, because it's easy to analyze components of x arbitrary system. A real world example could be something as simple as a 2-sphere (a spherical surface embedded within 3-space, as opposed to a true sphere, which is three dimensional, and incorporates distinct interior and exterior portions). Assume you want to do something like plot the shortest distance from point (x1,y1) to (x2,y2), on that 2-sphere. Well, it certainly is possible to derivate the correct answer using a spherical coordinate system. There are three variables involved: the radial distance, the inclination angle, and the azimuth angle. As well, the inclination angle has to be measured from a fixed zenith. If you're interested, look at a graph. They're cool.
So, it would be very possible to get that exact distance, accounting for the curvature of the surface. It's a lot of computation (think of mathematicians as philosophers. It's so damn hard to sit there cranking out meaningless calculations, while there's important abstract reasoning to be done. Mathematicians are lazy, and dreaming is easier than crunching), for an accurate result. Now, you could do the same thing, but have those points represented on a two-dimensional manifold of that curved sphere, which is really just a 2D plane in standard flat, Euclidean-space. That distance calculation is easy. Remember Rise over Run? Manifolds are cool.

And the point of the fly-wheel, my pseudo-axioms:

Axiom of the box, Zeroth Law:
0.1; The box is a machine, that takes up the full space of a universe
0.2; The box is meant to calculate the probability of events occurring
0.3; The box is hooked up to our real universe by an Inter-Dimensional Information link.
(I-DIl)
Axiom of the box, First Law:
1.1; The box is a non-Newtonian system, that macroscopically appears to be Newtonian*
1.2; The box models all, it calculates in 11-dimensions, it exists in 4D.
1.3; Because the box models all, the box is all.
1.3.1; The box is simply a computational engine that simulates this Universe.
1.3.2; Think of the box as an MD5 checksum on this world, making sure what should happen, happens.
Axiom of the box, Second Law:
2.1; The box exists as long as the Universe does
2.1.1; It's a physical representation of the Universe, it's just a big computer. Once it degrades to entropy, random heat, the Universe obvious has as well; when the thing modeling the real thing turns to dust, the real one has been gone for a while, anyway.
2.3; This box is created at a time, when the Universe needs to be checked for consistency.
2.3.1; The box is a creation of Man, based on an Ancient principle of a dead country's founding documents, announcing its freedom from royal oppression***
2.3.2; The box is created as the ultimate form of government, it knows all, because it models all. It knows what happens, so it's used as a means of divining truth, in the sense that it entirely models the Universe's function and action, so it kinda creates truth. This was formed because of a massive topo-political rift.****
Axiom of the box, Third Law:
3.1; In principle, the box can be made with any conditions.
3.2; This works, but may destroy the entire Universe.
3.2.1; Shunting non-real information into this world is dangerous. Things try to work together that don't, on a very fundamentally physical law status level. Found it out the hard way, vaporized a solar system, and 3 trillion Human beings in the process. Entire Galactic Research Arm (GRA), ****in' lost in one big matter-anti-matter reaction. Hot damn.

Sorry if this is in the wrong section; gen. physics seemed appropriate.

I kinda feel like I'm approaching a bunch of wizened elders with this, hoping my simple pedestrian explanations can make the masters of scientific wit and insight nod in approval.

Anyway, any comments are appreciated.

-Apt

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sorry. It's a bunch of pseudoscientific woo-woo. "Because the box models all, the box is all?" Good heavens.

This is not "rreally, really, really, hard sci-fi".

 

[apt403]

Ignore the box, it's a plot device, that unfortunately has to be completely fictitious.

What about my description of a manifold: does that seem accurate enough for the purposes of a lay-man's understanding?