Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: Thomas Heger on 3 Jul 2010 06:45 Yousuf Khan schrieb: > On 7/3/2010 9:11 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: >> On Jul 2, 4:51 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> That's of course not true. There's plenty of things in the universe that >>> are reversible. Earth's orbit around the Sun, for example, is so >>> reversible that you can roll it back in time billions of years, and >>> still be able to tell where it was. You could also roll it forward >>> billions of years, and tell where it will be. >> -------------------------------------------------- >> >> My dear benighted fellow! Have you never heard of Henri Poincare and >> his work on the stability of the Solar System, and the discovery of >> deterministic chaos/nonlinear dynamical systems? Do you read current >> scientific papers? >> >> You are talking pre-Poincare 19th century fantasy physics which was >> wrong even back then. >> >> To espouse such nonsense today is pathetic! Any competent physicist >> will inform you that your statement is completely ridiculous and >> false, to boot. >> >> At least try to come up to speed with the 20th century, if you are not >> ready to go forth boldly into the 21st century. >> >> KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW, >> >> AND KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW. >> >> Both are important, Pilgrim. > > My dear Pilgrim, you have just now discovered why nobody takes you > seriously. Instead of engaging in discussion, you just put up your > defenses, spewed irrelevant gobbledygook and began name-calling. You'll > have to wait another several months for somebody listen to you again. > 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
From: JT on 3 Jul 2010 07:11 On 2 Juli, 22:57, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > On 7/3/2010 1:08 AM, JT wrote: > > > Well the spatial dimensions in special relativity is all fucked up. > > Since events are not local they may not behave the way we are > > accustomed to but they will abey the logic of causality in some form. > > So we have a timeline that is a rubberband but the reality outside the > > bubble of universe is still stringent in fact it will be stringent in > > every point of universe that studies our universe it will follow the > > line of causality but with both spatial and timelike distorsion, none > > of those is however proved. > > > But even if we suppose there is local timelines, the causality will > > measure and describe events in a logical consise and coherent way. And > > that is from any point that studies the event....s , in special > > relativity that is not the case however it is a faulthy theory, that > > can not give a coherent description of events separated by time and > > spatial. > > 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. > > Yousuf Khan No they make predictions of spatial separation and timelike separation that do not occur in reality, it is a faulthy theory it can not be used to predict where an object in mapped space will be. It us totally useless for navigational or ballistical purposes at speeds close to c. It is proved again and again that relativists can not give an answer to what position and space, an object at relativestic place will occupy. They are all jugglers dropping bananas behind the curtain, basicly their theory allways was in freefall but because of the limitations of the gedankens noone ever noticed. Einstein never dared to juggle with more then two bananas, special relativity is a very limited theory it is not even a theory it is all a dreamwork. JT
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 |