Arrow of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 30 Jun 2010 21:11 Robert Higgins wrote: [...] >> >> You copy that, Pilgrim? > > Who are you supposed to be, Marion Morrison? He likes to make up stupid names for people in an effort to put them down. > >> >> RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw > > or Emily Dickinson?
From: Huang on 30 Jun 2010 22:00 On Jun 30, 6:06 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jun 30, 1:37 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > You would need to address Planck length because unless you have a > fractal which has a lower scalar bound somewhere - you will wind up > talking nonsense. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Speaking of talking nonsense, UNboundedness is a property of classical > fractals. > > Fractals most certainly do not require a lower bound. > > If you go towww.amherst.edu/~rloldershawand click on the last paper > in the "Selected Papers", you will find the essay "Nature Adores Self- > Similarity". It describes about 80 examples of fractals > observationally identified in nature and fully accepted as such by > scientists. > > Educate yourself! > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Excuse me sir but I did not say that fractals have a lower bound. I said that NATURE has a lower bound. And if you are making the claim that the universe is a fractal then you might want to think about the very bascic questions which naturally arise when one floats the premise that the universe is a fractal. Aside from the mathematics involved, there are some straightforward philosophical questions which are simple to state but difficult to answer, and Im not hearing any answers (from you) to the issues I raised.
From: Huang on 30 Jun 2010 22:07 Someone answer this: Lots of dynamical systems are "capable" of exhibiting chaos, but they dont. Why ? Because there are many dynamical modalities and a chaotic state is just one of the myriad ways a dynamical system can behave. So lets say that you have a dynamical system, and you know that it is capable of exhibiting chaos but you have never actually "observed" the chaotic behaviour..... question..... Is such a system chaotic ???????? Can you call this thing a fractal if you only have the "potential" for a fractal to occur ???????? Can you call nature a fractal if it merely posses the potential to be arranged as such ? Ergodic theory anyone ? I hear only silence - and I know that you cant answer - because if you could answer I'd already know it myself - so plonk me and be done with it - aaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhh
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 30 Jun 2010 23:53 On Jun 30, 8:53 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Pity your understanding is poor, and the quality of > your ideas inferior. ----------------------------------------------- But if you steadfastly aviod my website, how would you know? 'When the next great awakening arrives in this world, you will know it by this sign, that all the dunces are in confederacy against it.' (apol. to R. Feynman and J. Swift) RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 30 Jun 2010 23:58
On Jun 30, 10:00 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Excuse me sir but I did not say that fractals have a lower bound. I > said that NATURE has a lower bound. And if you are making the claim > that the universe is a fractal then you might want to think about the > very bascic questions which naturally arise when one floats the > premise that the universe is a fractal. > > Aside from the mathematics involved, there are some straightforward > philosophical questions which are simple to state but difficult to > answer, and Im not hearing any answers (from you) to the issues I > raised. ------------------------------------------------------- Nature has no lower bound, nor any upper bound. Nature is an infinitely infinite discrete hierarchy of self-similar systems. Any respectable natural philosopher can see that. 'When the next great awakening arrives in this world, you will know it by this sign, that all the dunces are in confederacy against it.' (apol. to R. Feynman and J. Swift) RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |