Arrow of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Jul 2010 14:03 On 7/4/10 12:57 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > The statement was not 'the universe is a fractal'. It was: the universe > has a fractal structure. > The difference is, that the universe means: everything. > The assumption is, that the universe is organized with kind of steps, > that are self-similar. The steps we know of are: sub-atomic, atoms, > planets, planetary systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super-clusters. > > TH Obviously not fractal. Atoms don't behave anything like planetary systems and irregular galaxies.
From: hanson on 4 Jul 2010 14:05 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:UOydnQx999ddGq3RnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 7/3/10 10:07 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: >> 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. > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote > Doesn't work over the range of atoms to galaxies! > hanson wrote: .... ahahahaha... Nobody made that claim, Sam. You being a hardcore Einstein Dingleberry are of course not cognizant of SEFC (Self Similarity/Emergence/Fractals&Chaos).... Sam, like you so often say: "Google is your friend"... Try it, Sam. ahahaha... ahahahanson --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Huang on 4 Jul 2010 14:33 > > > The statement was not 'the universe is a fractal'. It was: the universe > > has a fractal structure. > > The difference is, that the universe means: everything. > > The assumption is, that the universe is organized with kind of steps, > > that are self-similar. The steps we know of are: sub-atomic, atoms, > > planets, planetary systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super-clusters. > > > TH I will agree that galaxies looks like vortices. I will agree that atoms looks like vortices. I will agree that solar systems looks like vortices. I will agree that eddie currents looks like vortices. I would even agree that living organisms looks like vortices. But so does my toilet when I flush. Makes a real nice vortice. A vortice or eddie is nothing but a particular type of geometric / dynamical thing. What is the difference between this form and lines, points, or planes. If I see large volumes, and inside the large volumes there are smaller ones, and so on, they why cant I just say that spacetime itself is a fractal because the property of volume exists on all scales and so you have self similarity based on the notion of length, area, volume or whatever ? You want to do this with dynamics. I agree, the universe may look like that in ways. But visual inspection and mathematical analysis are 2 dif things. What happens to the fractal on the quantum scale - thats what I'd like to know. Kinematic equations do not work in QM, the planetary model failed see : Neils Bohr, Bohr Atom, etc.
From: Sam Wormley on 4 Jul 2010 15:15 On 7/4/10 1:33 PM, Huang wrote: > I will agree that galaxies looks like vortices. The majority of galaxies are not spirals! > I will agree that atoms looks like vortices. Atoms don't "look like" or behave like vortices! > I will agree that solar systems looks like vortices. Planetary system do not rotate like vortices. For our solar system to rotate like a vortex, angular momentum divided by mass for each planet would be the same. And of course, that is not the case. > I will agree that eddie currents looks like vortices. Eddy currents are source, geometry and material dependent. In general they are not vorticies in any sense. > I would even agree that living organisms looks like vortices. Perhaps you do, but my frog does not. =
From: Thomas Heger on 4 Jul 2010 15:54
Huang schrieb: >>> The statement was not 'the universe is a fractal'. It was: the universe >>> has a fractal structure. >>> The difference is, that the universe means: everything. >>> The assumption is, that the universe is organized with kind of steps, >>> that are self-similar. The steps we know of are: sub-atomic, atoms, >>> planets, planetary systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, super-clusters. >>> TH > > > > I will agree that galaxies looks like vortices. > I will agree that atoms looks like vortices. > I will agree that solar systems looks like vortices. > I will agree that eddie currents looks like vortices. > I would even agree that living organisms looks like vortices. > > But so does my toilet when I flush. Makes a real nice vortice. > > A vortice or eddie is nothing but a particular type of geometric / > dynamical thing. What is the difference between this form and lines, > points, or planes. > > If I see large volumes, and inside the large volumes there are smaller > ones, and so on, they why cant I just say that spacetime itself is a > fractal because the property of volume exists on all scales and so you > have self similarity based on the notion of length, area, volume or > whatever ? > > You want to do this with dynamics. I agree, the universe may look like > that in ways. But visual inspection and mathematical analysis are 2 > dif things. What happens to the fractal on the quantum scale - thats > what I'd like to know. Kinematic equations do not work in QM, the > planetary model failed see : Neils Bohr, Bohr Atom, etc. > The fractal is created this way: We take a spherical structure of some size, say an apple, (what is a good example of this form of a vortex). This is not perfectly a sphere, but has an axis, we call timelike. The equator is spinning inside the connectors of the poles. This spin is called spacelike and is perpendicular to the axis. The system is 'lefthanded', what means the left hands thumb points towards the future and the other fingers in the direction of the spin. The connectors return to the other pole, while the sphere would spin. Inside the sphere we have a screw (or a vortex, if we look from the top). This is the general scheme. The size of this form is scaled up or down, and the small vortices are embedded inside the larger ones, going up or down to infinity. Any such 'step' has a typical frequency, depending on the size of the sphere. Larger spheres have lower frequencies, going up or down to infinity. Infinitely low is zero frequency or stability. Infinitely high frequency is a point or a singularity. Now we need to rotate the picture and make the singularity expand, while the infinite large sphere would contract, but simultaneously. This alters the relations and the spacelike rotation gets timelike (or contracts), while the timelike connections expand. TH |