To Aleksandr Timofeev about Butusov's papers

From:Aleksandr Timofeev )
Subject: To Aleksandr Timofeev about Butusov's papers
Newsgroup:sci.physics, sci.astro
Date:2005-01-13 03:42:24 PST


Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
From:Aleksandr Timofeev (a n )
Subject: The end of Bohr's complementarity principle? (Double)
Newsgroup:sci.physics
Date:2004-12-24 06:50:12 PST
[snip]
…………
I suppose, that first in USSR, Butusov has applied
of the Fibonacci numbers in mathematical exposition
of a structure of the solar system.
…………

No, Sasha, no. In my previous post I wrote not simply about Fibonacci
numbers but of definite physical regularities that in any physical
theory precede whatever mathematical modelling. The experience of
previous scientists and my own experience show, if the phenomenology
is free of contradictions, mathematics itself will show, will there be
Fibonacci numbers either some other regularity. Not that is important,
was Butusov first who applied Fibonacci numbers or not. If his
phenomenology has open faults, Fibonacci numbers will not be able to
salvage it, however much would he hide himself behind these numbers.
Can he lift these problems - I will be much pleased for him.

And the same I told you, Sasha. Whether there are strong numerical
regularities or not - this is another question, it may not be cleared
only by way of numerical selection. And note, neither the distances
between celestial bodies nor their masses we know with enough accuracy
which have, suppose, natural numbers. And there basically cannot exist
such exact values, as distances are too variable in time and space.
Masses also permanently change. A meteorite has fallen on the Earth -
the masse changed. Three weeks ago earthquake happened - inertia
momentum changed, axial rotation changed, pole nutation changed. And
this happens with all planets and affects your numbers. Is this
affection small? - yes, in one particular event it is small. But in
the course of evolution these changes are cardinal. Do your numbers
change in the course of evolution? ;-)

Just so I permanently tell you of phenomenology and will be really
happy if you understand the importance and necessity to harness a
horse ahead the cart and to do not put the shaft-horse sideward. ;-)

Best to you,

Sergey

Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
From:Aleksandr Timofeev )
Subject: To Aleksandr Timofeev about Butusov's papers
Newsgroup:sci.physics, sci.astro
Date:2005-01-13 03:42:24 PST


Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
From:Aleksandr Timofeev (a n )
Subject: The end of Bohr's complementarity principle? (Double)
Newsgroup:sci.physics
Date:2004-12-24 06:50:12 PST
[snip]
............
I suppose, that first in USSR, Butusov has applied
of the Fibonacci numbers in mathematical exposition
of a structure of the solar system.
............

No, Sasha, no. In my previous post I wrote not simply
about Fibonacci
numbers but of definite physical regularities that in any physical
theory precede whatever mathematical modelling. The experience of
previous scientists and my own experience show, if the phenomenology
is free of contradictions, mathematics itself will show, will there
be Fibonacci numbers either some other regularity. Not that is
important, was Butusov first who applied Fibonacci numbers or not.

About Fibonacci numbers:

Look at:

================================================== =======
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/index.html
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4a.html
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4b.html
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4c.html

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb4d.html

"A. THE FIBONACCI SERIES, PHI-SERIES AND SYNODIC MEAN
That the attested, ubiquitous, and long-revered constant Phi =
1.61803398875... - The Golden Mean provides the underlying foundations
for these exponential planetary functions should surprise no one. The
value is known to occur in many diverse contexts that range from the
structure of quasi-crystals,3 Penrose Tiles,4 the closely related Phi
and Fibonacci series, growth functions, and even the structure of
galaxies, our own barred-spiral galaxy, the Milky Way included, it
would seem:

http://www.spirasolaris.ca/milkyway4r.gif "

================================================== =======
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 13 Jan 2005 10:24:44 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: "The Fibonacci Spiral Sequence Found In The Smart Model Line
Spectra"
Message-ID:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...6?dmode=source
================================================== =======


Ron Knott, "Fibonacci Numbers and Golden sections in Nature";
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal...fibnat.html#pi...
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal...i/fibnat2.html

================================================== =======

AT
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...b94d04fc4c064?...

================================================== =======

If his
phenomenology has open faults, Fibonacci numbers will not be able to
salvage it, however much would he hide himself behind these numbers.
Can he lift these problems - I will be much pleased for him.

And the same I told you, Sasha. Whether there are strong numerical
regularities or not - this is another question, it may not be cleared
only by way of numerical selection.

Sergey, logic of your argumentation precisely corresponds to
the logic of the Newton's argumentation in his critic of
the Kepler's empirical laws of motion of planets. ;^)))

Fundamental set of the empirical physical laws always will
precede a mathematization of the physical theory, but not
in inverse sequence - the set physical experiments always
will precede of the correct mathematical theory of physical
phenomena.

