Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 30 Jun 2010 19:06 On Jun 30, 1:37 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Speaking of talking nonsense, UNboundedness is a property of classical fractals. Fractals most certainly do not require a lower bound. If you go to www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and click on the last paper in the "Selected Papers", you will find the essay "Nature Adores Self- Similarity". It describes about 80 examples of fractals observationally identified in nature and fully accepted as such by scientists. Educate yourself! RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: spudnik on 30 Jun 2010 20:44 fractals are the very definition of psychedelia, via "magnification" with the floating-point spec (IEEE-755, -855; I think .-) > If you go towww.amherst.edu/~rloldershawand click on the last paper > in the "Selected Papers", you will find the essay "Nature Adores Self- > Similarity". It describes about 80 examples of fractals > observationally identified in nature and fully accepted as such by > scientists. thus&so: ever heard of Alfven waves?... you couldn't go anywhere in space science without them. it was a discovery about ten years ago, that about an order of magnitude of hydrogen in Universe is dihydrogen, which has no dipole moment; so, it wasn't seen, til it was looked-for. > Not if you believe in electromagnetic theory. You require some very special > pleads to make bulk amounts of hydrogen invisible, especially in *this* > galaxy where radio isn't redshifted into oblivion. thus&so: I didn't see what "last paragraph" you wrote; anyway, the summary in the paper is fairly clear (~1.8 some thing .-) > The last paragraph about the relation between surface temperature and pressure, > and radiating temperature and altitude is my translation of what I think > Miskolczi is saying in: > <http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf> thus&so: that is awfully interesting, if rather complex. anyway, I have said for years, that no-one ever bothered -- after Ahrrenius did not win the first Nobel in chemistry for his coinage of the term, glass house gasses -- to model an ordinary glass house *at a latitude.* thus, the overwhelming conception of the GCMers, that the poles will heat more than the tropics, which is quite absurd. I'd also mention the '30s paper of George Simpson, a table-top experiment with a Bunsen-burner & cubes of ice! thus&so: BP's and Waxman's cap&trade is striclty "free market;" let the arbitrageurs & daytrippers jack-up the price of energy, as much as they can, as with Waxman's '91 bill (presumably; there seems to be a dearth of "story" about how fantastic it was .-) thus&so: don't worry; British Petroleum's cap&trade & free beer/miles is on the way! thus&so: like, I typed, sea-ice is the most unstable thing -- aside from clouds. so, see Fred Singer's retrospective metastudy on world-around glaciers, Doofus. also, see the November '01 story in the Sunday LAtribcoTimes, "120 New Glaciers Found on Continental Divide." thus&so: what if El Nino is correlated with underwater vulcanism? I started looking at ENSO, just before it was called that. well, it was two things, El Nino and the Quasibiennial Southern Oscillation, the latter having had a period of about 26 months. so, now, draw some conclusion! > The global temperature lags ENSO by 6 months. thus&so: as in, Beyond Petroleum (tm) -- stuff that's squeezed from a holow rock, and is allegedly fossilized. in my experience, neither R or D know the definition of "republic," or much of the history of the idea. anyway, the whole problem of the Anthropocene was highlighted, perhaps for some purpose, by having the conference in the venue of the Copenhagenskool of QM thus&so: Myth 1 is supported by the old Shackleton et al study, which seems to show a spike in CO2, just before the glacial phase. Myth 2 is somewhat overstated, since the change in obliquity of Earth's orbit is synched -- not causative -- with the 100,000-year cycle of glaciation in the Quaternary. Myth 5 is supported by the fact that the floating-point spec is inherently chaotic (IEEE-755, -855, I think); think, "fractals are the very definition of psychedelia, man!" > * Myth 1 Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive > changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is > driving the current warming. > * Myth 2 Solar activity is the main driver of climate change. > * Myth 5 Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide > useful projections of climate change." > http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/18/hadley-center-to-delayers-denie... > ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.... thus&so: what if the same guy who was the source d'Eaugate for Bernward at the Post, was also the Vice President, who purposely set his mattress on fire in the first tower (second was hit by a 757 filled with fuel for most of a transcontinental flight, minus the steering loop); and, so, how many mattresses'd he have'd to set, to make for a controlled demolition? well, some of us believe that he was not just the acting president -- especially since the impeachment of Bill C.. also, what in Heck is a one-ball centrifuge -- doesn't one need two, at the least, for balance? --BP's cap&trade + free beer/miles on your CO2 debits at ARCO! http://wlym.com
From: Robert Higgins on 30 Jun 2010 20:53 On Jun 29, 11:04 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > 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 My question was to assess if you had the skills to actually make contributions to science. My only "chagrin" is when those who the ability, waste it. > . > I have not claimed any degrees, courses, affiliations that were not > valid. > > You are remarkably ignorant of the true details of my life. I don't really care about the details of your life, quite frankly. If I cared, I would read your blog. >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. I agree. But if "it is not where you went to school", why do you act as if your associated with Amherst College, when you aren't? > > WHAT MATTERS IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF NATURE AND THE QUALITY OF YOUR > IDEAS. Again, I agree. Pity your understanding is poor, and the quality of your ideas inferior. > > You copy that, Pilgrim? Who are you supposed to be, Marion Morrison? > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw or Emily Dickinson?
From: eric gisse on 30 Jun 2010 21:11 Robert Higgins wrote: [...] >> >> You copy that, Pilgrim? > > Who are you supposed to be, Marion Morrison? He likes to make up stupid names for people in an effort to put them down. > >> >> RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw > > or Emily Dickinson?
From: Huang on 30 Jun 2010 22:00
On Jun 30, 6:06 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jun 30, 1:37 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Speaking of talking nonsense, UNboundedness is a property of classical > fractals. > > Fractals most certainly do not require a lower bound. > > If you go towww.amherst.edu/~rloldershawand click on the last paper > in the "Selected Papers", you will find the essay "Nature Adores Self- > Similarity". It describes about 80 examples of fractals > observationally identified in nature and fully accepted as such by > scientists. > > Educate yourself! > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Excuse me sir but I did not say that fractals have a lower bound. I said that NATURE has a lower bound. And if you are making the claim that the universe is a fractal then you might want to think about the very bascic questions which naturally arise when one floats the premise that the universe is a fractal. Aside from the mathematics involved, there are some straightforward philosophical questions which are simple to state but difficult to answer, and Im not hearing any answers (from you) to the issues I raised. |