A New Fractal Paradigm For Nature
Knecht
read about exciting and revolutionary paradigm changes, in which our
most fundamental ideas about nature undergo radical revisions, the
drama usually has taken place well before we were born. Today,
however, we have the rare opportunity of witnessing at first hand a
profound transformation in our understanding of how the Universe is
structured. This ongoing change of cosmological paradigms from a
“small” finite cosmos to an infinite fractal cosmos began about two
decades ago and is in full swing at present.
The short version of what is happening goes like this. For about 50
years the Big Bang model of the Universe has provided an excellent
explanation for the basic cosmological observations: a very large-
scale expansion, an approximately uniform background of microwave
radiation and a unique set of abundances for the atomic elements.
However, there were some technical problems with this model, such as
an acausal beginning of spacetime, a lack of magnetic monopoles, an
unexpectedly high degree of uniformity, and an enigmatic knife-edge
balance between the open and closed states. Then in the early 1980s
Alan Guth showed how these and other problems with the Big Bang model
could be solved in one fell swoop with the Inflationary Scenario1,
which postulated a very brief period of ultra-rapid expansion shortly
after the Big Bang. The theory of Inflation gained analytical and
observational support over time and is now fully accepted by
cosmologists as a cornerstone of the Big Bang paradigm. But, an
ironic thing has happened. Although the Inflationary Scenario was
developed to rescue the Big Bang model, the most logical consequence
of pursuing the concept of Inflation is the replacement the Big Bang
paradigm with a much grander and more encompassing paradigm.
According to Guth2 and a growing number of leading cosmologists, the
most natural version of Inflation theory is Eternal Inflation, in
which Inflation is, was and always will be occurring on an infinite
number of size scales. The new paradigm that cosmologists have
arrived at by several routes is an infinite fractal hierarchy that has
“universes” within “universes” without end. The astronomer Carl
Sagan3 once referred to the general idea of an infinite fractal
universe as “strange, haunting, evocative – one of the most exquisite
conjectures in science or religion.”
That is the basic story, but because of the profound changes the
fractal paradigm will have on our understanding of the Universe and
the place of humans within that Universe, it is important to explore
the implications of this new vision. Firstly, there is no edge or
boundary of the Universe; space is infinite in all directions. What
we used to refer to as “The Universe” can be more appropriately called
the “observable universe” (note the small “u”) or the “Hubble Volume,”
and it is only a tiny part of what one might call our “metagalaxy” or
“level 1 universe”. We currently have no way of determining the size
of our metagalaxy or the number of galaxies it contains, but we could
reasonably assume that both figures would be vastly beyond anything
previously contemplated. There would be an infinite number of these
level 1 universes, and on an unimaginably large scale they too would
be organized into level 2 universes, and so on without limit.
Secondly, time is also infinite in the unbounded fractal Universe.
Whereas our Hubble Volume may have come into being and began to expand
approximately 13.7 billion years ago, the Universe has always existed
and always will. Parts of the Universe may be created or annihilated,
may undergo expansion or contraction, but the infinite fractal
hierarchy remains unchanged overall, and thus is without any temporal
limits. Thirdly, there is no limit to size scales. In the infinite
fractal paradigm there is no class of largest objects that would cap
off the cosmological hierarchy; the hierarchy is infinite in scale.
This fact removes one of the more suspect aspects of the old
paradigm. Natural philosophers had long noted the unusual fact that
within the Big Bang paradigm humans found themselves roughly in the
middle of nature’s hierarchy of size scales. This anthropocentric
state of affairs seemed to violate the Copernican concept that when
humans appear to be at the center of your cosmos, you should suspect
that a bias is leading you astray. In an infinite fractal hierarchy
there is no center of the Universe, nor any preferred reference frame.
Some interesting questions immediately arise. Why are fractal
hierarchies so ubiquitous in nature? By studying empirical phenomena
within the observable universe, how much will we be able to learn
scientifically about the parts of the Universe that lie beyond our
observational limits? Does the infinite cosmological hierarchy have a
bottom-most scale of sub-atomic particles as is currently thought, or
is this another artificial limit to an infinite fractal Universe that
actually extends without limits to ever-smaller scales?
Centuries ago Immanuel Kant, J.H. Lambert and a few others proposed an
infinite hierarchical model of nature based largely on natural
philosophy arguments. This general hierarchical paradigm never
garnered a large following, but it was kept alive by numerous
rediscoveries. In the 1800s and 1900s quite a few scientists,
including E.E. Fournier d’Albe, F. Selety, C.V.L. Charlier and G. de
Vaucouleurs, argued for hierarchical cosmological models based on the
hierarchical organization within the observable universe. Then
towards the end of the 1970s, the mathematician B. B. Mandelbrot4 gave
the hierarchical paradigm new life and widespread exposure by
developing the mathematics of fractal geometry and demonstrating that
fractal phenomena based on hierarchical self-similarity are ubiquitous
in nature. In this way natural philosophers, empirical scientists,
mathematicians and now theoretical physicists have all found their
way, slowly but surely, to the infinite fractal paradigm. There are
many routes to this paradigm, and certainly there are a large number
of distinct versions5,6,7 of the basic paradigm that have their own
unique theoretical explanations for why nature is organized in this
manner, but the general paradigm that nature is an infinite hierarchy
of worlds within worlds has fully arrived, and will probably be our
dominant cosmological paradigm for the foreseeable future
References
Guth, A.H. and Steinhardt, P.J., “The Inflationary Universe”,
Scientific American, 250(5), 116-128 (1984).
Guth, A.H., The Inflationary Universe, Addison-Wesley, New York
(1997).
Sagan, C., Cosmos, Random House, New York (1980).
Mandelbrot, B.B., Fractals, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco (1977), and
The Fractal Geometry of Nature, W.H. Freeman, New York (1983).
Oldershaw, R.L., www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw.
Tegmark, M., “Parallel Universes”, Scientific American, 288(5), 41-51
(2003).
Baryshev, Y. and Teerikorpi, P., The Discovery of Cosmic Fractals,
World Scientific, Singapore (2002).
Yours in science,
Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
dlzc
On Sep 30, 9:25 am, Knecht <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:
...
> such as an acausal beginning of spacetime,
A problem with any continuous model, fractal included. Since any
macroscopic "picture" is made up of smaller self-similar modules, how
do you get the first one?
> a lack of magnetic monopoles,
Despite searching for them, they are not found in Nature. Turns out
that charge and "dilation effects" obviates the need for them.
> an unexpectedly high degree of uniformity,
Not a requirement, given the issues of "The Beginning".
> and an enigmatic knife-edge balance
> between the open and closed states.
This *requirement* is imposed by Nature.
David A. Smith
Knecht
Actually, the discrete fractal paradigm is infinite in extent and
eternal. As such it dispenses with such nonsense as naive versions of
"continuity", the anthropocentric need for a "beginning" of the whole
Universe, whatever "first modules" are, and other such garbage.
If you want to peddle your own vision, why not start your own thread?
Yours in science
Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Sjouke Burry
dragging in fractals, monopoles(SF) etc, and calling all other garbage?
That sounds like a loony tune.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Sjouke Burry" <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote in
message news:48e2e67d$0$27204$ba62...@text.nova.planet.nl...
> Knecht wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 2:52 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>> Actually, the discrete fractal paradigm is
>> infinite in extent and eternal. As such it
>> dispenses with such nonsense as naive
>> versions of "continuity", the anthropocentric
>> need for a "beginning" of the whole
>> Universe, whatever "first modules" are, and
>> other such garbage.
>>
>> If you want to peddle your own vision, why
>> not start your own thread?
> Why try to decide between two wacky
> theories? dragging in fractals,
> monopoles(SF) etc, and calling all other
> garbage? That sounds like a loony tune.
Actually is troll, trying to get goat. He posts easy brainless
stuff, and claims it is science. Knowing that others cannot
resist the bait...
David A. Smith
Rev. 11D Meow!
That'll show you who's boss of this area right quick.
Knecht
> Smoke some more DMT mawghn.
> That'll show you who's boss of this area right quick.
Many thanks to all for their brilliant and edifying responses.
Buy platinum and keep a bag packed at all times.
Yours in science,
Knecht
ww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Rev. 11D Meow!
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
By Clara Moskowitz
SPACE.com
If the notion of dark energy sounds improbable, get ready for an even more
outlandish suggestion.
Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is
particularly devoid of matter.
Scientists say this condition could account for the apparent acceleration of
the universe's expansion, for which dark energy currently is the leading
explanation.
Dark energy is the name given to the hypothetical force that could be
drawing all the stuff in the universe outward at an ever-increasing rate.
Current thinking is that 74 percent of the universe could be made up of this
exotic dark energy, with another 21 percent being dark matter, and normal
matter comprising the remaining 5 percent.
Until now, there has been no good way to choose between dark energy or the
void explanation, but a new study outlines a potential test of the bubble
scenario.
If we were in an unusually sparse area of the universe, then things could
look farther away than they really are and there would be no need to rely on
dark energy as an explanation for certain astronomical observations.
"If we lived in a very large under-density, then the space-time itself
wouldn't be accelerating," said researcher Timothy Clifton of Oxford
University in England. "It would just be that the observations, if
interpreted in the usual way, would look like they were."
Scientists first detected the acceleration by noting that distant supernovae
seemed to be moving away from us faster than they should be.
One type of supernova (called Type Ia) is a useful distance indicator,
because the explosions always have the same intrinsic brightness.
Since light gets dimmer the farther it travels, that means that when the
supernovae appear faint to us, they are far away, and when they appear
bright, they are closer in.
But if we happened to be in a portion of the universe with less matter in it
than normal, then the space-time around us would be different than it is
outside, because matter warps space-time.
Light travelling from supernovae outside our bubble would appear dimmer,
because the light would diverge more than we would expect once it got inside
our void.
One problem with the void idea, though, is that it negates a principle that
has reigned in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in
the universe isn't special.
When Nicholas Copernicus argued that it made much more sense for the Earth
to be revolving around the sun than vice versa, it revolutionized science.
Since then, most theories have to pass the Copernican test. If they require
our planet to be unique, or our position to be exalted, the ideas often seem
unlikely.
"This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live
in a special place," Clifton told SPACE.com. "The regular cosmological model
is based on the idea that where we live is a typical place in the universe.
This would be a contradiction to the Copernican principle."
Clifton, along with Oxford researchers Pedro G. Ferreira and Kate Land, say
that in coming years we may be able to distinguish between dark energy and
the void.
They point to the upcoming Joint Dark Energy Mission, planned by NASA and
the U.S. Department of Energy to launch in 2014 or 2015.
The satellite aims to measure the expansion of the universe precisely by
observing about 2,300 supernovae.
The scientists suggest that by looking at a large number of supernovae in a
certain region of the universe, they should be able to tell whether the
objects are really accelerating away, or if their light is merely being
distorted in a void.
The new study will be detailed in an upcoming issue of the journal Physical
Review Letters.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Rev. 11D Meow!" <Ji...@Crack.corn> wrote in message
news:EMSdnWsp2fmjznnV...@comcast.com...
> Scientists: Earth May Exist in Giant Cosmic Bubble
> Wednesday, October 01, 2008
> Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of
> space-time that is particularly devoid of matter.
>
> Scientists say this condition could account for
> the apparent acceleration of the universe's
> expansion, for which dark energy currently is the
> leading explanation.
Fails first test. Expansion occurs at different rates back to
the CMBR. Expansion occurs at the same rate as a function of
distance. So these "scientists" would reinstitute a Ptolemaic
"Earth is in a special place" cosmology.
David A. Smith
Knecht
> Scientists: Earth May Exist in Giant Cosmic Bubble
> Wednesday, October 01, 2008
> By Clara Moskowitz
> SPACE.com
>
> If the notion of dark energy sounds improbable, get ready for an even more
> outlandish suggestion.
> Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is
> particularly devoid of matter.
Actually most theoretical physics does indeed take place a vast void
that is almost completely lacking in conceptual reason and empirical
support. It is a nearly perfect vacuum. But then, as we all know,
nature abhors a vacuum.
Knecht
wrote:
.
>
> > Scientists say this condition could account for
> > the apparent acceleration of the universe's
> > expansion, for which dark energy currently is the
> > leading explanation.
>
> Fails first test. Expansion occurs at different rates back to
> the CMBR. Expansion occurs at the same rate as a function of
> distance. So these "scientists" would reinstitute a Ptolemaic
> "Earth is in a special place" cosmology.
>
> David A. Smith
Sounds like dictation from a Lower Power to me.
dlzc
> On Oct 2, 9:17 am, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
> wrote:
> .
>
>
>
> > > Scientists say this condition could account for
> > > the apparent acceleration of the universe's
> > > expansion, for which dark energy currently is the
> > > leading explanation.
>
> > Fails first test. Expansion occurs at different
> > rates back to the CMBR. Expansion occurs at
> > the same rate as a function of distance. So
> > these "scientists" would reinstitute a Ptolemaic
> > "Earth is in a special place" cosmology.
>
Yes, I agree. Not sure why you posted "news" without thinking about
it first.
David A. Smith
Knecht
>
> > > Fails first test. Expansion occurs at different
> > > rates back to the CMBR. Expansion occurs at
> > > the same rate as a function of distance. So
> > > these "scientists" would reinstitute a Ptolemaic
> > > "Earth is in a special place" cosmology.
>
>
>
> > Sounds like dictation from a Lower Power to me.
>
>
> Yes, I agree. Not sure why you posted "news" without thinking about
> it first.
>
Ah, hello! I did not post the "news"; I was referring to your
brilliant analysis.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Knecht" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:9d849f13-d6c1-4683...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
Ah hello! I caught you with your own trap, troll. When you have
no comment, except snide remark, it can be interpreted many ways
in the English language. And so you are now on record as stating
that what you posted is "dictation from a Lower Power". How
nice! So rather than posting *anything* in the spirit of
Science, you show your true colors.
David A. Smith
Knecht
wrote:
>
> Ah hello! I caught you with your own trap, troll. When you have
> no comment, except snide remark, it can be interpreted many ways
> in the English language. And so you are now on record as stating
> that what you posted is "dictation from a Lower Power". How
> nice! So rather than posting *anything* in the spirit of
> Science, you show your true colors.
>
> David A. Smith
Interesting logic!
Rev. 11D Meow!
"Knecht" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wroterootered...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In conclusion, every *theoretical* 'Fractal Paradigm For Nature'
amounts to a *possible* localized phenomenon. . .
QED
Knecht
>
> Actually most theoretical physics does indeed take place a vast void
> that is almost completely lacking in conceptual reason and empirical
> support. It is a nearly perfect vacuum. But then, as we all know,
> nature abhors a vacuum.
>
> Yours in science,
> Knechtwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> In conclusion, every *theoretical* 'Fractal Paradigm For Nature'
> amounts to a *possible* localized phenomenon. . .
>
> QED
Ah - hello! Did you not notice that there was an important qualifier
in my statement: "MOST theoretical physics".
So you can take your "QED" off the blackboard and write 100 times the
wisdom of Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does."
So as not to confuse you further let me be more precise. I should have
specified the inhabitants of the intellectual vacuum as follows - the
Substandard Model, comprised by the overwhelming majority of vacuous
pipe dreams called theoretical high energy physics and the naive
idealized version of the Big Bang paradigm (what you see is all there
is). Add to that foundation of of malfeasance the cornucopia of
dubious quack ideas that pass for valid theoretical physics these
days, such as shadow matter, unparticles, string theory,
supersymmetry, magnetic monopoles, quark stars, Higgs boners and on
and on and on, and you have the liturgy of The Church of the
Collective Delusion.
Albert Einstein said: "Science begins and ends with experience" and in
case you are confused by the last word, just substitute
"observations", which is the intended meaning. The Discrete Fractal
Paradigm, unlike the Substandard Paradigm, emphasizes observations and
recognizing conceptual and empirical patterns within those
observations of nature, rather than abstraction and mathematical
detachment from the very thing that is under study.
If you had an adequate knowledge of the Discrete Fractal Paradigm, you
would achieve your first comprehensive understanding of nature. But
that would take work.
dlzc
> On Oct 2, 9:54 pm, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Ah hello! I caught you with your own trap, troll.
> > When you have no comment, except snide
> > remark, it can be interpreted many ways in the
> > English language. And so you are now on
> > record as stating that what you posted is
> > "dictation from a Lower Power". How nice!
> > So rather than posting *anything* in the spirit
> > of Science, you show your true colors.
>
Here is more I find applicable to you, "crackpot" and compulsively
getting in the last word. Even if that last word has no "Yours in
science" intent as claimed.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
http://forum.scriptlance.com/archive/index.php/t-616.html
Now do you want to go back and respond to the points raised, just
continue sniping, or raise yet another nym?
David A. Smith
Zanthius
> A problem with any continuous model, fractal included. Since any
> macroscopic "picture" is made up of smaller self-similar modules, how
> do you get the first one?
Is this a problem? I am having a problem with a beginning without
something before.
Seems completely natural to me that all beginnings and ends are merely
delusions generated by mortal minds.
There is no "first one" or "last one". The need for a beginning and an
end, is due to a weakness in your ability to conceptualize eternity.
Zanthius
fanatics.
If God created the universe, then where did God live before he created
the universe?
dlzc
On Oct 3, 1:28 pm, Zanthius <zanthius_of_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 30 Sep, 20:52,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > A problem with any continuous model, fractal
> > included. Since any macroscopic "picture" is
> > made up of smaller self-similar modules, how
> > do you get the first one?
>
> Is this a problem? I am having a problem with
> a beginning without something before.
Really? Where were you before you were a gleam in your father's eye?
Your meat began, and your consciousness began. Now do you want to
conclude that you are in a sense evolved from your mother and father,
and they from apes, and they (eventually) from single celled
organisms, and they from the propensity for self-replicating proteins
to record "memory" (leaving out a few steps), and that from the second
law of thermodynamics?
There is still a beginning.
> Seems completely natural to me that all
> beginnings and ends are merely delusions
> generated by mortal minds.
>
> There is no "first one" or "last one".
Show me a live dodo bird today. Go back in time, say, 1850 or so and
show me an IBM-PC.
> The need for a beginning and an end, is due
> to a weakness in your ability to conceptualize
> eternity.
Not really. The problem is in your use of the language of logic.
Do you want to discuss fractals in this context, or just slam your
misunderstanding of what fractals entail?
David A. Smith
dlzc
His God created him, ad finitum. Can you stay on topic?
David A. Smith
zanthi...@gmail.com
> Really? Where were you before you were a gleam in your father's eye?
>
> Your meat began, and your consciousness began.
Not necessarily. There isn't a sufficiently good understanding of
consciousness in science to know for certain that my consciousness
started then, and my consciousness certainly feels a lot older.
Why are some people born with a more mature personality than others?
We are not all equally mature, even if our bodies are of the same age.
It could be due to the difference in our genes and due to the
difference in our experiences, but it is also possible that my
consciousness existed before my physical body was born.
Knecht
Interesting! So you are advocating an infinite discrete fractal
hierarchy of "Gods". Just substitute "natural systems" for "Gods" and
you are making real progress. What a mensch! There may be hope for you
yet.
Knecht
> There is still a beginning.
If we are talking about the fractals you see in books, then yes, each
has a beginning. But when we are talking about the hierarchy of nature
then a beginning need not be mandatory. Manmade = finite. Nature =
infinite. Get it?
Knecht
> > Interesting logic!
>
> Here is more I find applicable to you, "crackpot" and compulsively
> getting in the last word. Even if that last word has no "Yours in
> science" intent as claimed.
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>
> http://forum.scriptlance.com/archive/index.php/t-616.html
>
> Now do you want to go back and respond to the points raised, just
> continue sniping, or raise yet another nym?
>
> David A. Smith
Oh dear, now we get into the ad hominem stuff.
Look, I'll make you a deal: you come up with a rational scientific
issue and present it in a way that does not sound like you already
know the only possible answer and are the only person qualified to
have an opinion on the matter, and I will join you in a reasoned
scientific discussion of the issue.
I look forward to the exercise.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Knecht" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:9ab267be-200b-4b8d...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 1:07 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
> Look, I'll make you a deal: you come up with a
> rational scientific issue
Done.
> and present it in a way that does not sound like
> you already know the only possible answer and
> are the only person qualified to have an opinion
> on the matter,
In Science (and debate), we make claims (as if we are right) and
others refute them. You made a claim, I attempted to refute it,
you made no counterclaim or even an attempt to support your
position.
You promote a fractal Universe, and I offered Universal expansion
as running counter to your claim. Now this is supposed to be one
of the fractal model's strengths, or did you not even read your
own link?
> and I will join you in a reasoned
> scientific discussion of the issue.
>
> I look forward to the exercise.
You haven't yet. But then you seem to have some other definition
of Science than the rest of the community.
David A. Smith
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Knecht" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:cec82375-8607-460a...@e17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 5:45 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> There is still a beginning.
>
> If we are talking about the fractals you see in
> books,
Like the books that define fractals... establish the word and
meaning... carry out logical extensions...
> then yes, each has a beginning. But when
> we are talking about the hierarchy of nature
Which is here claimed to be fractal...
> then a beginning need not be mandatory.
> Manmade = finite.
Same with fractals.. manmade from the ground up...
> Nature = infinite. Get it?
Sure. You are now claiming that the Universe is inherenlty not
fractal, "by the books".
David A. Smith
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Knecht" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:10f5a4c1-b488-4d0d...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 5:49 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Dear Zanthius:
>>
>> On Oct 3, 1:41 pm, Zanthius <zanthius_of_d...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Here is an interesting question for all you religious
>> > big bang fanatics.
>>
>> > If God created the universe, then where did God
>> > live before he created the universe?
>>
>> His God created him, ad finitum. Can you stay
>> on topic?
>
> Interesting! So you are advocating an infinite
> discrete fractal hierarchy of "Gods".
Just trying to maintain some continuity on this thread. You keep
trying to chide me to stay on topic, so I was trying to help.
> Just substitute "natural systems" for "Gods" and
> you are making real progress. What a mensch!
> There may be hope for you yet.
I'm really OK with an infinite series of contained Universes
(like the nested German dolls), or a finite series (with 2 or 4
total iterations to return back to this one essentially
containing itself), but I do not see "fractal by the books" in
the structure of *this one*. In what we can see. The Illusion
is continuous...
David A. Smith
Knecht
> > live before he created the universe?
>
> His God created him, ad finitum. Can you stay on topic?
>
> David A. Smith
So I see that you believe in an infinite discrete fractal hierarchy of
"Gods". Now all you have to do is start thinking about nature's
fundamental systems in a similar way, so to speak.
Knecht
So now we get the ad hominem attacks.
I'll make a deal with you. You raise a reasoned scientific issue, and
do so without implying that you know the only possible answer to it,
and I will gladly join you in a reasoned discussion of the issue.
Can you do your part?
Knecht
So the posts of "dlzc" for Oct 3 are most interesting.
1. He appears to believe in an infinite discrete fractal hierarchy of
"Gods". Now if he can just swap "fundamental systems of nature" for
"Gods" - think of them in a similar format, so to speak - I think he
might be making some real progress.
2. Alas, a subsequent post of his lapses into ad hominem attacks.
I offer him this deal. If he can raise a reasoned scientific issue,
and do so without saying or implying that he already knows the only
possible answer, then I will gladly join him in a reasoned discussion
of that issue. But can he fulfill his part of the bargain?
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Knecht" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:4b1da4b8-e1a3-4249...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 11:20 am, Knecht <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:
> So the posts of "dlzc" for Oct 3 are most
> interesting.
So interesting that you don't respond to them.
David A. Smith
Rev. 11D Meow!
Twin-Ply tissue for your schnoozle!
Rev. 11D Meow!
Rev. 11D Meow!
it finally shut the fuck up
about revealing secrets
even Mother Nature
don't want MeHums
to know about.
That was CLOSE!
Everyone who
comes in contact
with *THAT* sacred info
will surely die of
radiation poisoning.
Knecht
wrote:
>
> Sure. You are now claiming that the Universe is inherenlty not
> fractal, "by the books".
>
> David A. Smith
Ok, I think I see the problem: we differ on our definition of the term
"fractal". Let's drop that term and use the concept that nature might
be an infinite discrete self-similar system. In this paradgm, nature
is fundamentally hierarchical, the hierarchy is organized into
discrete Scales (...Subquantum, Atomic, Stellar, Galactic, ...), and
the Scales are rigorously self-similar. Does this type of system
represent a logical possibility to you. If not , why? If it does, then
why is it not fractal?
Knecht
wrote:
>
> You promote a fractal Universe, and I offered Universal expansion
> as running counter to your claim. Now this is supposed to be one
> of the fractal model's strengths, or did you not even read your
> own link?
>
To be completely honest, I do not really understand what you are
promoting, or even the scientific basis on which you reject natural
fractals.
Perhaps we might be able to understand each other if you followed up
on my first 10/5 post which attempts to set a foundation for
meaningful discussion of these issues of fractals, self-similarity and
nature.
I prefer science to polemics, and hopefully we can move from the
latter to the former.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Knecht" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:19e55fb9-4b25-4cc7...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 3, 8:08 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:
>
>> Sure. You are now claiming that the Universe
>> is inherenlty not fractal, "by the books".
>
> Ok, I think I see the problem: we differ on our
> definition of the term "fractal". Let's drop that
> term and use the concept that nature might
> be an infinite discrete self-similar system. In
> this paradgm, nature is fundamentally
> hierarchical, the hierarchy is organized into
> discrete Scales (...Subquantum, Atomic,
> Stellar, Galactic, ...), and the Scales are
> rigorously self-similar. Does this type of
> system represent a logical possibility to you.
> If not , why?
The "subquantum" (ie: the realm of individual quarks) is
unobservable. The quantum realm has no features in common with
the "stellar". The theories that describe the stellar need
"patches to the tune of 97% to describe the galactic and the
supercluster scales. Now those latter do have some commonalities
so that those bandaids can be applied, but I suspect that is in
itself wrong.
> If it does, then why is it not fractal?
The "regimes" have very little in common. At no point does the
supercluster behave like an electron jump / drop in an orbital.
David A. Smith
Rev. 11D Meow!
"Knecht" " . . . nature might be an infinite . . . "
YAY!
Fill in the blank.
"Nature might be an infinite ___ ___ _______ ____."
YAY!
recurse that!
r c r e t a !
r r t !
r t
YAY!
Knecht
wrote:
>
> The "subquantum" (ie: the realm of individual quarks) is
> unobservable. The quantum realm has no features in common with
> the "stellar". The theories that describe the stellar need
> "patches to the tune of 97% to describe the galactic and the
> supercluster scales. Now those latter do have some commonalities
> so that those bandaids can be applied, but I suspect that is in
> itself wrong.
>
> > If it does, then why is it not fractal?
>
> The "regimes" have very little in common. At no point does the
> supercluster behave like an electron jump / drop in an orbital.
>
> David A. Smith
Sigh.
(1) In the Discrete Fractal Paradigm superclusters are NOT proposed
as analogues of atoms.
(2) To say that Atomic and Stellar Scale systems have "no features in
common" is just plain ignorant.
You do not have an adequate understanding of the the DFP. Besides that
you seem to be guided by fixed ideas that are not fully supported with
scientific data. Nature is subtle and complex; to understand it, the
sledgehammer approach of a scientific poser is not suficient.
Try again. Pick ONE issue that you understand comprehensively, and
make your case in clear language that includes all logical steps in
the argument.
Yours in science,
Knecht
www.amherst.edu~rloldershaw
Knecht
One reads your posts and what can one say, except: "classic Rev Meow!"
dlzc
On Oct 6, 9:28 am, Knecht <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:36 pm, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> > The "subquantum" (ie: the realm of individual quarks)
> > is unobservable. The quantum realm has no features
> > in common with the "stellar". The theories that
> > describe the stellar need "patches to the tune of
> > 97% to describe the galactic and the supercluster
> > scales. Now those latter do have some
> > commonalities so that those bandaids can be applied,
> > but I suspect that is in itself wrong.
>
> > > If it does, then why is it not fractal?
>
> > The "regimes" have very little in common. At no
> > point does the supercluster behave like an electron
> > jump / drop in an orbital.
>
> Sigh.
>
> (1) In the Discrete Fractal Paradigm superclusters
> are NOT proposed as analogues of atoms.
>
> (2) To say that Atomic and Stellar Scale systems
> have "no features in common" is just plain ignorant.
Enlighten me. Show me evidence of quantum jumps in orbital dynamics.
Show me angular momentum being transferred "instantaneously". Show me
large scale Heisenberg uncertainty.
> You do not have an adequate understanding of
> the the DFP. Besides that you seem to be guided
> by fixed ideas that are not fully supported with
> scientific data.
Sure. I depend on a common language.
> Nature is subtle and complex; to understand it,
> the sledgehammer approach of a scientific poser
> is not suficient.
