Arrow of Time
Robert L. Oldershaw
concerning the nature of the "arrow of time"
Below are the original post and a follow-up. Check it out and
contribute!
--------------------------------------------------------
I would like to explore an idea one more time.
Could we not define the arrow of time as the arrow of causality?
Consider a typical Rube Goldberg device. Event 1 triggers event 2,
which triggers event 3, and so on. There is no way that the sequence
could go backwards, or that the ordering of events could be changed.
In any part of the cosmos that we can fully investigate, causality
appears to be always obeyed and always moves in one direction from
cause to effect.
Is there any reliable, fully tested empirical knowledge that prevents
us from simply saying:
ARROW OF TIME = ARROW OF CAUSALITY ?
Thinking of the Rube Goldberg device again, we say the diagram
represents a temporal or causal sequence.
Perhaps the concept of time is a simple way to describe the ordering
of causal sequences, and a simple way to define magnitude relations
between the rate at which two sequences proceed?
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
----------------------------------------------------
On Jun 19, 3:58 am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
>
> There are several arrows of time: thermodynamic, cosmological, causal
> etc. Everyone agrees they exist. By "defining" one as "the" arrow of
> time, we gain nothing. In other words, WHY can we define a causal arrow
> of time? Microscopically, the laws of physics are time-reversible, but
> on larger scales, we observe various arrows of time. Why? That is the
> question.
--------------------------------------------------
(1) We are not absolutely required to accept unconditionally the
statement that "Microscopically, the laws of physics are time-
reversible,..."
In fact, I reject this Platonic over-idealization categorically. Can
you prove me wrong empirically? The "laws" *you* subscribe to may be
reversible, but mine are definitely not. Mine are always causal,
deterministic [in the nonlinear dynamical systems sense] and
irreversible [although limited periodic behavior is permited].
(2) There may be many "arrows of time", but there is always ONE and
the same Arrow of Causality. A subtle, but important distinction, I
admit.
Sam
wrote:
> An interesting discussion has started at sci.physics.research
> concerning the nature of the "arrow of time"
>
Consider these Arrows
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#Arrows
Thomas Heger
I do perfectly agree. But this is a tough topic to tell, because
everybody thinks about only one 'arrow'. This is understandable,
because everybody has his own arrow and only thinks, that everywhere
else have the same. But this is stunning stupid, because things move
around, hence all have their own. Only specific surfaces, like that of
the earth, allow the same rate of timeflow.
There should be no distinction between timeflow and causality, but that
should be 'glued' to the objects. So, there is no universal time. (What
is kind of tough to tell, too. )
TH
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Time is always going forward in space for matter and light. There is
no other way.
Mitch Raemsch
bert
Sam Time has 5 arrows TreBert
BURT
The arrow of time is meant to be understood as going ahead.
Mitch Raemsch
bert
Interesting how Einstein merged time with space (Spacetime) He
thought space was more important than time. My concave and convex
theory I use to show "universe's inflationary cosmology Time is a
dimention. Time is controlled by #1 gravity 2# acceleration(Motion) We
also have time dilation,and the tricky one is time warping space.
Oooops my thinking is blurry and maybe Einstein thought time was more
important than space(Have a gut feeling he did) Reason is an object's
motion is through time and not space Hmmm TreBert
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Things do flow ahead in space. And that is always.
I think time comes first. I believe it contains the design of the
universe at every point in space.
MItch Raemsch
David Makin
- but I see no reason why we should take it for granted that the
current "present" cannot have multiple (in fact infinite) pasts - I'm
*not* saying that we can therefore time travel, that's an entirely
separate issue.
Even in "real world" physics a given state can usually be reached by
more than one possible path - this does not invalidate the second law.
BURT
It's not like space. It has no up or down.
Mitch Raemsch
Sam
3.1 The thermodynamic arrow of time
3.2 The cosmological arrow of time
3.3 The radiative arrow of time
3.4 The causal arrow of time
3.5 The particle physics (weak) arrow of time
3.6 The quantum arrow of time
3.7 The psychological/perceptual arrow of time
Sam
> Interesting how Einstein merged time with space (Spacetime)
Did you mean Minkowski?
Mathal
wrote:
> An interesting discussion has started at sci.physics.research
> concerning the nature of the "arrow of time"
>
> Below are the original post and a follow-up. Check it out and
> contribute!
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would like to explore an idea one more time.
>
> Could we not define the arrow of time as the arrow of causality?
>
> Consider a typical Rube Goldberg device. Event 1 triggers event 2,
> which triggers event 3, and so on. There is no way that the sequence
> could go backwards, or that the ordering of events could be changed.
>
> In any part of the cosmos that we can fully investigate, causality
> appears to be always obeyed and always moves in one direction from
> cause to effect.
>
> Is there any reliable, fully tested empirical knowledge that prevents
> us from simply saying:
>
> ARROW OF TIME = ARROW OF CAUSALITY ?
>
> Thinking of the Rube Goldberg device again, we say the diagram
> represents a temporal or causal sequence.
>
> Perhaps the concept of time is a simple way to describe the ordering
> of causal sequences, and a simple way to define magnitude relations
> between the rate at which two sequences proceed?
>
> RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > There are several arrows of time: thermodynamic, cosmological, causal
> > etc. Everyone agrees they exist. By "defining" one as "the" arrow of
> > time, we gain nothing. In other words, WHY can we define a causal arrow
> > of time? Microscopically, the laws of physics are time-reversible, but
> > on larger scales, we observe various arrows of time. Why? That is the
> > question.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) We are not absolutely required to accept unconditionally the
> statement that "Microscopically, the laws of physics are time-
> reversible,..."
>
> In fact, I reject this Platonic over-idealization categorically. Can
> you prove me wrong empirically? The "laws" *you* subscribe to may be
> reversible, but mine are definitely not. Mine are always causal,
> deterministic [in the nonlinear dynamical systems sense] and
> irreversible [although limited periodic behavior is permited].
>
> (2) There may be many "arrows of time", but there is always ONE and
> the same Arrow of Causality. A subtle, but important distinction, I
> admit.
>
> RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
In this group you will find little dispute with the idea that time
moves forward. From a 'human' perspective that is inevitable. I doubt
if anyone would propose that time moves backwards to the perspective
that we see it 'moving'. From a purely QM perspective time doesn't
move- it's another dimension and all phenomena can be seen as just as
'true' with time moving in either direction.
From (John) Wheeler's perspective and implied in Feynman's
perspective time isn't 'really' on either side of any 'reaction'.
My opinion is that is inevitable that the human mind thinks it is
rational and that it is in control of what it thinks. I am not
suggesting that' god' or 'spirits' are in control, we just live our
lives, thinking we are making sense. The photon your eye captures when
you look out at the sky that came from who knows how many light years
away in time and distance may have been 'destined' to be captured by
you,but you have as much right to say nonsense, I just looked up at
that moment. I personally believe both are true.
Mathal
oen
wrote:
> An interesting discussion has started at sci.physics.research
> concerning the nature of the "arrow of time"
>
> Below are the original post and a follow-up. Check it out and
> contribute!
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would like to explore an idea one more time.
>
> Could we not define the arrow of time as the arrow of causality?
>
> Consider a typical Rube Goldberg device. Event 1 triggers event 2,
> which triggers event 3, and so on. There is no way that the sequence
> could go backwards, or that the ordering of events could be changed.
>
> In any part of the cosmos that we can fully investigate, causality
> appears to be always obeyed and always moves in one direction from
> cause to effect.
>
> Is there any reliable, fully tested empirical knowledge that prevents
> us from simply saying:
>
> ARROW OF TIME = ARROW OF CAUSALITY ?
causality do not need an arrow,
it is just that, causal, without which you
get chaos, which we dont like
>
> Thinking of the Rube Goldberg device again, we say the diagram
> represents a temporal or causal sequence.
>
> Perhaps the concept of time is a simple way to describe the ordering
> of causal sequences, and a simple way to define magnitude relations
> between the rate at which two sequences proceed?
>
> RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> On Jun 19, 3:58 am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) wrote:
>
> > There are several arrows of time: thermodynamic, cosmological, causal
wrong, all of them are causal
> > etc. Everyone agrees they exist. By "defining" one as "the" arrow of
> > time, we gain nothing. In other words, WHY can we define a causal arrow
> > of time? Microscopically, the laws of physics are time-reversible, but
> > on larger scales, we observe various arrows of time. Why? That is the
> > question.
yes, i just said that, you are contradicting yourself
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) We are not absolutely required to accept unconditionally the
> statement that "Microscopically, the laws of physics are time-
> reversible,..."
no, it is a matter of limitation of detection
the causality still exist at quantum level !!!
>
> In fact, I reject this Platonic over-idealization categorically. Can
> you prove me wrong empirically? The "laws" *you* subscribe to may be
> reversible, but mine are definitely not. Mine are always causal,
> deterministic [in the nonlinear dynamical systems sense] and
> irreversible [although limited periodic behavior is permited].
i just said that
>
> (2) There may be many "arrows of time", but there is always ONE and
> the same Arrow of Causality. A subtle, but important distinction, I
> admit.
agreed
>
> RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
good bye, learn physics from a book
Thomas
wrote:
> An interesting discussion has started at sci.physics.research
> concerning the nature of the "arrow of time"
>
> Below are the original post and a follow-up. Check it out and
> contribute!
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would like to explore an idea one more time.
>
> Could we not define the arrow of time as the arrow of causality?
>
> Consider a typical Rube Goldberg device. Event 1 triggers event 2,
> which triggers event 3, and so on. There is no way that the sequence
> could go backwards, or that the ordering of events could be changed.
>
> In any part of the cosmos that we can fully investigate, causality
> appears to be always obeyed and always moves in one direction from
> cause to effect.
>
> Is there any reliable, fully tested empirical knowledge that prevents
> us from simply saying:
>
> ARROW OF TIME = ARROW OF CAUSALITY ?
'Time' is defined by 'change', and change as such does not constitute
an arrow, i.e. it is an absolute notion. This is why time can only go
forwards (after all, if you watch a film running backwards, you
obviously won't grow any younger by doing this).
Thomas
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The nature time is to float ahead.
Mitch Raemsch
Yousuf Khan
As far as I'm concerned, the thermodynamic, cosmological, radiative,
causal and psychological/perceptual arrows of time are all the same
thing: basically the causal arrow of time. It's the quantum and particle
physics arrows that are slightly different.
The quantum arrow probably represents what the universe was like before
the Big Bang. Particles would come together, and fall apart, and back
again without any structures being built or accumulating. The Big Bang
imparted a momentum in a specific direction of space, which we now call
"causal" time, where particles travel in the same direction and
eventually collide to form bonds, which form structures, which
accumulate as they travel through time.
The particle physics arrow of time is the weird half-way point between
the quantum arrow and the causal arrow. The particle physics arrow
describes the lowest level of particles at which we see a causal arrow
emerge, i.e. within the kaons. If the direction of time were reversed,
then we'd have a universe dominated by anti-matter, because 1% more
kaons would decay into anti-matter over matter, rather than the other
way around. But we'd still see causality progress the same way. Also
we'd likely have renamed anti-matter into matter, and vice-versa.
Yousuf Khan
Don Stockbauer
Little arrows in your clothing, little arrows in your hair.
When you're in love you'll find those little arrows everywhere.
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> If you don't believe me, just try to resolve the issue I brought
> up earlier using any of those theories: what is the "cause" of
> the fire on this match?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Well, for starters how about: motion, then friction, then heat, then
chemical reactions, then fire?
Are you saying that going from an unlit match to a flaming match is an
ACAUSAL process?
What exactly is your point?
Can you specify any physical system undergoing any specific physical
interaction that violates causality.
Please skip the Platonic obfuscation and deal with real systems doing
real testable things.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Tom Roberts
> On Jun 21, 4:26 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> If you don't believe me, just try to resolve the issue I brought
>> up earlier using any of those theories: what is the "cause" of
>> the fire on this match?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, for starters how about: motion, then friction, then heat, then
> chemical reactions, then fire?
> Are you saying that going from an unlit match to a flaming match is an
> ACAUSAL process?
No.
> What exactly is your point?
That you cannot actually specify the cause of that fire. And therefore, you
cannot construct a sensible physical theory based on such "causes". Your usage
of "causality" is NAIVE, and no modern physical theory has it, except possibly
as an approximation.
> Can you specify any physical system undergoing any specific physical
> interaction that violates causality.
I'm not sure what "violates causality" means. There are certainly many
non-causal systems for which we have good physical models. Such as classical
electrodynamics, in which charge does not "cause" the field, and the field does
not "cause" the charge, and yet charge and field are 100% correlated via
Maxwell's equations.
Note that classical electrodynamics does indeed have causality in the modern
sense -- it is not naive, and is not subjective like your usage: the field at a
given point depends only on the charges and field within its past light cone,
and is completely independent of everything outside its past light cone. Another
aspect is that timelike-separated events have a definite order (independent of
frame), while spacelike-separated events do not.
Note that this meaning separates things which can affect the
fields at a given point from things which cannot. But it makes
no attempt to specify what "is" the "cause" of the field(s) at
that point. Indeed in GR and classical electrodynamics, the
relevant field(s) everywhere within the past lightcone can be
said to "cause" the field(s) at that point (but one must be
speaking rather loosely).
This is not at all what you mean by "causality". So beware of PUNs.
The NAIVE causality you espouse arises in these theories when
there is only a single object within the past lightcone that
has nonzero field(s), so it is the only thing which can affect
the field(s) at the point in question, and thus can be said
to be the "cause" of those field(s) in the naive sense.
Tom Roberts
eric gisse
[...]
Robert, have you actually studied enough {gravitationa, electromagnetic,
quantum} field theory to have _seen_ retarded/advanced potentials?
BURT
Time is always flowing ahead energy floating in it.
MItch Raemsch
ka...@nventure.com
>
snip
>
> Time is always flowing ahead ...
>
You are correct in that time always flows forward
(ahead, etc.,).
However, no philosopher, scientist, or any human
truly understands what we call time.
Consequently any notion about time, other than
it exists is just a human supposition.
Nevertheless, the effects of the passage of time on
the physical can be empirically and scientifically
studied.
The passage of time does not ever flow backwards
and cause a hard boiled egg to ever return to a
raw egg, a tree to un-grow back to a sapling,
and any effect to be undone, etc.
So we know that the Second law of Thermodynamics
and the Principle of Causality are sacrosanct.
Consequently any hypothesis, idea, notion, ect.,
about time, other than it exists, that the
passage of time flows forward, and the effect is
not the cause are just suppositions, speculations,
or wild ass guesses.
However there are exceptions to the above about
time that has been empirically tested. This is
that there are qualities that do affect the
duration (i.e., the measure of the passage of
time) of natural phenomena.
1. Gravitation slows the passage of time.
2. Speed affects the duration of a natural
phenomenon.
Furthermore, there may still be others that
science has not yet discovered.
D.Y. Kadoshima
bert
Observers can have different perspectives of time. That has been
confirmed. Best to keep in mind the effects of SR depends upon how
fast one moves. We must always have "time dilation" and Lorentz
contraction in our thinking Stuff is not "absolute" iF eINSTEIN
DID not merge space and time I know I would have. They are two sides
to the same coin. Always got a kick out of this fact. No matter how
fast you chase after a light beam it still retreats from you at c
Photons never change speed nor do they bounce. My "Spin is in theory"
covers this. TreBert
hanson
[snip bantering over timely minutia]
>
hanson wrote:
It all boils and gets down to the properties of a definition for
time, which is by definition anthropic & hence questionable
in the greater and deeper scheme of things. ...
So, for human povs and purposes, if you elect to define that
= Time is the sequential occurrence or manifestation
= of events, items or processes in nature =
then all your petty arguments fall away. You can even set
restrictive sub-definition that allows time to be what is useful
in your experiment... since sequences can go back and/or
forwards, (arrow of time), accelerate or dilate, be periodic
or aperiodic etc, etc... Why all the big deal about time.
Thanks for the laughs, though... ahahahaha...ahahanson
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> No.
>
> Your usage
> of "causality" is NAIVE
> The NAIVE causality you espouse
------------------------------------------------
Well, Tom, I think it is your Ptolemaic physical assumptions that are
naive, rather than my principle of causality.
What do you think about the Colbert comedy star's theory that our
scrambled eggs won't unscramble because of the Big Bang, or possibly
[ta da] The Multiverse?
Would it not be simpler to say the "unscrambling" could not possibly
happen because that would be forbidden acausal physics for a nonlinear
dynamical system?
Nature is reasonably easy to understand if you have the right
paradigm, and quite hard to understand is you are confined to the
Substandard paradigm. Just ask the Ptolemaic scholars of yesteryear.
No doubt your ancestors.
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
See above for the correct paradigm for the 21st century.
Yousuf Khan
> Observers can have different perspectives of time. That has been
> confirmed. Best to keep in mind the effects of SR depends upon how
> fast one moves. We must always have "time dilation" and Lorentz
> contraction in our thinking Stuff is not "absolute" iF eINSTEIN
> DID not merge space and time I know I would have. They are two sides
> to the same coin. Always got a kick out of this fact. No matter how
> fast you chase after a light beam it still retreats from you at c
> Photons never change speed nor do they bounce. My "Spin is in theory"
> covers this. TreBert
As far as I am concerned, the speed of light is simply the speed at
which our universe itself is traveling through the time dimension.
Anything that is traveling at the speed of light within the universe, is
actually just running backwards to stay put in one spot in time, while
the universe runs past it; like holding on for dear life onto the bank
of a fast-moving river.
That would also explain why causal time stops when traveling at exactly
the speed of light. If everything traveled at the speed of light, then
causality would stop because everything would stay put in their own
given spots in time, neither advancing nor retreating. With no movement,
no particles would be able to collide and therefore react to each other.
If on the other hand, you were traveling at 99.9% the speed of light,
then causal time will have slowed down considerably for you; but you are
not yet at 100% light speed, so you will still experience reactions,
albeit at a much reduced rate. That which we call time dilation is just
fewer reactions occurring at a time. You need something traveling slight
faster or slower through time to catch up with you and react with you.
At 99.9% light speed, there is still a differential range of speeds of
0.1% light speed to play around in. Even if you were at 99.99% light
speed, then you still have 0.01% to play around with. It's only when you
get to a full 100% light speed that you got 0% differential to play with.
Yousuf Khan
eric gisse
[...]
> Nature is reasonably easy to understand [...]
Such remarkable arrogance.
Tom Roberts
> On Jun 24, 1:06 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Your usage
>> of "causality" is NAIVE
>> The NAIVE causality you espouse
>
> naive, rather than my principle of causality.
You're entitled to your delusions.
> What do you think about the Colbert comedy star's theory that our
> scrambled eggs won't unscramble because of the Big Bang, or possibly
> [ta da] The Multiverse?
I think that's silly.
> Would it not be simpler to say the "unscrambling" could not possibly
> happen because that would be forbidden acausal physics for a nonlinear
> dynamical system?
No. Because to me it quite clearly is not impossible to unscramble an egg, it's
just very difficult and beyond our current technology. I see no sort of "causal"
barrier, in principle. Of course a random natural process is not going to do it,
but that's just statistics applied to the state space of the constituents of the
egg.
> Nature is reasonably easy to understand if you have the right
> paradigm,
Clearly not, if you want a detailed understanding. You appear to be comfortable
with a superficial "understanding", without bothering to look at details. I
agree that that is easy. But modeling, say, the particle distributions in the
Tevatron, is not "easy" at all....
Tom Roberts
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> > Would it not be simpler to say the
> > "unscrambling" could not possibly
> > happen because that would be forbidden
> > acausal physics for a nonlinear dynamical system?
>
> No. Because to me it quite clearly is not impossible
> to unscramble an egg, it's just very difficult
> and beyond our current technology. I see
> no sort of "causal" barrier, in principle.
Well Tom, obviously you too are entitled to your untestable delusions.
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> Its' your belief that ignorance is a form of knowledge. You know nothing
> about modern physics but you feel you have a better grasp of the subject
> than actual physicists.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, even though I probably know more physics than you, my knowledge
of postmodern pseudophysics may be a bit limited.
I try to emphasize the study of nature and to shun the study of
Platonic over-idealizations and Ptolemaic garbage like Quantum
Colorized Dynamics.
Bark on Noble Woofy,
RLO
http://arxiv.org/a/oldershaw_r_1
Mitchell Jones
Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 4:26 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> If you don't believe me, just try to resolve the issue I brought
> >> up earlier using any of those theories: what is the "cause" of
> >> the fire on this match?
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Well, for starters how about: motion, then friction, then heat, then
> > chemical reactions, then fire?
> > Are you saying that going from an unlit match to a flaming match is an
> > ACAUSAL process?
>
> No.
>
>
> > What exactly is your point?
>
> That you cannot actually specify the cause of that fire. And therefore, you
> cannot construct a sensible physical theory based on such "causes". Your
> usage
> of "causality" is NAIVE, and no modern physical theory has it, except
> possibly
> as an approximation.
>
>
> > Can you specify any physical system undergoing any specific physical
> > interaction that violates causality.
>
> I'm not sure what "violates causality" means.
***{The notion of an uncaused event violates causality. An example would
be an object changing its state of motion without the action of an
external force, or--and this amounts to the same thing--a force leaping
into existence out of nothing, rather than being carried by an entity.
The importance of the law of causality lies in its message: it tells us
that, if we think we are seeing an uncaused event, we need to think
again, investigate further, until we can see how the effect arises out
of the interaction of its antecedents. It serves us well in a universe
where there are lots of important events the causes of which are
presently unknown, but in which there are no events that are truly
uncaused. --MJ}
> There are certainly many
> non-causal systems for which we have good physical models. Such as classical
> electrodynamics, in which charge does not "cause" the field, and the field
> does not "cause" the charge, and yet charge and field are 100% correlated via
> Maxwell's equations.
***{Sometimes understanding of a cause enables us to write an equation.
Suppose, for example, that it is 1 pm and I get a call from a friend who
says he is pulling out of his driveway and will be at my house at 3 pm.
The cause of his getting to my house will lie in (a) the fact that he
has a working automobile, (b) the fact that he has access to the fuel he
needs to run it, (c) that roads exist on which he can travel to get to
my house, (d) the fact that he is capable of operating an automobile,
and (e) the fact that he intends to use his skills, fuel, and the
available roads to get to my house. Result: I can write VT = D, set T =
2, and, by finding the best route on a map and determing that, say, D =
117 miles, I can find that his average speed will be V = D/T = 117/2 =
58.5 mph. Note, however, that the equation and the cause are not the
same thing. Understanding of the cause enables us to write the equation;
but the ability to write the equation tells us very little about the
cause.
Awareness of causation, in short, requires awareness of the details of a
phenomenon. When all one has is an equation, those details are lost.
In the age of classical physics, people were mainly focused on the world
of experience, the macrocosm, and as a consequence mainly arrived at
mathematical relationships by means of causal analysis--i.e., by
investigating the details of a phenomenon to determine its component
parts and how they interacted to produce the effect of interest. Once
the components and how they interacted--i.e., the cause--had been
understood, the equations followed as a matter of course.
Nowadays, experimental physicists are often focused on the microcosm,
where most of the details of phenomena are not yet accessible to us.
Result: in most cases only correlations between the few things that we
can measure are available. Hence we often can only say that A is likely
to be followed by B, and can only write equations expressing such
likelihoods in probabilistic terms. Lack of awareness of causation,
however, is *not* the same thing as lack of causation.
It is also worthwhile to note that even in cases such as the above
example, where the average speed was calculated based on awareness of
distance and time, the idea of necessary connections across the
time-sequence of events rests on assumptions. The necessity, in short,
lies in the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. If,
for example, my friend changes his mind, or cannot carry out his intent
due to his car breaking down, a bridge being out, etc., then he will not
arrive by 3 pm, and all bets are off. Thus even under the regime of
classical physics, certainty was only possible to the extent that one
could be sure that the required causation was present. Uncertainty about
what causal factors will interact to produce an effect, however, is not
the same thing as uncertainty about whether an effect is caused.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> Note that classical electrodynamics does indeed have causality in the modern
> sense
***{There is nothing "modern" about equating correlation, including
perfect correlation, with "causation." David Hume argued more than 200
years ago that perfect correlation, which he termed "constant
conjunction," was the best we could do, and that apprehension of
necessary connections within a time-sequence of events was impossible.
His conclusion was that the principle of scientific induction--that
things will behave in the future as they behaved in the past--was an
article of faith, resting on nothing, and that science, as a
consequence, rested on precisely the same grounds as religion. Your
notion of causation "in the modern sense" is merely an admission that
the Humian point of view has prevailed, and that the term "modern
science" has, as a result, become an oxymoron. --MJ}***
> -- it is not naive, and is not subjective like your usage: the field at
> a given point depends only on the charges and field within its past light cone,
> and is completely independent of everything outside its past light cone.
> Another aspect is that timelike-separated events have a definite order (independent
> of frame), while spacelike-separated events do not.
>
> Note that this meaning separates things which can affect the
> fields at a given point from things which cannot. But it makes
> no attempt to specify what "is" the "cause" of the field(s) at
> that point. Indeed in GR and classical electrodynamics, the
> relevant field(s) everywhere within the past lightcone can be
> said to "cause" the field(s) at that point (but one must be
> speaking rather loosely).
>
> This is not at all what you mean by "causality". So beware of PUNs.
>
> The NAIVE causality you espouse arises in these theories when
> there is only a single object within the past lightcone that
> has nonzero field(s), so it is the only thing which can affect
> the field(s) at the point in question, and thus can be said
> to be the "cause" of those field(s) in the naive sense.
***{There is nothing "naive" about the idea that no thing may come into
existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing (the principle of
continuity), and that, as a consequence, all forces are exerted by
entities in collision, and that, as a further consequence, everything
which happens (every effect) arises out of the interaction of a specific
set of entities, and that the interaction in question constitutes the
cause of the effect. The reality is (a) that we live in a mechanical
universe driven by an inexorable causality, and (b) that those who deny
that state of affairs are not "naive," but simply wrong. --MJ}***
>
> Tom Roberts
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
BURT
> On Jun 24, 11:25 am, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> snip
>
> > Time is always flowing ahead ...
>
> You are correct in that time always flows forward
> (ahead, etc.,).
>
> However, no philosopher, scientist, or any human
> truly understands what we call time.
Don't speak for me. It is aether flow. Inverse Gamma is the math for
time speed.
Mitch Raemsch
Mitchell Jones
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
***{Time is that which is measured by a standard clock and by every
other clock which has been designed to match the readings of a standard
clock. The acceptance of this definition is, for example, why a clock
intended to be used in a GPS satellite is designed to lose 38
microseconds per day when at sea level: the goal is that it match the
readings of a standard clock on the ground, while it is in orbit. Since
it will speed up by 38 microseconds per day when placed in orbit, it has
to lose 38 microseconds per day while on the ground.
The implication: time advances at the same rate throughout the universe,
by definition. If, due to your velocity or the intensity of the
gravitational field in which you are immersed, or both, or if due to any
other cause whatsoever your clock fails to match the readings of a
standard clock, all that tells you is that your clock needs to be set.
Absolute time--time that advances at the same rate throughout the
universe--is the only concept of time that works in the real world. If
the relativists don't like that, let 'em howl. The reality is that their
precious GPS would not work, if clocks in the GPS satellites were not
designed to advance at the same rate as standard clocks on the ground.
Result: they are hoist by their own petard.
--Mitchell Jones}***
eric gisse
> On Jun 25, 8:38 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Its' your belief that ignorance is a form of knowledge. You know nothing
>> about modern physics but you feel you have a better grasp of the subject
>> than actual physicists.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, even though I probably know more physics than you [...]
Since I have formal training in the subject and you don't, I rather much
doubt that.
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> > Well, even though I probably know more physics than you [...]
>
> Since I have formal training in the subject and you don't, I rather much
> doubt that.
But you are more than a little uncertain about that, aren't you
Woofster?
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/menu.html
Sam Wormley
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/menu.html
>
>
Some perspective, Oldershaw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology
eric gisse
> On Jun 26, 8:29 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, even though I probably know more physics than you [...]
>>
>> Since I have formal training in the subject and you don't, I rather much
>> doubt that.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> But you are more than a little uncertain about that, aren't you
> Woofster?
Sorry to convey uncertainty where there is none, Robert.
I am absolutely certain you have no formal training in the subject given
your inability to discuss mathematics beyond a high school level, and
complete unfamiliarity with the scientific method.
Sam Wormley
> Well, even though I probably know more physics than you, my knowledge
> of postmodern pseudophysics may be a bit limited.
That's pretty obvious from your postings. You refrain from
saying much of anything about physics. Perhaps a more fruitful
approach is to dissect some of your "publications" here on
USENET.
Sam Wormley
> Can you specify any physical system undergoing any specific physical
> interaction that violates causality.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Feynman-QED.htm
"Abstract. Lack of knowledge of energy transfer between particles is a
major obstacle in understanding physics, matter, and the Universe. In
1945 Wheeler and Feynman sought the mechanism of energy transfer by
calculating e-m radiation from an accelerated electron. The electron
generated outward and inward waves and evoked a response of the universe
from absorber charges. This paper compares Wheeler and Feynman’s work
with a rigorous solution using the scalar wave equation that finds a
quantum-wave electron structure based upon two fundamental principles of
Nature. This is equivalent to replacing the material point electron with
a spherical quantum-wave electron, a new structure in main-stream
thinking but fulfilling a proposal by Schroedinger. Surprisingly, all
the natural laws are found embedded in the wave structure of the
electron – as envisioned by Schroedinger".
"There is no causality violation because the in-waves are real and do
not run backwards in time".
Robert L. Oldershaw
----------------------------------------------------------
Instead of resorting to ad hominen trash-talking and assessing degrees
of indoctrination, perhaps you would like to comment on the following
scientific arguments.
(1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].
(2) Virtually every physicists will tell you he/she is 100% certain
that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs applies within Atomic Scale systems and
everywhere else in the Universe.
(3) Given (1), is (2) viable? Definitely not! Assumption (2) is pure
untested speculation, and indicates an unscientific atitude.
(4) Are there alternatives to (2)? Yes! And at least one very natural
and promising new paradigm. It is called Discrete Scale Relativity
and you can explore this completely different understanding of nature
at
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw . The main idea is that gravitational
coupling
is not absolute, but has a discrete self-similar scaling.
(5) So what does Discrete Scale Relativity offer to make the time
spent studying it worthwhile?
(a) Explains the meaning of Planck's constant.
(b) Explains the meaning of the fine structure constant.
(c) Retrodicts the correct radius for the hydrogen atom.
(d) First correct Gravitational Bohr Radius.
(e) Correct radius of the proton.
(f) Correct mass of the proton with Kerr-Newman solution of GR+EM.
(g) Resolution of the Vacuum Energy Density Crisis.
(h) Range of galactic radii.
(i) Correct galactic spin periods.
(j) Correct binding energy for H atom.
(k) Much improved Planck Scale that is self-consistent and sensible.
(l) A reasonable quantum gravity theory
(m) The key to reconciling GR and QM.
Yours in science,
RLO
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw
Tom Roberts
> In article <Ou2dnSrelu1...@giganews.com>,
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>>> Can you specify any physical system undergoing any specific physical
>>> interaction that violates causality.
>> I'm not sure what "violates causality" means.
>
> ***{The notion of an uncaused event violates causality.
Hmmm. that of course presupposes a useful definition of "cause". My main point
is that using the NAIVE notion of causality, this is not possible. You, and
Oldershaw, have a rather vague notion of what you mean, but have not given any
specific definition. Indeed, given the long history of the subject, it is
EXTREMELY unlikely that you, or anybody else, can do so.
> The importance of the law of causality
WHAT "law of causality" ????
>> Note that classical electrodynamics does indeed have causality in the modern
>> sense
>
> ***{There is nothing "modern" about equating correlation,
Go back and read what I wrote. This is not at all what causality means in modern
physical theories like classical electrodynamics. The meaning is VERY different
from what you are trying to discuss.
> ***{There is nothing "naive" about the idea that no thing may come into
> existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing (the principle of
> continuity),
That is known as conservation of energy and momentum, not "causality". This is
indeed not naive. But if you confuse this with "causality" the discussion
becomes hopeless....
Tom Roberts
Sam Wormley
> On Jun 26, 11:34 pm, eric gisse<jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Instead of resorting to ad hominen trash-talking and assessing degrees
> of indoctrination, perhaps you would like to comment on the following
> scientific arguments.
>
> (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
> measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].
Physics in free fall
Dropping supercold atoms may prove useful for understanding general
relativity
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60357/title/Physics_in_free_fall
Condensate created in freefall
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42949
>
>
> (2) Virtually every physicists will tell you he/she is 100% certain
> that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs applies within Atomic Scale systems and
> everywhere else in the Universe.
Gravitational constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#The_GM_product
"The gravitational force is extremely weak compared with other
fundamental forces. For example, the gravitational force between an
electron and proton 1 meter apart is approximately 10−67 newtons, while
the electromagnetic force between the same two particles is
approximately 10−28 newton. Both these forces are weak when compared
with the forces we are able to experience directly, but the
electromagnetic force in this example is some 39 orders of magnitude
(i.e. 1039) greater than the force of gravity — roughly the same ratio
as the mass of the Sun compared to a microgram mass".
>
>
> (3) Given (1), is (2) viable? Definitely not! Assumption (2) is pure
> untested speculation, and indicates an unscientific atitude.
Actually G appears to be a "universal constant" of nature and
therefor is applicable at all scales and ranges. There is NO
observational evidence that it is not valid at the atomic scale
where it is overwhelmed by the strength of the electromagnetic
force by 37-38 orders of magnitude.
Tom Roberts
> ***{Time is that which is measured by a standard clock and by every
> other clock which has been designed to match the readings of a standard
> clock. The acceptance of this definition is, for example, why a clock
> intended to be used in a GPS satellite is designed to lose 38
> microseconds per day when at sea level: the goal is that it match the
> readings of a standard clock on the ground, while it is in orbit. Since
> it will speed up by 38 microseconds per day when placed in orbit, it has
> to lose 38 microseconds per day while on the ground.
Some of this is correct. But note that to an observer on a GPS satellite, the
satellite's clock does not measure standard time; nor does a ground clock. You
are implicitly assuming that earth is a VERY special place, in that only clocks
on its surface correctly display "time" -- that's an OUTRAGEOUSLY parochial view.
> The implication: time advances at the same rate throughout the universe,
> by definition.
You will find it impossible to follow through on that notion. In particular,
there is no global notion of "time" in GR. All one can find is the proper times
of individual objects, observers, and trajectories, or time coordinates of
various coordinate charts. NONE of those can be extended to the "entire
universe" [*]. NONE of those has any justification to claim to be "universal
time" -- each is valid only LOCALLY.
[*] Except in exceptionally simple manifolds that cannot possibly
model the world we inhabit.
Your notion of a "universal time" is also in conflict with an important
observation about the world we inhabit: all physics is local. A "universal time"
would be irrelevant -- physical phenomena would progress according to their
usual rates in local conditions, ignoring any sort of "universal time".
> Absolute time--time that advances at the same rate throughout the
> universe--is the only concept of time that works in the real world.
Not true. It may work in YOUR everyday life, and your rather simplistic notions
of how that extends to the rest of the universe, but it does not work in GR. But
then, GR has no need for any such global notions, because all physics is local.
> If
> the relativists don't like that, let 'em howl.
It's not just "relativists" that "don't like" your attempt to do science by
assertion, it is every scientist who ever lived. You must develop a theory, not
just make disconnected statements about how you THINK the world works, or about
how you HOPE it does. And you must then TEST that theory. Such armchair
theorizing worked for Aristotle; nobody accepts it today....
> The reality is that their
> precious GPS would not work, if clocks in the GPS satellites were not
> designed to advance at the same rate as standard clocks on the ground.
This is true (once stated properly, which you did not). Of course that's why the
GPS was designed as it was, with rate offsets in the satellite clocks. But there
is no notion of "absolute time" here, it's just that the GPS approach is the
simplest and most straightforward way to construct locally-Minkowski coordinates
in a region near earth, using atomic clocks both on the ground and in
satellites. It is not the only way....
> Result: they are hoist by their own petard.
No. The problems and inconsistencies are all yours.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
> measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].
Yes. There are several efforts to do this, including both hydrogen atoms and
anti-hydrogen atoms. I participated in a Fermilab proposal to do this, but it
has not been approved, and most likely will not be.
> (2) Virtually every physicists will tell you he/she is 100% certain
> that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs applies within Atomic Scale systems and
> everywhere else in the Universe.
Obviously you don't know very many physicists. I work daily with dozens of
physicists, at a lab with hundreds on staff and thousands of visitors. I do not
think that any of them would make such a statement -- "100% certain" is just not
what we would say for something like this.
Say, rather, that at present our best model of gravity is applicable at scales
from centimeters to billions of kilometers; it might be applicable at larger
scales, but the jury is still out (and will be until the puzzles of dark matter
and energy are resolved). This model is, of course, General Relativity. It
simply is not known whether it is valid at atomic scales (the issues of quantum
gravity are quite different from this), though there appears to be no reason to
expect it not to be valid there.
Tom Roberts
Edward Green
wrote:
> An interesting discussion has started at sci.physics.research
> concerning the nature of the "arrow of time"
>
> Below are the original post and a follow-up. Check it out and
> contribute!
> --------------------------------------------------------
<...>
My incredibly profound view of the arrow of time is that "stuff
happens".
The second law based arrow confirms rather than overcomes this, since
a system started in a purely random state will, according to the
microscopic laws of motion, attain a _more_ random state winding the
clock either forward or backward. The fact that we don't observe this
is a result of an improbable boundary condition after which, well,
stuff happened. I'm at least halfway serious. I think time is a
primitive. BTW, the microscopic reversibility (if such it be) is a
red herring: we might as well ask why peacocks have multiple colored
tails and yet there is an arrow of time. Even if we _did_ have
microscopically irreversible laws, we likely would have the increase
in entropy going either direction from a starting state chosen at
random. Again we would come back to the non-random nature of the
current state, and its dependence on a highly ordered boundary
condition, after which, stuff happened.
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:huydnXJhRI3...@giganews.com...
| Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
| > (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
| > measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].
|
| Yes. There are several efforts to do this, including both hydrogen atoms
and
| anti-hydrogen atoms. I participated in a Fermilab proposal to do this, but
it
| has not been approved, and most likely will not be.
|
|
| > (2) Virtually every physicists will tell you he/she is 100% certain
| > that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs applies within Atomic Scale systems and
| > everywhere else in the Universe.
|
| Obviously you don't know very many physicists. I work daily
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Roberts has delusions of employment!
You haven't worked since Lucent Technologies fired you out for
wasting company time on usenet, Roberts. Oops! Sorry... retired you.
waldofj
> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> > (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
> > measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].
>
> Yes. There are several efforts to do this, including both hydrogen atoms and
> anti-hydrogen atoms. I participated in a Fermilab proposal to do this, but it
> has not been approved, and most likely will not be.
That's a real shame. I think this is a very important line of
research. Over the decades I have read many "discussions" about things
like: quantum gravity, just what is anti-matter, better tests of the
equivalence principle, and so on. This line of research would go a
long way in reducing the "noise factor"
Mitchell Jones
Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > In article <Ou2dnSrelu1...@giganews.com>,
> > Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> >>> Can you specify any physical system undergoing any specific physical
> >>> interaction that violates causality.
> >> I'm not sure what "violates causality" means.
> >
> > ***{The notion of an uncaused event violates causality.
>
> Hmmm. that of course presupposes a useful definition of "cause". My main
> point
> is that using the NAIVE notion of causality, this is not possible. You, and
> Oldershaw, have a rather vague notion of what you mean, but have not given
> any
> specific definition. Indeed, given the long history of the subject, it is
> EXTREMELY unlikely that you, or anybody else, can do so.
***{I already did, but you snipped it out. Here it is again:
"(E)verything which happens (every effect) arises out of the interaction
of a specific set of entities, and ... the interaction in question
constitutes the cause of the effect."
When the interactions of the antecedents are understood, the cause is
understood.
As I also indicated in the material you snipped out, the linkage
between cause and effect constitutes a necessary connection across the
time sequence of events of precisely the sort that Hume, and his modern
acolytes, deny.
--Mitchell Jones)***
> > The importance of the law of causality
>
> WHAT "law of causality" ????
***{You snipped it out. Here it is again:
"(E)verything which happens (every effect) arises out of the interaction
of a specific set of entities, and ... the interaction in question
constitutes the cause of the effect."
I can't put sticky labels on everything I say so that you will recognize
what it is. Therefore let me offer you some advice: stop snipping out
virtually everything I say. If you will insert your comments into my
text, immediately after whatever sentence you are responding to, I think
you will be able to recognize what you are seeing without the need for
sticky labels.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> >> Note that classical electrodynamics does indeed have causality in the
> >> modern
> >> sense
> >
> > ***{There is nothing "modern" about equating correlation,
>
> Go back and read what I wrote. This is not at all what causality means in
> modern physical theories like classical electrodynamics. The meaning is VERY
> different from what you are trying to discuss."
***{I said that several different ways in the material which you snipped
out. For example:
"There is nothing "modern" about equating correlation, including
perfect correlation, with 'causation.' David Hume argued more than 200
years ago that perfect correlation, which he termed "constant
conjunction," was the best we could do, and that apprehension of
necessary connections within a time-sequence of events was impossible.
His conclusion was that the principle of scientific induction--that
things will behave in the future as they behaved in the past--was an
article of faith, resting on nothing, and that science, as a
consequence, rested on precisely the same grounds as religion. Your
notion of causation 'in the modern sense' is merely an admission that
the Humian point of view has prevailed, and that the term 'modern
science' has, as a result, become an oxymoron."
There was, of course, no sticky label attached to the above, saying:
"Note that the idea of causation described in this paragraph differs
markedly from the classical concept described elsewhere in this post."
And, I would add, there was also no sticky label attached to the
definition quoted earlier, which you also snipped out, saying:
"Note that this is a description of the classical concept of causality,
and that it involves presumed necessary connections across the
time-sequence of events."
I can't put sticky labels on an electronic transmission, Tom. We could,
I suppose, exchange paper messages via regular mail. That would allow me
to attach sticky labels at various points and lead you by the hand like
a child, but, frankly, I don't have time for that. If, therefore, you
want to discuss this subject, then please stop snipping out virtually
everything I say, and start inserting your comments into my text after
the sentences you are responding to.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> > ***{There is nothing "naive" about the idea that no thing may come into
> > existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing (the principle of
> > continuity),
>
> That is known as conservation of energy and momentum, not "causality". This
> is indeed not naive. But if you confuse this with "causality" the discussion
> becomes hopeless....
***{I didn't say it was "causality," I actually inserted a parenthetical
comment describing it as "the principle of continuity." In effect, there
was a sticky label present, and you simply ignored it. Here is the
entire sentence, most of which you snipped out:
"There is nothing 'naive' about the idea that no thing may come into
existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing (the principle of
continuity), and that, as a consequence, all forces are exerted by
entities in collision, and that, as a further consequence, everything
which happens (every effect) arises out of the interaction of a specific
set of entities, and that the interaction in question constitutes the
cause of the effect."
Here is the sticky label you apparently needed to comprehend the above:
"Note that the latter portion of the above sentence, starting after the
second comma from the end, is a description of the classical concept of
causality."
As for whether the discussion "becomes hopeless...," the answer would
appear to be that it was hopeless from the outset, since an exchange of
messages in which one party snips out and essentially ignores everything
the other person says can hardly be described as a "discussion."
--Mitchell Jones}***
eric gisse
> On Jun 26, 11:34 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
Notice how everything gets snipped when you can't respond to what is said
but don't want to stop talking.
>
> Instead of resorting to ad hominen trash-talking and assessing degrees
> of indoctrination, perhaps you would like to comment on the following
> scientific arguments.
Lest we forget, the original claim was that you think you know more about
physics than I do. I then promptly pointed out that you have no formal
training in the subject, which is manifestly true given your dodging every
time I point that fact out.
Riddle me this, Robert. You claimed you studied at the University of
Washington. Let's find out.
On what floor is the physics library?
When you get out of the elevator on that floor, which direction is the front
desk?
>
> (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
> measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].
The curiosity of why you call it G' when physicists call it G aside, this is
rather obvious to anyone who has done even a cursory literature search. The
smallest measured scale for G is in the ~cm range.
>
>
> (2) Virtually every physicists will tell you he/she is 100% certain
> that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs applies within Atomic Scale systems and
> everywhere else in the Universe.
I find this claim rather odd. Why is it you feel physicists would be 100%
certain about something that has not been measured?
>
>
> (3) Given (1), is (2) viable? Definitely not! Assumption (2) is pure
> untested speculation, and indicates an unscientific atitude.
Thus once again I find myself pointing out your unfamiliarity with modern
science.
>
>
> (4) Are there alternatives to (2)? Yes! And at least one very natural
> and promising new paradigm. It is called Discrete Scale Relativity
> and you can explore this completely different understanding of nature
> at
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .
What exactly is your affiliation with Amherst?
> The main idea is that gravitational
> coupling
> is not absolute, but has a discrete self-similar scaling.
Even though G has been measured to be constant and the same value across
every currently accessible length scale...
>
>
> (5) So what does Discrete Scale Relativity offer to make the time
> spent studying it worthwhile?
A very good question, given that the author knows no mathematics past what
is taught in high school.
>
>
> (a) Explains the meaning of Planck's constant.
> (b) Explains the meaning of the fine structure constant.
> (c) Retrodicts the correct radius for the hydrogen atom.
Retrodictions are curve fitting to known answers. Unimpressive.
Let's see it predict the spectra of the Hydrogen atom.
> (d) First correct Gravitational Bohr Radius.
Given there's no observational relevance to 'gravitational Bohr radius', I
wonder how you know it is correct.
> (e) Correct radius of the proton.
Ah, and is the 'correct' radius actually observed to be what you claim it to
be?
> (f) Correct mass of the proton with Kerr-Newman solution of GR+EM.
GR does not describe quantum objects, Robert. Perhaps you should actually
study GR instead of saying silly things.
> (g) Resolution of the Vacuum Energy Density Crisis.
Now predict the force felt by two parallel conducting plates.
> (h) Range of galactic radii.
> (i) Correct galactic spin periods.
Whatever the hell that means...
> (j) Correct binding energy for H atom.
Since you think you have the 'correct' binding energy for a Hydrogen atom,
you should be able to derive the emission spectra of Hydrogen.
> (k) Much improved Planck Scale that is self-consistent and sensible.
> (l) A reasonable quantum gravity theory
Let's see your prediction for Mercury's perihelion precession.
> (m) The key to reconciling GR and QM.
>
>
> Yours in science,
> RLO
> http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw
Science is the making of testable predictions instead of curve fitting to
what is known. Are you going to make testable predictions, or are you going
to fart and make more excuses?
eric gisse
> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
>> (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
>> measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].
>
> Yes. There are several efforts to do this, including both hydrogen atoms
> and anti-hydrogen atoms. I participated in a Fermilab proposal to do this,
> but it has not been approved, and most likely will not be.
I presume because it was felt that the proposal was non-viable...?
[...]
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
-----------------------------------
YES! I have noticed the same thing!
Your smarmy accusations and shabby inuendoes seem to vanish and my
serious questions remain to be answered.
Perhaps some "spooky action-at-a-distance"?
The answers to most of your questions about Discrete Scale Relativity
are answered at my website.
If I don't know any physics, then how could I get a paper published in
The Astrophysical Journal? Have YOU ever tried that? Hah!
You could also get my transcripts from UW via the Freedom of
Information Act if you are sufficiently monomaniac.
OH MY GOODNESS! My part of the post did not disappear!
I conclude that nature abhors a vacuum, and cannot distinguish your
thoughts from vacuous nothingness.
--------------------------------------------------------
> > Instead of resorting to ad hominen trash-talking
> > and assessing degrees of indoctrination, perhaps
> > you would like to comment on the following
> > scientific arguments.
>
> > (1) The value of the gravitational coupling
> > factor G' has never been measured within an
> > Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].
>
> > (2) Virtually every physicists will tell you
> > he/she is 100% certain that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs
> > applies within Atomic Scale systems and
> > everywhere else in the Universe.
>
> > (3) Given (1), is (2) viable? Definitely not!
> > Assumption (2) is pure untested speculation,
> > and indicates an unscientific atitude.
>
> > (4) Are there alternatives to (2)? Yes!
> > And at least one very natural and promising
> > new paradigm. It is called Discrete Scale Relativity
> > and you can explore this completely different
> > understanding of nature at
> >www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw.
>
> > The main idea is that gravitational coupling
> > is not absolute, but has a discrete self-similar scaling.
> > (5) So what does Discrete Scale Relativity offer to
> > make the time spent studying it worthwhile?
>
> > (a) Explains the meaning of Planck's constant.
> > (b) Explains the meaning of the fine structure constant.
> > (c) Retrodicts the correct radius for the hydrogen atom.
> > (d) First correct Gravitational Bohr Radius.
> > (e) Correct radius of the proton.
> > (f) Correct mass of the proton with Kerr-Newman solution
> > of GR+EM.
> > (g) Resolution of the Vacuum Energy Density Crisis.
> > (h) Range of galactic radii.
> > (i) Correct galactic spin periods.
> > (j) Correct binding energy for H atom.
> > (k) Much improved Planck Scale that is self-consistent
> > and sensible.
> > (l) A reasonable quantum gravity theory
> > (m) The key to reconciling GR and QM.
> >
> > Yours in science,
> > RLO
eric gisse
> On Jun 27, 8:04 pm, eric Woofster <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Notice how everything gets snipped...?
>>
> -----------------------------------
>
> YES! I have noticed the same thing!
>
> Your smarmy accusations and shabby inuendoes seem to vanish and my
> serious questions remain to be answered.
>
> Perhaps some "spooky action-at-a-distance"?
Perhaps it is a bitch move on your part because you'd rather lecture than
discuss?
>
> The answers to most of your questions about Discrete Scale Relativity
> are answered at my website.
I've reviewed your papers on the subject. You do not derive the most basic
features of quantum theory and gravitation theory: Hydrogen's emission
spectra and Mercury's perihelion advance. Instead you focus on things that
>
> If I don't know any physics, then how could I get a paper published in
> The Astrophysical Journal?
...because it was a slow month? Because 25 years ago you weren't as fucked
in the head as you are now? Who knows. Still, I think it is worth noting
that you haven't had a publication there since 1987. Not exactly a long
history of quality when it has been almost a quarter century since your last
publication there.
In fact, since then you've increasingly relied on publication in fringe
journals and self publication. Why is that, Robert?
I read ApJ on a regular basis and have much respect for it. Regardless,
tripe gets published on occasion. As has been *frequently* pointed out on
this newsgroup, publication does not equal quality. I'll still have a look
at it the next time I go down to UW, it might actually be interesting.
> Have YOU ever tried that? Hah!
Nope. Thirty years ago lots of my ideas would be publication worthy, but
every one of mine that I have investigated has been done sometime between
the mid 70's and the last decade.
Using mass as a lens for focusing gravitational waves? Infeasible, and
investigated in the 70's.
Obtaining a distribution for dark matter via working Poisson's equation in
reverse? Done in the last decade.
Obtaining the spin of Sgr. A* via precessional advance ala Mercury? The PI
is already looking into that and expects to be able to do it in the next
decade.
*shrug*
>
> You could also get my transcripts from UW via the Freedom of
> Information Act if you are sufficiently monomaniac.
That you can't answer some basic questions about the relevant physics
building tells me all I need to know. It means either it was so long ago
that you can't remember, or that you never stepped foot in the library. Most
likely the former, given your age.
You also seem greatly confused about what the FOIA can do. The FOIA can not
compel private institutions to give up records.
>
> OH MY GOODNESS! My part of the post did not disappear!
>
> I conclude that nature abhors a vacuum, and cannot distinguish your
> thoughts from vacuous nothingness.
Numerology isn't science, Robert. That you have difficulty getting your
ideas published nowadays ought to tell you something.
[...]
Tom Roberts
> Roberts has delusions of employment!
> You haven't worked since Lucent Technologies fired you out for
> wasting company time on usenet, Roberts. Oops! Sorry... retired you.
As usual, that's just plain wrong. Every bit of it.
You really are a pathetic worm.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
produce or even cite an equation to back up your verbal diarrhea, you've
never read Einstein's papers and wouldn't understand them if you did.
You are shit, Roberts, a complete moron!
Tom Roberts
I agree that this is a very important experiment. The program advisory committee
at Fermilab agrees, with the caveat that the measurement must be sufficiently
sensitive (nobody expects anti-hydrogen to fall up, at most a few parts in 10^8
difference from hydrogen is expected; some models have limits much smaller than
that). Our proposal was close to meeting their desired sensitivity. But the
Fermilab current plan is to turn off the antiproton source before we could
perform this experiment, and that scheduling issue is a major reason it was not
approved.
At least one experiment to measure the gravitational fall of both hydrogen and
anti-hydrogen has been approved at CERN, and will probably happen in a few years
or so.
Ironically, it is technically MUCH more difficult to do this with hydrogen than
with anti-hydrogen, because detecting hydrogen atoms with kinetic energies in
the milli-eV range is a challenge (they must be that slow for gravity to have an
appreciable effect). Fortunately, hydrogen is quite plentiful, so they plan to
ignore >99.99% of it and just measure excited atoms as they de-excite inside the
gravitational interferometer. The challenge with anti-hydrogen is trapping
enough anti-protons to make it; detecting them is easy as they annihilate
whenever they hit anything.
Tom Roberts
waldofj
> waldofj wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2:46 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> >>> (1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
> >>> measured within an Atomic Scale system [atom, ion or particle].
> >> Yes. There are several efforts to do this, including both hydrogen atoms and
> >> anti-hydrogen atoms. I participated in a Fermilab proposal to do this, but it
> >> has not been approved, and most likely will not be.
>
> > That's a real shame. I think this is a very important line of
> > research. Over the decades I have read many "discussions" about things
> > like: quantum gravity, just what is anti-matter, better tests of the
> > equivalence principle, and so on. This line of research would go a
> > long way in reducing the "noise factor"
>
> I agree that this is a very important experiment. The program advisory committee
> at Fermilab agrees, with the caveat that the measurement must be sufficiently
> sensitive
(nobody expects anti-hydrogen to fall up,
I'm inclined to agree with that but I would still like
confirmation ;-)
here is an interesting article I found on anti-matter
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/AntiMatter/AntiMatter.html
I like the quote from Wheeler: "There is only one electron in the
universe!"
> at most a few parts in 10^8
> difference from hydrogen is expected; some models have limits much smaller than
> that). Our proposal was close to meeting their desired sensitivity. But the
> Fermilab current plan is to turn off the antiproton source before we could
> perform this experiment, and that scheduling issue is a major reason it was not
> approved.
>
> At least one experiment to measure the gravitational fall of both hydrogen and
> anti-hydrogen has been approved at CERN, and will probably happen in a few years
> or so.
Hope so!
Hayek
> On Jun 26, 8:29 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well, even though I probably know more physics than you [...]
>> Since I have formal training in the subject and you don't, I rather much
>> doubt that.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> But you are more than a little uncertain about that, aren't you
> Woofster?
It is the only argument he has. Just leave him that. :-)
Uwe Hayek.
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/menu.html
>
>
--
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion : the stage where the government is free to do
anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
human history. -- Ayn Rand
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them. --
Thomas Jefferson.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of
ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue
is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> Nope. Thirty years ago lots of my ideas would be publication worthy, but
> every one of mine that I have investigated has been done sometime between
> the mid 70's and the last decade.
So you could've been a contender, but lacked the will? Training?
Literacy?
>
> that you can't remember, or that you never stepped foot in the library. Most
> likely the former, given your age.
-----------------------------------------------
Whenever possible I used the carrels in the Suzzallo Library.
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
Mitchell Jones
Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > ***{Time is that which is measured by a standard clock and by every
> > other clock which has been designed to match the readings of a standard
> > clock. The acceptance of this definition is, for example, why a clock
> > intended to be used in a GPS satellite is designed to lose 38
> > microseconds per day when at sea level: the goal is that it match the
> > readings of a standard clock on the ground, while it is in orbit. Since
> > it will speed up by 38 microseconds per day when placed in orbit, it has
> > to lose 38 microseconds per day while on the ground.
>
> Some of this is correct. But note that to an observer on a GPS satellite, the
> satellite's clock does not measure standard time; nor does a ground clock.
> You are implicitly assuming that earth is a VERY special place, in that only
> clocks on its surface correctly display "time" -- that's an OUTRAGEOUSLY
> parochial view.
***{Your opinion that I view the world from an extremely backward and
limited perspective is noted.
What I'm saying is that we need to select a standard of time and stick
to it, so that our measurements of time will be comparable. It is only
the fact that humans are presently limited to the vicinity of Earth that
forces us to use a standard clock situated here. If human civilization
extended throughout the galaxy, there would be no reason in principle to
not use a standard clock located somewhere out in the Cygnus spiral arm,
or even in the galactic halo for that matter.
I'm also saying that the non-mathematical, natural-language gobbledygook
used by Einstein to intrerpret the mislabeled "time dilation" equations
is not, in fact, representative of what humans actually do in the real
world. It is, for example, ludicrous for relativists to constantly cite
GPS as an example supporting Einstein's ridiculous, non-mathematical,
natural-language interpretive framework--a framework which explicitly
and repeated denies that time advances at the same rate throughout the
universe--when in order to make GPS work they have been forced to rely
on the very premise that they deny--which means: (a) they set the clocks
in the CPS satellites to keep pace with standard clocks on the ground;
and (b) they use the very equations which, in their non-mathematical,
natural-language ravings, they claim refute Newtonian absolute time, to
set the clocks and thereby bring them into compliance with the Newtonian
framework.
You guys can't have it both ways. You can't continue to claim, in your
non-mathematical, natural-language statements, that time is what a local
clock that has not been "set" measures, when in the only real-world
applications where you have encountered the opportunity to act in
accordance with that definition, you have been forced to abandon it and
set your clocks to agree with clocks in different locations! It's time
to walk Einstein's talk, or else to concede that his talk was bullshit.
Let me be very specific. It has been known for centuries--long before
Einstein--that various factors operated to cause clocks to disagree with
one another. During the heyday of mechanical windup clocks, for example,
wear might cause the internal spring to weaken, slowing the clock down.
An accumulation of dust, or oil, or moisture in a humid climate, or
rust, or dust mites crushed by the gears, might cause internal friction
to increase. Such things could also cause a mechanical clock to run more
slowly. On the other hand, if the accumulation occurred due to
disuse--e.g., if the clock sat in a box for a year for some reason--then
a resumption of use might gradually wear off the accumulated rust, etc.,
from the gears, and the clock would gradually, progressively, speed back
up again. Because such facts were well known, mechanical clocks were
built with designed-in features which allowed them to be "set." Here is
the way it worked:
(1) You would compare your clock to a clock known to be "correct"
(meaning that it showed good agreement with the accepted standard for
that time zone) and, if they did not agree, you would use the knobs
provided on the back to set the hands on the face of your clock to match
those on the face of the other clock.
(2) After a sufficient time had passed, you would again compare your
clock to a clock known to be correct, and if the readings no longer
matched, you would use a thumbwheel on the back of your clock to adjust
its speed. If your clock had gained time relative to the standard clock,
you would adjust the thumbwheel in the direction of the "S" engraved
next to it, in order to slow it down; and if your clock had lost time,
you would adjust the thumbwheel in the other direction, toward the "F,"
to speed it up.
The above-described clock-setting procedure was based on the Newtonian
concept of absolute time, which stipulated that time advances at a
constant rate throughout the universe. Why accept such a stipulation?
Because clocks that have not been set are useless. An appointment to
meet Bill at the coffee shop at 2 pm means nothing unless the two of you
are willing to accept the premise that time advances at the same rate at
different locations. Why must you do that? Because you are going to be
at different locations until the appointed time, of course.
Unfortunately, when Einstein noticed that experimentally derived
equations indicated that clocks would be affected by the velocity at
which they were moving and by the gravitational intensity where they
were located, he apparently failed to recognize that they still would
have to be set to agree with clocks at different locations, or else
insurmountable practical obstacles would arise. GPS is the perfect
example of that. It is a case where both the velocity and gravitational
effects are present, and where, as a practical matter, the GPS clocks
must still be set to agree with clocks on the ground, or else hideously
costly workarounds must be invoked to avoid doing so.
The solution that has been adopted is to set the GPS clocks so that they
agree with clocks on the ground--which means, in effect, to accept the
Newtonian concept of absolute time. That means the engineers who
implemented the GPS system chose to treat the effects of velocity and
gravitational intensity in exactly the same way that their predecessors
150 years ago treated an accumulation of rust on the gears: they
concluded that the clock rates were being affected by extraneous
factors, and that the solution was to set them, thereby forcing them to
agree despite the operation of those extraneous factors.
Do you see the difference between the interpretation of the engineers
and that of Einstein? Here, let me spell it out: they acted on the
premise that gravitational intensity and velocity differences were
affecting the clock rates, rather than on the premise that gravitational
intensity and velocity differences were causing time to advance at a
different rate in the GPS orbits than on the ground.
How are those interpretations different? Simple: they chose to "set" the
GPS clocks, to bring them into agreement with clocks on the ground. The
implication: if a GPS clock gained 38 microseconds per day, it was
WRONG. Note very explicitly that if, as Einstein's theory required, time
was advancing at a different rate in the GPS orbits than on the ground,
then an accurate clock would say so. That would mean an accurate clock
in a GPS orbit would gain 38 microseconds per day, relative to an
identical clock on the ground. And,of course, if a clock is accurate,
you don't have to set it, now do you? :-) However, the reality was
different: these clocks had to be set, for the same reason clocks that
got out of step with standard clocks were set in Newton's time: because
people couldn't use clocks to coordinate their activities, if the
clocks did not agree. That reality is the cold, hard fact which supports
the edifice of Newtonian absolute time, and which will continue to
support it, in whatever time and places men may roam, whether
"reletivists" like it or not.
Does that mean that it is only things which ordinary people would label
as "clocks" which have their rates affected by velocity and
gravitational intensity? No, all of the entities and processes accepted
by mainstream science appear to be so affected. But the fact remains:
the only sane way to conceive of the situation is to acknowledge that it
is the rates of change of those physical processes which are affected by
velocity and gravitational intensity, not the rate of advancement of
time itself. We cannot stubbornly cling to the Einsteinian dogma that
it is not the speeds of processes which change, but the rate of
advancement of time itself, for the simple yet sufficient reason that
clocks which haven't been set are next to useless in the real world.
Moreover, and this is important: the loss of utility by a clock that
hasn't been set does not depend on the nature of the factors that have
caused it to fall out of agreement with a standard clock. It doesn't
make a tinker's damn whether Bill's clock disagrees with Sam's because
of rust on its gears, or because Bill is circling the Earth in a GPS
satellite. Either way, Bill can't keep an appointment to speak to Sam by
radio at 2 pm, unless they both are relying on clocks that have been
set.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> > The implication: time advances at the same rate throughout the universe,
> > by definition.
>
> You will find it impossible to follow through on that notion. In particular,
> there is no global notion of "time" in GR. All one can find is the proper
> times of individual objects, observers, and trajectories, or time coordinates of
> various coordinate charts. NONE of those can be extended to the "entire
> universe" [*]. NONE of those has any justification to claim to be "universal
> time" -- each is valid only LOCALLY.
***{That's a required statement for persons such as yourself--i.e., for
proponents of the non-mathematical, natural-language interpretive
framework of "GR." The reality, however, is that clocks which have not
been set to agree with a common standard cannot be used to coordinate
human activities. It doesn't matter whether the activities that are to
be coordinated are in a tiny village in Africa, or across an
interstellar civilization: individual A cannot meet individual B at time
T, if their clocks do not agree. It makes no difference whether they get
to the appointed location at the appointed time by donkey or by starship.
Note, specifically, that I am NOT denying the validity of the
process-rate equations--i.e., the equations which are labeled "time
dilation" equations within the ridiculous, non-mathematical,
natural-language interpretative framework of GR. Those equations were
designed to give good agreement with experimental results, and they do
so. Thus they are appropriate and above-board in all respects.
What they tell us, however, is that causal processes, including clocks,
advance at rates which in part depend on their local velocities and
gravitational intensities. What they do NOT tell us that time itself
advances at variable rates depending on those considerations. For the
reasons already given, we have to set our clocks so that they agree with
a common standard, else they become virtually useless.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> [*] Except in exceptionally simple manifolds that cannot possibly
> model the world we inhabit.
>
> Your notion of a "universal time" is also in conflict with an important
> observation about the world we inhabit: all physics is local. A "universal
> time" would be irrelevant -- physical phenomena would progress according
> to their usual rates in local conditions, ignoring any sort of "universal time".
***{Yup. Back in 1880 a mechanical clock, left to its own devices, might
begin to run slow, due to the gradual accumulation of rust on its gears.
It would, as you say, "progress according to its usual rate in local
conditions, ignoring any sort of 'universal time.' "
However, people even back in those allegedly more primitive times were
able to recognize what supposedly "modern" relativists do not: that a
clock left to its own devices and allowed to progress at its usual rate
in local conditions, ignoring any sort of 'universal time,' was next to
useless.
Clocks aren't children, Tom. We don't need to let them "develop
self-esteem" by "expressing their individuality." If we do that, most of
their usefulness is lost. What we have to do, instead, is force them
into agreement with one another by whatever means that may require.
If that flies in the face of Einsteinian dogma, too bad.
Engineers are going to continue to use Newtonian absolute time whether
you and your blinkered cohorts like it or not, Tom. The principle that
forces them to do that even has an acronym: KISS--"Keep it simple,
Stupid."
--Mitchell Jones}***
> > Absolute time--time that advances at the same rate throughout the
> > universe--is the only concept of time that works in the real world.
>
> Not true. It may work in YOUR everyday life, and your rather simplistic
> notions
***{Your view that my opinions are "simplistic"--i.e., that I ignore
the complexities of an issue--is noted. --MJ}***
> of how that extends to the rest of the universe, but it does not
> work in GR. But then, GR has no need for any such global notions,
> because all physics is local.
***{The engineers who designed our communications systems must not know
any physics, then, since they operate on the naive belief that nodes
separated by vast distances are going to routinely have to talk with one
another! Hey, why don't you find some guy in the International Space
Station, get him to agree that you will both use clocks that have never
been set, and which only by random chance will agree with one another,
and make an appointment to speak to him again by radio in a few months!
I'll bet he stands you up! :-) --MJ}***
> > If the relativists don't like that, let 'em howl.
>
> It's not just "relativists" that "don't like" your attempt to do science by
> assertion, it is every scientist who ever lived. You must develop a theory,
> not just make disconnected statements about how you THINK the world works, or
> about how you HOPE it does.
***{Your expert opinions about my thought processes are noted, and have
been placed in the appropriate receptacle. --MJ}***
> And you must then TEST that theory. Such armchair
> theorizing worked for Aristotle; nobody accepts it today....
***{That's pretty funny, since your words are a perfect description of
what you are doing. :-) --Mitchell Jones}***
> > The reality is that their precious GPS would not work, if clocks in the
> > GPS satellites were not designed to advance at the same rate as
> > standard clocks on the ground.
>
> This is true (once stated properly, which you did not
***{By "stated properly," of course, you mean "stated in such a way as
to obscure the fact that this procedure flies in the face of the
hysterically preposterous, non-mathematical, natural-language verbiage
known as the "Theory of Relativity." --MJ}***
> ). Of course that's why
> the GPS was designed as it was, with rate offsets in the satellite clocks. But
> there is no notion of "absolute time" here,
***{Not overtly, of course. You guys have been looking down in haughty
disdain from your government-funded academic sinecures for a hundred
years, sneering at anyone who overtly questioned your transparently
preposterous nonsense, punishing them in any way available to you,
labeling their opinions as "parochial," or "simplistic," or "ignorant,"
or with whatever other pejoratives came to mind. Result: almost no one
has dared to stand up to you, including the engineers you had to hire to
make your schemes work. But the fact that they did not, for the most
part, openly question your ridiculous dogma, did not prevent them from
setting their clocks--which means: they behaved in accordance with the
notion that time advances at a constant rate throughout the universe,
even while, by their verbal utterances or by the nodding of their heads,
they seemed to be agreeing with you. And they will continue to set their
clocks, because the KISS principle forces them to do it, and eventually,
if mankind survives--by no means a sure bet--the truth will out. Someone
will say, "Why are we all spouting this nonsense, while doing the
opposite?" At that point, your ridiculous house of cards will come
tumbling down. --MJ}***
> it's just that the GPS approach is the
> simplest and most straightforward way to construct locally-Minkowski
> coordinates in a region near earth, using atomic clocks both on the ground and in
> satellites.
***{Men are going to set their clocks as long as men exist, and that
fact will, at all places and times, imply that you guys are totally,
completely, and utterly wrong, whether anyone bothers to say so or not.
--MJ}***
> It is not the only way....
***{No, it's just the right way. Doing things the wrong way is always an
option. You can, for example, remain standing in front of an onrushing
truck and get gelatinized, or you can step aside. It's your call.
--MJ}***
> > Result: they are hoist by their own petard.
>
> No. The problems and inconsistencies are all yours.
***{Wrong again. --MJ}***
Yousuf Khan
> My incredibly profound view of the arrow of time is that "stuff
> happens".
>
> The second law based arrow confirms rather than overcomes this, since
> a system started in a purely random state will, according to the
> microscopic laws of motion, attain a _more_ random state winding the
> clock either forward or backward. The fact that we don't observe this
> is a result of an improbable boundary condition after which, well,
> stuff happened. I'm at least halfway serious. I think time is a
> primitive. BTW, the microscopic reversibility (if such it be) is a
> red herring: we might as well ask why peacocks have multiple colored
> tails and yet there is an arrow of time. Even if we _did_ have
> microscopically irreversible laws, we likely would have the increase
> in entropy going either direction from a starting state chosen at
> random. Again we would come back to the non-random nature of the
> current state, and its dependence on a highly ordered boundary
> condition, after which, stuff happened.
>
Sean Carroll has proposal where he says that there was a universe before
our current universe, but it was a static universe, with nothing but
random fluctuations. Stuff would happen in it, and then unhappen just as
easily.
He proposes that our current universe happened as a random fluctuation
that just gathered steam and grew and grew. Random fluctuations in this
new universe have a directional bias, and stuff doesn't unhappen quite
as easily.
What Is Time? One Physicist Hunts for the Ultimate Theory | Wired
Science | Wired.com
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/
Yousuf Khan
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> Sean Carroll has proposal where he says that there was a universe before
> our current universe, but it was a static universe, with nothing but
> random fluctuations. Stuff would happen in it, and then unhappen just as
> easily.
>
> He proposes that our current universe happened as a random fluctuation
> that just gathered steam and grew and grew. Random fluctuations in this
> new universe have a directional bias, and stuff doesn't unhappen quite
> as easily.
>
Oh, fer shur man! Like....WOWWW!
Or you could say that causality rather than time determines the
sequence of events in nature, and skip Mr. Carroll's fantasies about
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.
Robert Higgins
wrote:
Speaking of hand-waving, could you give a non-hand-waving answer to my
question? I've asked you several times WHICH (college/University-
level) physics courses you've satisfactorily completed.
Edward Green
wrote:
> On Jun 29, 4:45 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sean Carroll has proposal where he says that there was a universe before
> > our current universe, but it was a static universe, with nothing but
> > random fluctuations. Stuff would happen in it, and then unhappen just as
> > easily.
In other words, it was heat dead.
> > He proposes that our current universe happened as a random fluctuation
> > that just gathered steam and grew and grew. Random fluctuations in this
> > new universe have a directional bias, and stuff doesn't unhappen quite
> > as easily.
But even a heat dead universe, left to itself for infinite time, will
develop whopping big fluctuations.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Oh, fer shur man! Like....WOWWW!
>
> Or you could say that causality rather than time determines the
> sequence of events in nature, and skip Mr. Carroll's fantasies about
> 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.
Wow. That's a pretty strong accusation. I guess I will have to read
the cited account to see if I have a strong opinion too, or merely
(consonant with my meta-philosophy of "stuff happening") a "whatever".
Robert L. Oldershaw
wrote:
>
> Speaking of hand-waving, could you give a non-hand-waving answer to my
> question? I've asked you several times WHICH (college/University-
-------------------------------------------------------
Next, I suppose you will want to know how many "Hail Bohr"s I have
said.
Or whether I subscribe to "Popular Mechanics".
Robert Higgins
wrote:
> On Jun 29, 5:52 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Speaking of hand-waving, could you give a non-hand-waving answer to my
> > question? I've asked you several times WHICH (college/University-
> > level) physics courses you've satisfactorily completed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Next, I suppose you will want to know how many "Hail Bohr"s I have
> said.
No. You present yourself as a self-styled academic, even using an
email address of a University to which you have no professional
affiliation. This is obviously intentionally deceptive, if not
terribly effective. First thing I did when I saw your email address/
URL was look at the faculty listings for Amherst, and saw that you
weren't on the list. You try to solve the types of problems that
academics try to solve, and you try (very poorly) to write manuscripts
in the style of academics. Questions of academic preparation and
background are entirely appropriate. Just because someone has
extensive preparation and training in the sciences does not make them
infallible, but it sets a minimal level and standard of competence.
At least if you responded,"I have completed no physics courses at the
college level", I could respect your honesty and forthrightness.
>
> Or whether I subscribe to "Popular Mechanics".
Just be honest, and respond,"I have completed no physics or
mathematics or chemistry courses at the College level."
BURT
The way to look at time is that it is going forward. And the arrow
isn't a relative like up and down.
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
[...]
> 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.
Robert L. Oldershaw
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?
eric gisse
[...]
>> Or whether I subscribe to "Popular Mechanics".
>
> Just be honest, and respond,"I have completed no physics or
> mathematics or chemistry courses at the College level."
>
>>
>> RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Robert is old. I figure him to be in his 60's now.
Since he writes such tripe I never took the time to look at how far back
he's been publishing this shit, but now that I have I see that he's been
doing it for the better part of 30 years.
He claims to have gone to UW, but it was so long ago that he thinks the
Physics library (reading room, what the fuck ever) is in a different
building that hasn't been used for that purpose for I figure to be at least
a decade.
He's been on the fringe for decades, and is simply running out places that
put up with his shit. You can see that from the gradual decrease of impact
factor (nee quality factor) of the journals. He used to get stuff into ApJ
and AJoP, now all he gets is crank journals.
That's why he's here. He has nowhere left to go.
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> Respect your betters.
-----------------------------------------------------
I do, but you do not.
Sam Wormley
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".
Huang
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 ?
Robert L. Oldershaw
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
spudnik
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
Robert Higgins
wrote:
> On Jun 29, 7:40 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...@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?
eric gisse
[...]
>>
>> 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?
Huang
wrote:
> On Jun 30, 1:37 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@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.
>
> 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.
Robert L. Oldershaw
wrote:
> Pity your understanding is poor, and the quality of
> your ideas inferior.
-----------------------------------------------
But if you steadfastly aviod my website, how would you know?
'When the next great awakening arrives in this world, you will know it
by this sign, that all the dunces are in confederacy against
it.' (apol. to R. Feynman and J. Swift)
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> 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.
Nature has no lower bound, nor any upper bound.
Nature is an infinitely infinite discrete hierarchy of self-similar
systems.
Any respectable natural philosopher can see that.
Huang
wrote:
Please think for a second about one other very "minor" issue which
bears directly on your thesis. The issue of sensitive dependence on
initial conditions.
Please explain to me how on earth you can ever expect to sufficiently
isolate _any_ experiement from minute perturbations which are caused
by an observer, because it is proveable that mathematical models which
exhibit chaos are inextricably linked to this notion.
Because such perturbations caused by the mere presence of an observer
or instrument may affect the sensitive dependence of initial
conditions in a dynamical system, it does seem a bit hopeless to say
that chaos occurs in nature even if you observed it, because there is
no way to discern if you yourself might have caused it merely by being
present to witness it.
Such perturbations can be small, very small. You might even call them
"minor", were it not for the fact that there is presently no
engineerable answer.
I'd love to see that instrumentation, and no I dont think that spooky
distant action stuff will be any type of bailout for this either.
Im not saying that you are wrong because I cannot prove one way or the
other, but would you agree that ANY manifold whether abstract or
tangible may be regarded trivially as a fractal at iteration n=1 ??
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
If things always move forward in space the idea of time always going
forward is a perfect match.
Mitch Raemsch
Robert L. Oldershaw
-----------------------------------------
(1) I agree that any system in nature is a nonlinear dynamical system
that can exhibit deterministic chaos and its sesnitive dependence on
initial conditions, etc.
This limits the prefection of our observations, especially as you go
to ever-smaller Scales. Think quantum coherence/ decoherence, for
example.
Is this any reason to say we cannot observe/know anthing? Hardly!
Atmospheric physics is a classic of NLDS. Much can be observed,
studied, and understood. Complete predictability - forget it. Don't
merely focus on what you cannot know. What you can know is more
important.
Also we can observe large-scale systems like stars and galaxies
virtually without disturbing them.
(2) Consider carefully:
Nature is an infinite hierarchy.
The infinite hierarchy is divided into discrete Scales.
The Scales are completely equivalent except for discrete differences
in mass, length, time scales.
There is one unified physics for one unified cosmos.
Forget your Platonic mathematics and look at nature. Observe a
subatomic particle, observe a neutron star, observe a typical spiral
galaxy. Then compare their size, mass and spin properties. Repeat for
atoms and stars. Getting a picture yet?
Sam Wormley
> Nature has no lower bound, nor any upper bound.
>
> Nature is an infinitely infinite discrete hierarchy of self-similar
> systems.
>
> Any respectable natural philosopher can see that.
You missed part of the sentence--Any respectable natural philosopher
can see that that infinitely infinite discrete hierarchy of
self-similar systems is contradicted by observation.
Robert L. Oldershaw
See sci.physics.research : "Arrow of Time"
--------------------------------------------------------
I have 3 comments on your last post.
(1) In the Rube Goldberg set-up there is what we might call a
linear causality. But this is a cartoon, and this is not the
causality model I espouse.
Take any spacetime point. It has a past light cone that
distinguishes the set of events that are causally relatable
to the specific spacetime point, and those that are not.
There are an infinite number of causal events that can
and do influence what happens at the specific spacetime
point, many having infinitessimal effects and some having
significant effects. As you get closer in time to the specific
spacetime event the direct causal influences decrease in
number and increase in relative significance.
Causality in nature is not linear. It is more like an incredibly
rich tapestry with an infinite number of causal threads, which
can intimately interact. This is nicely discussed in the fine
book by Ivars Ekeland titled "The Best Of All Possible Worlds".
(2) So we have established that:
Unlit match ---> Lit match,
is a fully causal process.
A separate issue is our ability to provide an exact model of
that causal process.
We could say that there is an "arrow of time" that dictates
the motion-friction-heat-chemical reaction-fire ordering of
events. Or we could say that the sequence of events is physically
ordered by physical processes, e.g., initial heat triggers
chemical reactions, which are exothermal and release additional
heat, which raises the match head to the combustion temperature,
and voila!
Then I would ask whether time in some metaphysical way time
orders the causal sequence or whether the sequence of causality
orders what we calll relational "time". I see causality as more
fundamental, and time as a less fundamental ordering relation.
Perhaps that is a "naive" interpretation, or perhaps simplex signilum
veri.
(3) Some physics books say that electric charges are the
direct and fully causal sources and sinks of the electric field.
Are these physics texts wrong?
Huang
galaxy. The galaxy is composed of lots of self similar structures like
atoms and whatnot, and its a big scalar fractal on multiple scales and
maybe you can even model it somehow.
Well, explain me this :
What happens when you have a big chunk of it that decays due to
radiodecay, or if your galaxy collides with another galaxy.
Are two colliding galaxies to be regarded as a fractal somehow ?
Maybe they are.
Well, I need to see some math. Just saying it is a hand wave. I need
to see a mathematical model, whether stochastic, nonstochastic, mixed,
whatever, something that produces a universe on my computer screen
when you hit the "enter" button.
eric gisse
So, there's no reaction that'll convince you that you are wrong.
If people agree with you, you are right.
If people disagree with you, you are right.
If people ignore you, you are right.
>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Sam Wormley
You certainly did NOT address the fact that observation contradicts
an infinitely infinite discrete hierarchy of self-similar systems
making up the universe.
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> Are two colliding galaxies to be regarded as a fractal somehow ?
>
Forget the math for now. Study nature, not Platonic symbols.
Consider subatomic nuclei and galaxies.
Their radii and spin periods and oscillation periods are related by
the discrete self-similar scaling laws [which are mathematical, by the
way] of Discrete Scale Relativity [which is mathematical; it's General
Relativity with a new discrete self-similar symmetry included].
Ask yourself: do subatomic nuclei and galaxies do the same things.
Most definitely! They are ultracompact objects that can collide and
merge. They can become unstable and eject ultracompact objects from
their interiors [think beta decay]. Can you identify any physical
behavior that is not the same for these analogues on such vastly
different size scales?
Think about it.
Sam Wormley
> Consider subatomic nuclei and galaxies.
>
> Their radii and spin periods and oscillation periods are related by
> the discrete self-similar scaling laws [which are mathematical, by the
> way] of Discrete Scale Relativity [which is mathematical; it's General
> Relativity with a new discrete self-similar symmetry included].
>
Actually they are not!
hanson
2) Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>, who is a Green
turd & a fanatical Global Warmer is nevertheless very good
for scanning & posting Science news articles & so he wrote:
3) Older'n Shallow Robert L. Oldershaw believes that his own
tripe is the truth & he dictates nature what to do & so he wrote:
4) The "jowr" aka "junior of whining relativists", eric gisse
<jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> prefers to loud mouth here, instead
of getting his BSc that he's been working on now for 6 years, wrote:
>
hanson wrote:
So, that intro then is one of an infinite #s of "Arrows of Time",
where time is simply a sequence of events. --- Fuck clocks.
They are nothing but anthropic *sequencers* in the first place...
and have no more consequences then humans do who are no
consequential event in the scheme of cosmic happenings...
[so, snipped crap from 2, 3 & 4]
>
Hung Lo wrote:
Entire tripe of Hung Lo is in here:
<http://tinyurl.com/Hung-Lo-Fractal-Universe> [5]
wherein there are these, Hung Lo's, salient remarks:
I wont say that there are or are not fractals in nature, but
gasket (chaos game)... yada,. yada, yada... generate ...
stochastic algorithms ... random variables... manifold...
morphogenesis... iteration"... .. is the universe a fractal ?
are typically chaotic, a behaviour as being only one of a _
myriad_ of possible modalities, so, can you call it chaotic or
fractal ? -- Better definitions would be extremely helpful.
>
hanson wrote:
Huang, your moaning about "Better definitions would be"
will remain so, as long as science will exist because each
individual perceives nature subtly different. Science is a
human enterprise & hence is beset with human emotions,
agendae and schemes. Science is operating the same way
as does religion, the military or bureaucracies.. and is just
as corrupt. Science like all other disciplines train & coerce
their novices & youngsters into being fanatical believers...
like Einstein Dingleberries or Suicide bomber... both of
whom defend their belief with hysterical irrationality...
>
In [5] you ask whether the universe is fractal or chaotic.
That all depends how you model it. There may never be a
"true" answer to it, just like there is no religion or ideology
that is true... except for the believer.
>
However, ALL models of the universe do have one thing
in common. You can't find a single model, whose author
or adherents do not use the words .. it's "LIKE" in their
proselitizing/pimping of their model to their audiences. So
there is an undercurrent in/with this "it's like" that seems to
distill intuitively some type of order out of the **seeming**
chaos.
>
"Seeming" because Chaos is an exceedingly unstable state.
Chaos immediately begins to organize & assemble (evolve)
into temporary "Like" systems of different magnitudes and
complexity... If that were not so then you would not be here.
Who, what or whether there is an organizer or assembler...
that is a possibility that religions make use of with very great
success..
>
"Likes" are not identical clones, or exact bigger or smaller
copies but it appears that the universe is "Self-Similar" ...
over all its scales and domains, as can be seen empirically
from atoms to galaxies, from trees to coast lines which are
all Self-Similar "Likes" that appear to be some kind of
re-iterations of the same theme.
How the different themes of the different hierarchies
do relates and connect to each other has not been the
object of much theoretical nor experimental studies, yet...
N_A, Avogadro's number seems to be a reoccurring
fractal step size...
>
Every experimental physicist knows that experiments to
demonstrate such models are very difficult cuz peeling
out suitable variables out of the matrix or background
is harder then the experiment itself... Worse, it starts with
the enigma of finding suitable definitions.. which brings us
back to the start of the issue... that is a re-iteration in itself...
and from which there is apparently NO escape from.
>
Of course there is no escape.. because we are part of the
show, no matter whether we like to be cool observers or
fanatical emotional sluggers, in the thick of it are, like 2,
3 or 4 above .... ahahahaha ...
>
So then, Huang, I throughly enjoyed your musings.
I thank you for the laughs... Take care, Huang...
ahahaha... ahahanson
>
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Yousuf Khan
> Oh, fer shur man! Like....WOWWW!
>
> sequence of events in nature, and skip Mr. Carroll's fantasies about
> from unscrambling. I grant that his hand-waving arguments are
> creative, but they are also completely nuts.
>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Alright, I'll bite, and give you the time of day to explain yourself.
What exactly are you saying that is any different than what we call
"causal time"?
Yousuf Khan
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> Alright, I'll bite, and give you the time of day to explain yourself.
> What exactly are you saying that is any different than what we call
> "causal time"?
Sean M. Carroll's argument, and that of many other physicists, is
that:
(1) the "laws of physics in the microcosm are reversible"
(2) time has an arrow, it only goes one way.
(3) It's all the fault of the Big Bang, multiverses, Boltzmann Brains,
extra dimensions, etc.
--------------------------------------------
RLO's argument is that:
(a) the "laws" [read artifical human models] are reversible, but
nature's physical systems and their interactions are NOT. Real
physical systems and interactions are irreversible. Always.
(b) Causality is the first and most fundamental principle of nature.
(c) It is causality that determines the arrow, not time. Time is a
purely relational concept we use to order causal sequences, and to
measure the relative rates at which two causal sequences occur.
A bit subtle, I admit. But a thousand times better than Carroll's
untestable postmodern pseudoscience.
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Robert L. Oldershaw
Put up or shut up.
Let's see you prove your assertion.
This should be amusing.
Sam Wormley
You first, bubba. Why is it that cranks and trolls never ever can
support their theories with actual observational data. I don't know
why you post in sci.physics, Oldershaw, but so far your posting
record is all bluff and putting down other posters. You put up shut
up, bubba!
Huang
>
> - Show quoted text -
OMG this line of "research" is really going places ............
JT
> On Jun 19, 10:58 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > An interesting discussion has started at sci.physics.research
> > concerning the nature of the "arrow of time"
>
> Consider these Arrows
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#Arrows
Well the spatial dimensions in special relativity is all fucked up.
Since events are not local they may not behave the way we are
accustomed to but they will abey the logic of causality in some form.
So we have a timeline that is a rubberband but the reality outside the
bubble of universe is still stringent in fact it will be stringent in
every point of universe that studies our universe it will follow the
line of causality but with both spatial and timelike distorsion, none
of those is however proved.
But even if we suppose there is local timelines, the causality will
measure and describe events in a logical consise and coherent way. And
that is from any point that studies the event....s , in special
relativity that is not the case however it is a faulthy theory, that
can not give a coherent description of events separated by time and
spatial.
JT
BURT
wrote:
There is only one direction of time and that is ahead. It is the same
for space. You are always moving ahead in space-time.
Mitch Raemsch
JT
>
> - Visa citerad text -
Actually you could consider a prerendered universe where our realtime
destinies already settled as they go along.
You think that decision just not made yet.
JT