Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: eric gisse on 7 Jul 2010 02:06 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: [...] > I think the above answer should your question #2. To put it even more > baldly: Everything we observe on the Atomic Scale will be exactly > repeated on the Stellar Scale, and the Galactic Scale, and the > Subquantum Scale, and for every cosmological Scale of the infinite > self-similar hierarchy of conformally invariant Scales constituting > nature. Unfortunately for your model, everything from the solar system on up tends to be constructed in a plane. No orbitals on the cosmic scale, so much for your model Unfortunately for your model, there is no analog to fine/hyperfine splitting of energy states. Or Lamb shift. Rather much looks to me like you are cherry picking data to support a predetermined conclusion. > > It is an idea that goes back to Democritus, Kant, Spinoza, Hermann > Weyl, G. de Vaucouleurs, etc., etc., ... Finally we may have enough > observational evidence to make this worlds-within-worlds paradigm a > serious contender. It certainly makes more sense than the hackneyed > postmodern pseudoscience that theoretical physicists keep trying to > force-feed us. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw But rather curiously the 'pseudo-science', as you call it, makes actual predictions as opposed to your halfassed retrodictions that don't even stand up to scrutiny. Keep whining on USENET about how science has took a wrong turn. I'm sure interested observers can *definitely* tell the difference between you and say, Androcles.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 7 Jul 2010 13:36 On Jul 7, 2:06 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Unfortunately for your model, everything from the > solar system on up tends to be constructed in a plane. > No orbitals on the cosmic scale, so much for your model. ---------------------------------------- Have you ever heard of elliptical galaxies, which are actually more common than disk galaxies in many environments. Have you ever heard of galactic halos, or roughly spherical clusters of galaxies? Is the observable universe planar? NO! ONLY YOUR PATHETIC THINKING IS 2-DIMENSIONAL. > > Unfortunately for your model, there is no analog > to fine/hyperfine splitting of energy states. Or Lamb shift. ----------------------------------------- At www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw I discuss direct physical analogoue phenomena indicating fine structure in stellar oscillations. See the "New Development" on stellar magnetic cycles like the Sun's solar cycle, and yes the freq/periods match up quite well. Try again, Woofster, you dog you. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: bert on 8 Jul 2010 07:58 On Jun 19, 7:03 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 3:36 pm, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 4:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 19, 11:58 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 19, 12:04 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 19, 10:58 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst..edu> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > An interesting discussion has started at sci.physics.research > > > > > > concerning the nature of the "arrow of time" > > > > > > Consider these Arrows > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#Arrows > > > > > Sam Time has 5 arrows TreBert > > > > The arrow of time is meant to be understood as going ahead. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Interesting how Einstein merged time with space (Spacetime) He > > thought space was more important than time. My concave and convex > > theory I use to show "universe's inflationary cosmology Time is a > > dimention. Time is controlled by #1 gravity 2# acceleration(Motion) We > > also have time dilation,and the tricky one is time warping space. > > Oooops my thinking is blurry and maybe Einstein thought time was more > > important than space(Have a gut feeling he did) Reason is an object's > > motion is through time and not space Hmmm TreBert- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Things do flow ahead in space. And that is always. > > I think time comes first. I believe it contains the design of the > universe at every point in space. > > MItch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have worked out a 5th force,and it is "Time moving backwards" It is very profound thinking. It is my last and most far out theory. Reality is it takes away the ant-matter theory. It make GUT reality TreBert
From: bert on 8 Jul 2010 08:08 On Jun 25, 1:41 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 6/25/2010 6:11 AM, bert wrote: > > > Observers can have different perspectives of time. That has been > > confirmed. Best to keep in mind the effects of SR depends upon how > > fast one moves. We must always have "time dilation" and Lorentz > > contraction in our thinking Stuff is not "absolute" iF eINSTEIN > > DID not merge space and time I know I would have. They are two sides > > to the same coin. Always got a kick out of this fact. No matter how > > fast you chase after a light beam it still retreats from you at c > > Photons never change speed nor do they bounce. My "Spin is in theory" > > covers this. TreBert > > As far as I am concerned, the speed of light is simply the speed at > which our universe itself is traveling through the time dimension. > Anything that is traveling at the speed of light within the universe, is > actually just running backwards to stay put in one spot in time, while > the universe runs past it; like holding on for dear life onto the bank > of a fast-moving river. > > That would also explain why causal time stops when traveling at exactly > the speed of light. If everything traveled at the speed of light, then > causality would stop because everything would stay put in their own > given spots in time, neither advancing nor retreating. With no movement, > no particles would be able to collide and therefore react to each other. > If on the other hand, you were traveling at 99.9% the speed of light, > then causal time will have slowed down considerably for you; but you are > not yet at 100% light speed, so you will still experience reactions, > albeit at a much reduced rate. That which we call time dilation is just > fewer reactions occurring at a time. You need something traveling slight > faster or slower through time to catch up with you and react with you. > At 99.9% light speed, there is still a differential range of speeds of > 0.1% light speed to play around in. Even if you were at 99.99% light > speed, then you still have 0.01% to play around with. It's only when you > get to a full 100% light speed that you got 0% differential to play with. > > Yousuf Khan Good post Faster than light creates great problems. Light slowing down leaves the unanswered question. "What energy kicks it back up to see?" Gravity can't slow down photons. Reality is it makes them give up energy. TreBert
From: Robert Higgins on 8 Jul 2010 15:50
On Jul 6, 10:41 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 6, 4:51 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > There are two things which I don't follow: > > 1) Why are some variable stars "similar" to > > singly excited helium and others to doubly > > excited carbon? > > 2) How your examples, even if they were more > > compelling, constitute "self-similarity". This > > somewhat connects to point (1). Are there any > > stars which are primarily singly excited Rydberg > > state helium? doubly excited Rydberg state carbon? > > ---------------------------------------- > > Discrete Scale Relativity predicts that for every type of Atomic Scale > phenomena there are exact self-similar analogues on the Stellar Scale. But there are clearly NOT - several examples of which Eric has already listed. What is the Stellar analogue of spin-orbit coupling? Nuclear spin statistics? > Since there are helium atoms undergoing single-level transitions in > nature, AND since there are doubly excited carbon atoms undergoing 2- > photon transitions in nature, then we should observe Stellar Scale > systems doing the same thing. Right? First of all, your connection between atomic "transitions" and the oscillatory periods of variable stars is very tenuous - and I am not even an astronomer. No matter what transition you need, if you look long enough, you'll find it. BTW, you never clearly explain the "self" part of "self-similarity". > > I think the above answer should your question #2. To put it even more > baldly: Everything we observe on the Atomic Scale will be exactly > repeated on the Stellar Scale, and the Galactic Scale, and the > Subquantum Scale, Since electrons are elementary point particles with no substructure, your theory is clearly in error. Just because something has a periodicity that is some factor of some other periodicity is only coincidence. Even if it weren't, it still does not prove your point. Your self-similarity needs to be STRUCTURAL - but it isn't. > and for every cosmological Scale of the infinite > self-similar hierarchy of conformally invariant Scales constituting > nature. What exactly are you mapping conformally? Please state the function that maps conformally between the atomic and stellar domains. > > It is an idea that goes back to Democritus, Kant, Spinoza, Hermann > Weyl, G. de Vaucouleurs, etc., etc., ... Finally we may have enough > observational evidence to make this worlds-within-worlds paradigm a > serious contender. It certainly makes more sense than the hackneyed > postmodern pseudoscience that theoretical physicists keep trying to > force-feed us. I am a chemist, so I don't have an axe to grind either way. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |