Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: eric gisse on 8 Jul 2010 21:12 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > 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. Elliptical galaxies have gone through gravitational interactions with other large objects. Review the literature. > > Have you ever heard of galactic halos More planar than not. Unless you mean dark matter halos. No electromagnetic friction to slow the material down and condense it into a disc. > , or roughly spherical clusters > of galaxies? Multibody interactions scatter members all over the place. Review the literature. > > Is the observable universe planar? Is the universe one bound structure? Don't be stupid, if you can help it. > > NO! ONLY YOUR PATHETIC THINKING IS 2-DIMENSIONAL. Conservation of angular momentum keeps stuff in a plane. Review a classical mechanics textbook. > > >> >> 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. It is rather obvious that you are guessing. There are exactly zero physical analogies between an atom and a star. > > Try again, Woofster, you dog you. While you sit there and make fun of me every time I dismantle your idiocy, remember that USENET is the only place left that even pays attention to you anymore. If you didn't like the attention, you'd just be content to spew onto a blog. You haven't had a publication in a non-fringe journal since 1990. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 8 Jul 2010 23:57 On Jul 8, 3:50 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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? ---------------------------------------- ONE ISSUE AT A TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (1) Eric is a quack. He thinks galactic halos are more flat than spherical. Perhaps he also believes in a flat Earth? (2) Spin-orbit coupling is common in Stellar Scale systems. (3) Discrete Scale Relativity predicts the same nuclear spin statistics no matter if your nuclei are atomic or stellar. The problem is how to determine Stellar Scale spin statistics for the stellar ultracompacts. But note carefully that pulsars ("nulling" pulsars) can "turn off and on". Could this be due to mode switching between quantized orientations? Discrete Scale Relativity cannot be ruled out on the basis of tests that cannot be done. Though people like Eric often resort to this unscientific emoting. He could try reasoning, but his emotions prevent this. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Y.Porat on 9 Jul 2010 00:05 On Jul 8, 9:50 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 ---------------- you brain and*** personality** = is a point particle Y.Porat ------------------------ ---------------------
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 00:09 On 7/8/10 10:57 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > Spin-orbit coupling is common in Stellar Scale systems. > Examples please, Oldershaw!
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 00:16
On 7/8/10 6:58 AM, bert wrote: > > 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 Herb, you are starting to remind me of my old crackpot friend, Alexander Abian from Iowa State. > From: abian(a)iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) > Newsgroups: sci.math > Subject: THE ABIAN LIST > Date: 12 Jan 95 23:19:24 GMT > Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa > NNTP-Posting-Host: pv3449.vincent.iastate.edu > > > THE ABIAN LIST > > > 1. Time has inertia., Equivalence of Time and Mass. > > 2. Gravity is a reaction to expansion. > Space tends to lump together masses in a reservation camp in > an attempt to (even partially) preserve the status quo of > its primordial primarily almost matter-free neutrality. > > 3. Photon propulsion (radiation or emission) which is a most > fundamental concept of the modern Physics is spaces's attempt > to dilute (whenever possible) the concentrated presence of > the intruding matter again in order to preserve the status > quo of its almost matter-free neutrality. > > (2 and 3 may sound contradictory - but they are not - all > depends on the circumstances). > > 4. A Black holes (if it exists) is a concentration (via > refraction) of Gravity rays in the focal points of > Cosmic lenses (formed by a suitable configuration of cosmic > bodies) akin to the concentration of light rays > in the focal points of optic lenses. Also akin to formation > of Lasers. > > 5. Reorbiting Venus into an Earth-like orbit to create a > Born again Earth. Reigniting Jupiter into a born again Sun. > > 6. Repulsion of like electric charges is Space's reaction to > the tendency of maintaining its electric neutrality. > > 7. Repulsion of like magnetic poles is Space's reaction to > reduce the number of active magnetic poles as Space's > attempt and tendency of maintaining its magnetic neutrality. > > 8. Nuclear chain reactions, atomic and hydrogen bomb explosion, > is a reaction to a provocation of violently unstable matter. > > 9. Sulfuric acid's evaporating a drop of water is an act of > evaporating the intruding enemy and the tendency of maintaining > the status quo of its acidity concentration. > > 10. Altering and reshuffling our entire 8 billion year old decaying > Solar System (in fact, the entire Cosmos) and rejecting the > slavish indoctrination of the "Majestic Celestial Harmony) > which in reality is putrid and corrupt. In particular, > altering Earth's orbit and tilt in order to stop the natural > disasters and calamities and epidemics of deadly diseases such > as plagues, cancer and various immune deficiency syndromes. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > TIME-SPACE HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME-SPACE AND MASS1/T+1/log M =1(ABIAN) > ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC. > VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH > |