Self Similarity --- was -- Re: Arrow of Time
in [Physics]
|
Prev: time as the circumference of the lobe inside the sphere: deriving speed of light from pure math Chapt 19 #217; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Accounting information systems 2e robert hurt solutions manual
From: hanson on 8 Jul 2010 19:14 "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins_61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: >> Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > hanson wrote: You guys, Oldershaw & Higgins have a very interesting dialogue going below: Treading new-land in phyiscs. Keep at it. My take: > AFA "Self-Similarity. That "[SS] term & issue is as "fast & loose" as is the term "Relativity". Galilean, Keplerian, Newtonian and Lorentzian relativities are all self-similar.. etc.. In ***math*** you have a variant of Self-Similarity, like Julia & Mandelbrot with its re-iterations: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity> wherein SS 's gravitas is topological and focuses on size. > But in a wider scope "self" in Self-similarity can be viewed/used in the same way as do the relativists with their "Frame" concept. In SS, you can do similar/analogue things like the Rel aficionados do with their frame jumping and frame dragging. -- IOW, like in relativity, if the phenomenon is useful for the theory then use it... if not, then declare it to fall outside the domain of the theory. > NO model ever, of/about mature, will truly describe nature. If you believe otherwise, like most ED insist do, then ask them to give you the address of Einstein's younger Twin, or present to you the chemical identity & composition of Einstein's rigid rod... ahahaha.... > AFA you, Higgins, being a chemist, you might find more items of Self-similarity then a physicist can easily see. In organic chem, the "ortho-, meta- & para- substituted aromatics are self-similar examples. Normal- and iso paraffins are Selfsimilar items, and so are the chiral variants. Then there are the S, N & O substituted 5 or 6 C-ring Aromatics, aka Pyridines, Thiazines & Pyrimidines.... *** The Periodic System of the Elements is Self-Similarity *** in its most familiar, obvious, self evident and broadest aspects... >> So, Higgie, get in on the act and pursue this line of inquiry. This SS is relatively new. IICRC it got its first boost in the 1960s. I ran across the use and application of SS in the 1980, at a symposium where the dude pontificated about "properties in a universe with less than 1 dimension" ( was great fun... ahaha..) > This SEFC (Self Similarity/Emergence/Fractals&Chaos) paradigm is one of the newer efforts in the schemes of modeling nature and it presents a post-SR/GR stage in physics. Higgins, it is new-land you are treading here with Oldershaw. Some ED's worrying about some "sigmas of confidence" is to be expected but they can be swept under the rug for now, safely... ahahaha... > Now, since this SS subject and objective is an enterprise under construction, in which planning happens as it evolves, get in on the action. For if you come up with the proper story/narrative about SS that is interesting and saleable and you can show that SR/GR, be they flawed or not, happen to be a subset of Self similarity, then folks will quote and cite you as often as they do as Einstein. > If you have a personal ethno/political constituency, like Einstein had in/with his Zionists, then you'd be in like him, fast,... ahaha.. So, Higgie start with teaming up with Oldershaw, who is already hot and heavy at and into it. Remember, any 4 year old kid can take things apart but it takes a man to put things together.... > Thanks for the fun, guys... ahahaha... hahahahanson > > ----- The Oldershaw/Higgins tripe, that hanson responded to ----- > Higgie 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? > Oldie wrote: > Discrete Scale Relativity predicts that for every type of Atomic Scale > phenomena there are exact self-similar analogues on the Stellar Scale. > Higgie 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? > Oldie wrote: > 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? > Higgie wrote: 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"*** . > Oldie 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, > Higgie wrote: 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. > Oldie wrote: > and for every cosmological Scale of the infinite > self-similar hierarchy of conformally invariant Scales constituting > nature. > Higgie wrote: What exactly are you mapping conformally? Please state the function that maps conformally between the atomic and stellar domains. > Oldie wrote: > 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. > Higgie wrote: I am a chemist, so I don't have an axe to grind either way. > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Thomas Heger on 9 Jul 2010 02:00 hanson schrieb: > "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins_61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: >>> Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > AFA you, Higgins, being a chemist, you might find more items of > Self-similarity then a physicist can easily see. In organic chem, the > "ortho-, meta- & para- substituted aromatics are self-similar examples. > Normal- and iso paraffins are Selfsimilar items, and so are the chiral > variants. Then there are the S, N & O substituted > 5 or 6 C-ring Aromatics, aka Pyridines, Thiazines & Pyrimidines.... > *** The Periodic System of the Elements is Self-Similarity *** > in its most familiar, obvious, self evident and broadest aspects... >>> I would like to stress the importance of chemistry. The chemists have a closer 'grip' to fundamental physics, (because they think in bonds or connections and in structures of matter), than particle physicists -let alone mathematicians. And they have an undebatable feedback, because they could see (and smell), what they have done. I myself had a lot of education in chemistry, even if it was in school times. But I spend a lot of time on this subject - and was cooking stuff together in our basement. I remember being not really happy with the explanations provided, because e.g. I could not understand why some materials have a specific color. So I think, chemists would be natural 'allies' for developing some new kind of model for the microcosm, because they could use it in they daily work. TH
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 9 Jul 2010 13:04 On Jul 9, 2:00 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > I remember being not really happy with the explanations provided, > because e.g. I could not understand why some materials have a specific > color. > So I think, chemists would be natural 'allies' for developing some new > kind of model for the microcosm, because they could use it in they daily > work. ----------------------------------------------- I basically agree. I think biologists and chemists are more more in contact with the real world of nature than are the Platonic theoretical physicists. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 10 Jul 2010 12:55 On Jul 10, 2:41 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > Personally I think, that matter is actually a > structure of spacetime itself, as are fields or waves. ---------------------------------------------- Basically, this is what General Relativity says. Matter and the geometry of spacetime are intertwined and causally linked. In a phrase "no matter, no spacetime" That was one of Einstein's take-home messages. We just need to take the relativity program one more step and get rid of absolute scale. That is what Discrete Scale Relativity does. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert Higgins on 11 Jul 2010 13:17
On Jul 9, 1:04 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jul 9, 2:00 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > I remember being not really happy with the explanations provided, > > because e.g. I could not understand why some materials have a specific > > color. > > So I think, chemists would be natural 'allies' for developing some new > > kind of model for the microcosm, because they could use it in they daily > > work. > > ----------------------------------------------- > > I basically agree. I think biologists and chemists are more more in > contact with the real world of nature than are the Platonic > theoretical physicists. Then why don't you use correct chemistry in your arguments? BTW, the branch of chemistry called "physical chemistry" is very heavily physics-based. (Curiously, there is also a field called "chemical physics", which is even more physics-based). You never answered my questions as to "self-similarity". > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |