Arrow of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 3 Jul 2010 18:05 On Jul 3, 2:15 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > [...] > > Newtonian mechanics is deterministic, dipshit. Vibration sphere is stochastic. Mitch RAemsch
From: Tom Roberts on 3 Jul 2010 22:59 Yousuf Khan wrote: > Well, if you think about it, in special relativity, all they are really > saying is that causality is slowed down at relativistic speeds. Chemical > reactions, biological processes, kinetic processes, all occur at slower > rates. You are confused. Relativity says no such thing. In SR, "time dilation" applies to MEASUREMENTS of moving objects' time rates, not to the objects themselves. In a spaceship, one cannot observe any effects of time dilation on processes occurring inside the ship, even though an external observer would do so if the ship is moving with respect to the observer's frame, and if the observer made the measurements in the usual way by projecting onto her own coordinates. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 3 Jul 2010 23:01 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > Have you ever heard about the vacuum energy density crisis? > Disparity = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,...total is 120 zeros. > I would say that is a, shall we say, significant contradiction from > what General Relativity and modern cosmology estimate for the vacuum > energy density. I would say that to get such a disparity you are making assumptions in the computation that are unrealistic. I believe John Baez has a webpage on this.... Tom Roberts
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Jul 2010 23:07 On Jul 3, 1:42 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Prove it. > It would take less than one page to do. -------------------------------------- In journals like Nature and the Journal of Theoretical Biology, many authors have demonstrated empirically and analytically how fractal structures are energetically favored and maximize the efficiency collecting light (see: Phyllotaxis), or maximizing the absorption of oxygen in the lungs, or the absorption of nutrients in the intestines. There is a huge literature on this subject, which you are probably totally oblivious of. If you want a start with lots of bang for the buck, buy Ian Stewart's book entitled "Life's Other Secret". You have much to learn, but every great journey begins with a single step. RLO http://arxiv.org/a/oldershaw_r_1
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Jul 2010 23:11
On Jul 3, 2:00 pm, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > Rob, let's hope that your notion will get some traction. The > study of SEFC (Self Similarity/Emergence/Fractals&Chaos) > may bring on hope to clean & rid the slate of all those retarded > Einstein Dingleberries who have prevented the progress of > Fundamental Physics for more than a century now. > Keep at it, guys. Kudos and Congrats... --- hanson ---------------------------------------------------- So you have a fixed idea that Einstein was not a great physicist? I regard Einstein as one one the three greatest natural philosophers of all time. The other two are Democritus and Spinoza. And no, I definitely do not want to discuss this particular subject any further. RLO http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw |