|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Life and the Inverse square! C and C please
Comments and criticism welcome.
It should be obvious to most the defining role that inverse square relationships play in the physical universe. And of the intuitive picture that the larger the mass, the larger it's gravity well or basin of attraction. So that any random path through space is more likely to find itself pulled into the larger gravity well, than the smaller one. Another inverse square law, the power law, has an equally dominant role in ...living systems. In that the higher the fitness peak, the larger it's basin of attraction. So that any random path through possibility space is more likely to be attracted to the higher fitness peak, than a smaller one. And the system hill-climbs. Power Law "Power-law relations characterize a staggering number of naturally occurring phenomena, and this is one of the principal reasons why they have attracted such wide interest. For instance, inverse-square laws, such as gravitation and the Coulomb force, are power laws, as are many common mathematical formulae such as the quadratic law of area of the circle" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law But equally dominant in the behavior of the natural world is random interactions. The study of random Boolean networks show that a totally disordered system, when disturbed in a complex way, tends to produce spontaneous cyclic order. Providing a clear path from Second Law forces to those of Self Organizing or evolving systems. The transition from disorder to order is a result of random interactions. It is in this way the physical and living worlds tend to create spontaneous order, which evolves over time to every higher emergent properties. From a random soup, sufficiently perturbed, generates cyclic motion. Then the natural interactions between random paths in space and inverse square forces provide the impetus for relentless hill-climbing or evolution. A common process of evolution for the physical and living realms. Where the ultimate impetus is well known to all. Second and inverse square laws, randomly interacting. So, a black hole and life should be equally rare yet equally inevitable. The source of all order, then, is the critical interaction between quantum-like and classical-like behavior. Where both are intractably entangled so that one can't tell which dominates the system behavior. s |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Life and the Inverse square! C and C please
"Jonathan" wrote in message ... Comments and criticism welcome. It should be obvious to most the defining role that inverse square relationships play in the physical universe. And of the intuitive picture that the larger the mass, the larger it's gravity well or basin of attraction. So that any random path through space is more likely to find itself pulled into the larger gravity well, than the smaller one. Utter bunk; the Moon is littered with craters where it was struck by bodies that missed Earth and the Sun. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Life and the Inverse square! C and C please
"Androcles" wrote in message ... "Jonathan" wrote in message ... Comments and criticism welcome. It should be obvious to most the defining role that inverse square relationships play in the physical universe. And of the intuitive picture that the larger the mass, the larger it's gravity well or basin of attraction. So that any random path through space is more likely to find itself pulled into the larger gravity well, than the smaller one. Utter bunk; the Moon is littered with craters where it was struck by bodies that missed Earth and the Sun. Oh, so you're saying more objects are likely to be gravitationally pulled into the Earth, than say the...Sun? I was speaking 'statistically', where a single counter example is not a proper response. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Life and the Inverse square! C and C please
"Jonathan" wrote in message ... "Androcles" wrote in message ... "Jonathan" wrote in message ... Comments and criticism welcome. It should be obvious to most the defining role that inverse square relationships play in the physical universe. And of the intuitive picture that the larger the mass, the larger it's gravity well or basin of attraction. So that any random path through space is more likely to find itself pulled into the larger gravity well, than the smaller one. Utter bunk; the Moon is littered with craters where it was struck by bodies that missed Earth and the Sun. Oh, so you're saying more objects are likely to be gravitationally pulled into the Earth, than say the...Sun? I was speaking 'statistically', where a single counter example is not a proper response. And I said that was utter bunk; I did not say one crater, numbnuts. Statistically the number of craters on the Moon are not a single counter example. Statistically the number of hits per unit area on the Moon will be the same as the number per unit area that hit the Earth or the Sun. You are making the assumption that if the rock starts from rest it will gravitate toward the greater of two masses, but given any inverse square law even that unlikely scenario is wrong or Schumaker-Levy would have hit the Sun instead of Jupiter. Now that IS a single counter example, all 21 of them. http://www.space.com/common/media/vi...deoRef=sl9_ust |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Life and the Inverse square! C and C please
Jonathan wrote:
Comments and criticism welcome. Uncle Al's new bull**** meters have their dials buffered in heavy mineral oil. It should be obvious to most the defining role that inverse square relationships play in the physical universe. Doesn't work for magnetic dipoles, power lines, capacitor plates, lasers, Casimir effect, Strong force, Weak force... artillery shells, rain. Tell us about Brownian motion, Fickian diffusion, and 3-D random walk. And of the intuitive picture that the larger the mass, the larger it's gravity well or basin of attraction. Neutron stars are about 15 miles in diameter, 1.8x10^11 surface gees. Compare the masses, diameters, and gravitations of Jupiter and Saturn. So that any random path through space is more likely to find itself pulled into the larger gravity well, than the smaller one. Hyperbolic orbits, gravitational slingshots. Another inverse square law, the power law, has an equally dominant role in ...living systems. BULL****. Animal basal metabolism is proportional to 3/4 power of body mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiber%27s_law In that the higher the fitness peak, the larger it's basin of attraction. So that any random path through possibility space is more likely to be attracted to the higher fitness peak, than a smaller one. And the system hill-climbs. BULL****. Regression toward the mean. Human evolution vs. slums and Third World garbage midden countries. Gresham's Law. Washington, DC. Power Law "Power-law relations characterize a staggering number of naturally occurring phenomena, [snip pontification] Oh, wow - a proponent of Zipf's law. Power laws indicate networks. The source of all order, then, is the critical interaction between quantum-like and classical-like behavior. Where both are intractably entangled so that one can't tell which dominates the system behavior. BULL****. If the universe is not reductionist then it can be modeled by reductionist propositions but not accurately modeled by reductionist propositions. pookie pookie -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Life and the Inverse square! C and C please
Androcles wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote: Comments and criticism welcome. Comparing inverse square and randomness to get to self organizing systems is a nice idea, but it seems better material for philospohy groups than space groups. Or maybe math groups as it's like a discussion of chaotic systems? Especially drawing inverse square situations to domains other than gravity - That's subject matter for other groups. It should be obvious to most the defining role that inverse square relationships play in the physical universe. And of the intuitive picture that the larger the mass, the larger it's gravity well or basin of attraction. So that any random path through space is more likely to find itself pulled into the larger gravity well, than the smaller one. Utter bunk; the Moon is littered with craters where it was struck by bodies that missed Earth and the Sun. I would like to check your bunk claim - Compare a body with the mass of the Moon out in interstellar space with a body with the mass of the Moon orbitting a planet like Earth orbitting a star like Sol. Both the same age to within a couple of percent. Your claim here is the body in interstellar space has the same crater density as the Moon because the gravity wells of the other nearby bodies are not relevant. Jonathan's claim is that the Moon has a higher density of craters because it is in the gravity wells of Earth and Sol and both of those gravity wells sweep mass to a greater concentration here than the smaller moon would interstellar space. For that matter Jonathan's claim is that a body with the mass of the Moon orbiting Jupiter would have a higher crater density than our Moon here. I'd sure like to see the math that demonstrates your claim that the crater densities of bodies around the galaxy all have the same median point plus or minus some standard deviation. Given the existance of stars and galaxies at all I'm quite dubious of your bunk claim. One problem with measuring crater density is any body formed by aggregation should be completely covered with craters no matter its age. The only way to get fewer craters is to reset the surface somehow like weather on Earth. So it's not the crater density to be measured but the crater age distribution - Jupiter's moons should have newer craters than our Moon in Johanthans hypothesis. Stars at least and maybe galaxies are supposed to form from clouds because random density variations trigger enough gravity gradiant that they collaspe into themselves. This process is supposed to work for any range of mass starting at a planetoid big enough to have a spherical shape from its own gravity through clusters of galaxies that are close enough that the member galaxies orbit the cluster's common center of mass. An interesting implication is that a large enough galaxy cluster will be roughly spherical while a small enough gaxaly cluster will look random in position. You should be able to tell a large galaxy cluster by appearance but only tell a small galaxy cluster by measuring distances and speed to see if the members calculate out as gravitationally bound. Where Jonathan's hypothesis breaks down is he applies it to situations dominated by chemistry - life - not by situations dominated by gravity - plantoids big enough to have a spherical shape and objects of any larger scale. It's interesting to speculate that inverse square behavior is key to self organizing systems on scales other than gravity, but how to get enough data on such a speculation to be able to apply math to it? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Life and the Inverse square! C and C please
On 1/22/10 10:57 AM, Jonathan wrote:
... a black hole and life should be equally rare yet equally inevitable. There is plenty of both. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Life and the Inverse square! C and C please
On Jan 22, 12:16*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
Jonathan wrote: Comments and criticism welcome. Uncle Al's new bull**** meters have their dials buffered in heavy mineral oil. thanks uncle al, you save alot of people alot of bull**** reading. and with style that always gives a good laughter |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Life and the Inverse square! C and C please
"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: Where Jonathan's hypothesis breaks down is he applies it to situations dominated by chemistry - life - not by situations dominated by gravity - plantoids big enough to have a spherical shape and objects of any larger scale. Of course that's always been the problem, how to compare such entirely different systems, so that a physicist can talk to a biologist, or an sociologist in a common mathematics. Complexity science has made that possible. This is done by abstractly defining system output or behavior. The very new math of complexity science is here. http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/ The template or 'integral' to this new math is a simple cloud. Where the opposing behaviors of condensation and evaporation are critically interacting, so that one can't tell which of the two tendencies dominate the system. Which rule of operation wins? Those rules that make the system coalesce or dissipate? While at the phase transition between these two forces for constraint and freedom, the whole self tunes to the optimum and produce emergent or new properties found in neither opposite, such as lighting and hurricanes etc. It 'evolves' to a higher level of order as a result of this critical behavior. There are three universal system behaviors which can be defined abstractly, so that they apply to any system regardless of the differing component details. At the phase transition between subcritical and supercritical behavior, yields the evolving forces of critical behavior. When at the threshold /between/ the forces of constraint and freedom, /yields/ emergent or spontaneous higher order. Starting in the generic..... Subcritical Critical Supercritcal Static Dynamic Chaotic Constraint Order Freedom Analogous of course to Solid Fluid Gas So now let's define some various specific systems in these terms. Condensation Cloud Evaporation Rule of Law Democracy Anarchy Genetics Selection Mutation Science Art Religion Facts Genius Imagination Matter Light Energy Newton Einstein Heisenberg Particles Fluids Waves Static Dynamic Chaotic Or when Producers and Consumers are intractably entangled, so that one can't tell which dominates, the system produces emergent properties, self correcting mechanisms like those of the ethereal Market Forces which guide the whole towards the optimum...criticality. The common impetus for the evolution of physical and living systems is the critical interaction between the system specific forces for ...classical and quantum behavior. So that one can't tell which dominates. As in a cloud, light, an emotion or a universe. Which wins? Gravity or Expansion.....can't really tell. Which wins? Particles or waves.......50/50 Which wins in a could? Evaporation or Condensation.....neither Which wins? Genetics or Mutation? ? Where Light and Motion are in an unstable equilibrium between each other. So that both and neither wins, such as a planet in the water zone. It's hard to call any Unified Theory ...Grand, unless life is also included and directly related to classical and quantum worlds. At the phase transition between quantum and classical motion yields ....self organizing systems and life. At the phase transition between Newton and Heisenberg emerges ......Darwin. Jonathan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Life and the Inverse square! C and C please
"Uncle Al" wrote in message ... Jonathan wrote: Comments and criticism welcome. Uncle Al's new bull**** meters have their dials buffered in heavy mineral oil. It should be obvious to most the defining role that inverse square relationships play in the physical universe. You're arguments are disingenuine. Doesn't work for magnetic dipoles, But a dipole is two point charges, and what relationships do point charges follow? Inverse square of course, a dipole just turns them into inverse cubed. power lines, capacitor plates, But electric fields do. lasers, But light and electromagnetism follows an inverse square. Casimir effect, Strong force, Weak force But the nuclear force and protons do. ... artillery shells, But sound follows an inverse square law. As does pressure and chemical bonds. Not to mention it's flight. rain. You mean when under the influence of gravity?? Or the chemical bonds or what? Tell us about Brownian motion, Fickian diffusion, and 3-D random walk. My goodness, such motion occurs for instance when the inverse square laws of molecular forces are allowed to randomly push on a relativly small object in suspension. But nice try anyways. And of the intuitive picture that the larger the mass, the larger it's gravity well or basin of attraction. Neutron stars are about 15 miles in diameter, 1.8x10^11 surface gees. Compare the masses, diameters, and gravitations of Jupiter and Saturn. I swear if I said the sky was blue, I'd get a response just as absurd. Which mass has a greater effect at the same distances, a larger one or a smaller one? You seem to be disagreeing with me when I simply state that gravity gets weaker with distance. Please, for once, don't argue just to hear your own noise. So that any random path through space is more likely to find itself pulled into the larger gravity well, than the smaller one. Hyperbolic orbits, gravitational slingshots. I get it. But I specifically referred to likelihood. Which means a statistical view, which does not care much about one-off examples. With which you base all of your responses. Non sequetor I think the term is. All of your response is illogical. Another inverse square law, the power law, has an equally dominant role in ...living systems. BULL****. Animal basal metabolism is proportional to 3/4 power of body mass. Let me quote wiki.... "Metabolism is the set of chemical reactions that happen in living organisms to ...." "Classically, chemical reactions encompass changes that strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds....." "A chemical bond is the attraction caused by the electromagnetic force..... In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles. The electromagnetic field is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. The electric field surrounding a point charge is given by Coulomb's law: And do YOU know what form Coulomb's law takes? Of course, an inverse square law. The inverse square law defines, gravity, matter and light. That pretty much covers the physical universe Mr Argue over anything no matter what. BULL****. If the universe is not reductionist What does that mean? I don't speak gibberish. Are you saying the universe has no components? That you are unable to distinguish between a part and a system? then it can be modeled by reductionist propositions Ya, in the way it's modeled now. With eleventy thousand different scientific disciplines. but not accurately modeled by reductionist propositions. Not clearly, or simply modeled that is. One simply cannot totally remove the observer from the observed. Unless you're claiming othewise. Which you no doubt will since I since the reverse. When you were ten years old, you must have been a unsufferably annoying child. Jonathan s pookie pookie -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Neutrinos,Obey Inverse Square Law??? | [email protected] | Misc | 13 | March 26th 08 10:23 PM |
Dark matter vs. modifications of the gravitational inverse-square law. Results from planetary motion in the solar system | Joseph Lazio | Astronomy Misc | 3 | July 9th 06 05:21 PM |
inverse-square law through geometry | Brian Tung | Amateur Astronomy | 13 | November 10th 04 04:21 PM |
The inverse square law,and life on Earth | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 14 | March 30th 04 02:29 PM |
Inverse Square Law | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 4 | January 4th 04 01:03 PM |