Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: eric gisse on 29 Jun 2010 23:01 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: [...] > Or you could say that causality rather than time determines the > sequence of events in nature, and skip Mr. Carroll's fantasies about Doctor, not mister. Respect your betters. > multiverses, extra-dimensions, and the Big Bang preventing our eggs > from unscrambling. I grant that his hand-waving arguments are > creative, but they are also completely nuts. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 29 Jun 2010 23:04 On Jun 29, 7:40 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Just be honest, and respond,"I have completed no physics or > mathematics or chemistry courses at the College level." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You will be much chagrined to know that I have completed physics, mathematics, and chemistry courses at the college level. I was one of the few people to get an A in my Quantum Mechanics class at the University of Washington. You can verify this if you desire .. I have not claimed any degrees, courses, affiliations that were not valid. You are remarkably ignorant of the true details of my life. Of course, you can be forgiven because I do not broadcast these details all over the place. But YOU insisted. MOST IMPORTANTLY IT IS NOT WHERE YOU WENT TO SCHOOL, OR WHAT GRADES YOU GOT IN WHAT COURSES, THAT MATTERS. WHAT MATTERS IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF NATURE AND THE QUALITY OF YOUR IDEAS. You copy that, Pilgrim? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 29 Jun 2010 23:27 On Jun 29, 11:01 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Respect your betters. ----------------------------------------------------- I do, but you do not. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Sam Wormley on 30 Jun 2010 07:59 On 6/29/10 10:27 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 29, 11:01 pm, eric gisse<jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Respect your betters. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > I do, but you do not. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Interesting http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/oldmenu.html http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/JANUS.HTM "I am an independent reseacher in the field of cosmology. I am loosely affiliated with Amherst College in Amherst, Massachusetts and do my research there and at the University of Massachusetts".
From: Huang on 30 Jun 2010 13:37
On Jun 30, 6:59 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/29/10 10:27 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > > On Jun 29, 11:01 pm, eric gisse<jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Respect your betters. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > I do, but you do not. > > > RLO > >www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw > > Interesting > > http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw > http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/oldmenu.html > http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/JANUS.HTM > > "I am an independent reseacher in the field of cosmology. I am loosely > affiliated with Amherst College in Amherst, Massachusetts and do my > research there and at the University of Massachusetts". In my opinion finding fractals in nature is a problematic task. I wont say that there are or are not fractals in nature, but demonstrating it seems problematic to me. It is very interesting theoretically, but actually making the claim of discovering fractals in nature always piques my curiosity as to how one could possibly do that. 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. And there is also some question in my mind as to what a fractal really is in the first place. Fractals are pretty new to mathematics. Consider the Sierpinski gasket. You can generate this gasket using stochastic algorithms based on random variables, but I believe that there is also at least one non-stochastoc algorithm which will yield the same exact manifold. So, if we are to call this Sierpinski gasket thing a "fractal", then this choice of nomenclature speaks only to the geometry of the object and says nothing of it's morphogenesis. Perhaps ANY object may be regarded as being "a fractal of one single iteration".....kind of trivial, but perhaps a valid argument. Fractals are beautiful and so is the universe. But is the universe a fractal ? Newton thought it was a big clockwork. Could it be both ? Somebody recently found that the orbit of Pluto was chaotic. But even this should be questionable for several reasons. First, insufficient data. But second, dynamical systems typically exhibit chaotic behaviour as being only one of a _myriad_ of possible modalities. If you have a system which _could_ exhibit chaos but is'nt, can you still call it a chaotic system ? If you have a universe which _could_ yield fractals, is it fair to call it a fractal ? I simply dont know, and I dont think that science has created any answers to this yet. Better definitions would be extremely helpful if you are going to say that the universe is a fractal. It's dynamic. What if the fractal is just one of a myriad of possible modalities and sometimes it's a fractal and sometimes it aint ? What then ? Still a fractal ? |