Arrow of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Huang on 3 Jul 2010 08:58 You guys still havent answered my questions about chaos and fractals in nature. If you have a dynamical system which "could" or even "will be" exhibiting chaotic or fractal geomatry in it's behaviour, or with respect to something happening on other scales, and suppose that it's not......... ..........do you still have a fractal ? Do you still call it chaos ? Is it possible to morph in and out of a fractal structure, or do you believe that the universe is locked into a particular modality - and why ? Most importantly - why ? Can you prove it to me in a way which is : reproducible falsifiable quantitative qualitative and predictive ????????????????? If you cannot, then you are just spewing diahhrea from the mouth. But I remain open to anyone who claims he can.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Jul 2010 12:51 On Jul 3, 12:50 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I rather much doubt that, ------------------------------------ Is it true that you are an unlicensed dowser?
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Jul 2010 13:03 On Jul 3, 8:58 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Is it possible to morph in and out of a fractal structure, or do you > believe that the universe is locked into a particular modality - and > why ? Most importantly - why ? ---------------------------------------------- Well Huang, the answer is mostly "No". The lining of an animals intestines has a neat fractal structure, as does the connectivity of its neurons, or its lung arctitecture. When the animal dies, the structure goes from fractal to much more random. More typically for stable systems or for regenerating systems with homestasis, fractal structure is carefuly preserved. Bottom Line: If fractal structure is lost [via decay or annihilation], it will reform efficiently as soon as energy/entropy conditions permit. Another way to think of it is that fractal structures are the natural, most energetically favored, structures in the Universe. They completely dominate the cosmos. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Jul 2010 13:12 On Jul 3, 6:45 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > No, that's not true. I personally think Mr. Oldershaw is right and would > like to support his position. He's among the very few, that researches a > self-similar fractal approach. > We only think, that our human Earth based scale is 'natural', but we > have no reason to think this way, because we cannot compare our measures > with some kind of unchangeable standards. > The idea, that particle physics would provide us with such standards is > - obviously- based on particles. But we cannot know, whether or not > other observers would share our ideas about particles. > I think btw that time behaves like an imaginary axis. Any object has its > own and time is a local phenomenon, that counts some kind of ripples on > the path. With the change of such an axis, we make things move. But we > also make things radiate. > Interesting is, that if we change the timeline and attach it to a moving > particle, than it doesn't move (in its own FoR), but it also doesn't > radiate. That means waves and particles are actually different aspects > of the same thing. > Than I think causality is going strictly forward and we cannot have time > reversal. But we could have some substructure, that seems to run > backwards in time. The is like a wave, that seem to run in the wrong > direction, because it is a superposition of two waves. > > TH OMG! A person with a head on his shoulders, instead of pumpkin! A little shaky at the end, but a huge improvement. And right here in the newsgroups!!! A first, but perhaps not the last. Maybe we could increase our numbers and drive the barking dogs out of here and have intelligent scientific discussions. Ok, so I'm an idealist. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert Higgins on 3 Jul 2010 13:42
On Jul 3, 1:03 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > > Another way to think of it is that fractal structures are the natural, > most energetically favored, structures in the Universe. Prove it. It would take less than one page to do. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Well, not REALLY Amherst.... |