>
> Try again. Pick ONE issue that you understand
> comprehensively, and make your case in clear
> language that includes all logical steps in
> the argument.
Nah, that's OK. You seem more interested in the particular quagmire
"you" have created than any sort of discussion. But time will tell, I
guess. You get your Nobel, and I'll buy you coffee.
David A. Smith
Knecht
>
> Enlighten me. Show me evidence of quantum jumps in orbital dynamics.
Ok, I'll pick one issue for you.
If you go to www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and click on "New
Developments", you will find separate research reports on RR Lyrae
variable stars, delta Scuti variables and ZZ Ceti variables. Their
oscillation spectra are shown to be quantitatively self-similar to the
oscillation spectra of their respective Atomic Scale analogues
undergoing well-defined transitions between specific energy states.
The evidence for discrete cosmological self-similarity is strongest
for the RR Lyrae class because they are the most homogeneous class of
variable stars. Check out the "(7) - Sept 2005" New Development on RR
Lyraes and you will see that their morphologies, masses, sizes and
frequency spectra match up uniquely with helium atoms undergoing
single-level transitions between states n=10 and n=7. The fact that
the scaling equations apply to two other classes of variable stars,
without fudging or "adjusting" variables, should be instructive. The
match-ups are shown to be unique and do not work for alternative
analogue choices.
If nature did not manifest discrete scale invariance, these three
research efforts would have either failed outright or would have been
hopelessly complicated and self-contradictory. The fact that things
work out so easily and smoothly may surprise you.
Take the time to really study the RR Lyrae results very carefully. Let
me know if you find errors. A gauntlet of professional astronomers and
physicists have been unable to do so. The first RR Lyrae paper has
been published, the delta Scuti paper has been accepted and is in
press, the second RR lyrae paper is being reviewed and the ZZ Ceti
paper will be submited shortly.
Ball in your court, I think.
Yours in science
Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Knecht" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
news:2b0c6752-b3af-4ce5...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Not at all. Man looks for patterns, impresses the best fit, and
beats his chest.
> The fact that things work out so easily and
> smoothly may surprise you.
>
> Take the time to really study the RR Lyrae
> results very carefully. Let me know if you
> find errors. A gauntlet of professional
> astronomers and physicists have been
> unable to do so. The first RR Lyrae paper has
> been published, the delta Scuti paper has
> been accepted and is in press, the second
> RR lyrae paper is being reviewed and the ZZ
> Ceti paper will be submited shortly.
>
> Ball in your court, I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_maser
... show me that the behavior you descibe is not "pumped".
Now show me hydrogen atoms (or any other) that emit like the
40,000 or so other types of stars.
Better still, get your Nobel and I'll buy you coffee.
David A. Smith
Knecht
wrote:
> Dear Knecht:
>
> "Knecht" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
No Dave, we do not need a lame knee-jerk response like that.
You need to expend some actual effort and study the RR Lyrae results.
When you have an adequate understanding of that research, then we
could discuss whether the discrete self-similarity is unique (as I
contend), or whether I have identified a pattern that is inherently
subjective and is not unique (which is what I think you are
contending).
But I think the old maxim holds here: You can lead a scientific poser
to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.
Probably you do not really want a meaningful scientific exchange;
rather you seem to prefer playing with yourself.
Don't go blind.
Rev. 11D Meow!
"Knecht" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wroterootered...
Probably you do not really want a meaningful scientific exchange;
rather you seem to prefer playing with yourself.
Don't go blind.
Yours in science,
Knecht
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That will definitely win you that Nobel Prize.
Oh wait, Darwin Award, sorry.
Knecht
> "Knecht" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wroterootered...
Someone's got to do the hard work, and Dave seems like just the wanker
for the job.
Over and out,
Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Rev. 11D Meow!
"Knecht" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrotsed...
Someone's got to do the hard work, and Dave seems like just the wanker
for the job.
Over and out,
Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
***** GRAVITATIONAL BORE RADIUS EXCEEDED *****
Knecht
> "Knecht" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrotsed...
Very well put!
Rev. 11D Meow!
"Knecht" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrotered...
Very well put!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At least you can appear to have a semblance of a sense of humor.
Rev. 11D Meow!
http://www.nbc.com/Knight_Rider/video/episodes/?apl=true#vid=737881
Rev. 11D Meow!
I Mean Darwin Award...