Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
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....
From: hanson on 3 Jul 2010 14:00 "Robert L. Oldershaw", ususally Old'n Shallow <rloldershaw(a)amherst.edu> finally said somenting that was not, when he wrote: > Hung Lo aka Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hung Lo wrote: > Is it possible to morph in and out of a fractal structure, [snip] > Robert wrote: Well Huang, the answer is mostly "No". [snip] Bottom Line: If fractal structure is lost [via decay or annihilation], it will reform efficiently as soon as energy/entropy conditions permit. ... [snip] ... fractal structures are the natural, most energetically favored, structures in the Universe. They completely dominate the cosmos. > hanson 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 --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Thomas Heger on 3 Jul 2010 15:59 Robert L. Oldershaw schrieb: > 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. > Well, I guess I'm an idealist, too, and posting here as kind of hobby. What I write is based on my own understanding and that is certainly limited. But that's how it goes and I can only tell, what I think is right. On the other hand I assume, that some posters know, that it couldn't be right, what they are saying. Only, in the end the better ideas will 'win' and there is no way to block that. Knowledge is distributing on an exponential curve. That stays low for a very long time, but now we see the curve is rising and that is the point for dramatic changes. TH
From: BURT on 3 Jul 2010 16:19
On Jul 2, 10:26 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > On 7/3/2010 3:47 AM, BURT wrote: > > > On Jul 2, 1:51 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Time does affect causality. At relativistic speeds, time slows down, and > >> therefore causality slows down too. Chemical reactions slow down, > >> biological processes slow down, therefore a person traveling at > >> relativistic speeds will age slower than somebody standing still (i.e. > >> the Einstein twin paradox). > > > You're clock is running slow but it is always going forward! > > > Mitch Raemsch > > But at the quantum level, you can't tell if time is going forward or > backward, they all look the same. > > It's only at the macro level where entropy comes into play that you can > distinguish somewhat between forward and backward. > > In another universe, if the time arrow were reversed from our own, then > we would be calling that time direction the forward direction. > > Yousuf Khan At rock bottom time always goes forward. Timrate there is just the regular proper time in physics with nothing different. Mitch Raemsch |