And note, neither the distances
between celestial bodies nor their masses we know with enough
accuracy
which have, suppose, natural numbers. And there basically cannot
exist
such exact values, as distances are too variable in time and space.
Masses also permanently change. A meteorite has fallen on the Earth -
the masse changed. Three weeks ago earthquake happened - inertia
momentum changed, axial rotation changed, pole nutation changed. And
this happens with all planets and affects your numbers. Is this
affection small? - yes, in one particular event it is small. But in
the course of evolution these changes are cardinal. Do your numbers
change in the course of evolution? ;-)

Just so I permanently tell you of phenomenology and will be really
happy if you understand the importance and necessity to harness a
horse ahead the cart and to do not put the shaft-horse sideward. ;-)

Fundamental set of the empirical physical laws always will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
precede a mathematization of the physical theory,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

but not
in inverse sequence - the set physical experiments always
will precede of the correct mathematical theory of physical
phenomena.

"horse ahead the cart and to do not put the shaft-horse sideward. "
;^)

Best to you,
Aleksand

Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
From:Aleksandr Timofeev )
Subject: To Aleksandr Timofeev about Butusov's papers
Newsgroup:sci.physics, sci.astro
Date:2005-01-13 03:42:24 PST


Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
From:Aleksandr Timofeev (a n )
Subject: The end of Bohr's complementarity principle?
(Double)
Newsgroup:sci.physics
Date:2004-12-24 06:50:12 PST
[snip]
............
I suppose, that first in USSR, Butusov has applied
of the Fibonacci numbers in mathematical exposition
of a structure of the solar system.
............

No, Sasha, no. In my previous post I wrote not simply
about Fibonacci numbers but of definite physical
regularities that in any physical theory precede whatever
mathematical modelling.

The experience of previous scientists and my own
experience show, if the phenomenology is free of
contradictions, mathematics itself will show, will there be
Fibonacci numbers either some other regularity.

In the conceptual set of the phenomenological basis of the
MODERN ORTHODOX PHYSICS miss the EMPIRICAL
LAWS ACCOUNTABLE for the natural MECHANISMS,
which one drive
a mass DISTRIBUTION in COMPOSITE MANY-BODY SYSTEMS.

If you will remain in boundaries of the conceptual set of the
phenomenological basis of the MODERN ORTHODOX PHYSICS,
you can not theoretically explain:

quantity of electron mass,
quantity of mass of a positive proton,
quantity of mass of a neutron,
a mass DISTRIBUTION in the Solar SYSTEM

and TO FIND rigorous ("honest") mathematical SOLUTION
of a many-body PROBLEM, etc. etc..

I have pointed to you examples of trial attempts of SEARCHINGS FOR of
the EMPIRICAL LAWS ACCOUNTABLE for
natural MECHANISMS, which one drive a mass DISTRIBUTION
in COMPOSITE NATURAL MANY-BODY SYSTEMS.


Not that is important,
was Butusov first who applied Fibonacci numbers or not. If his
phenomenology has open faults, Fibonacci numbers will
not be able to salvage it, however much would he hide
himself behind these numbers.
Can he lift these problems - I will be much pleased for him.

I have pointed to you examples of trial attempts of SEARCHINGS FOR of
the EMPIRICAL LAWS ACCOUNTABLE for
natural MECHANISMS, which one drive a mass DISTRIBUTION in
COMPOSITE NATURAL MANY-BODY SYSTEMS.

In the conceptual set of the phenomenological basis of the
MODERN ORTHODOX PHYSICS miss the EMPIRICAL
LAWS ACCOUNTABLE for the natural MECHANISMS,
which one drive a mass DISTRIBUTION in COMPOSITE
MANY-BODY SYSTEMS.

Till now does not exist rigorous (" honest ")
mathematical SOLUTION of a many-body PROBLEM...

*************************************************
Whether it is an INCIDENTAL for MODERN ORTHODOX
PHYSICS a NON-EXISTENCE rigorous ("honest")
mathematical SOLUTION of a many-body PROBLEM?
*************************************************
[snip]


Best to you,

Aleksandr

Dear Sasha,

This is not best way - to excuse incorrect approaches by reason of
difficulties of existing mathematical tool. And the many-body problem
is not so unambiguous as it is thought. If speaking of a system of many
elastically constrained bodies, for one dimension we have this problem
fully solved (analytically, for all possible variants, both linear and
nonlinear); you can check the materials in our journal. I can assure
you, 2-D and 3-D problems are also solvable, only their mathematical
tool will be more complicated. ;-) If we approach the system of many
colliding bodies from the view of nonlinear interaction, it also is
basically solvable, we would simply develop this mathematical tool.

Another meaning has the point where we have a contradiction. First, I
do not belong to "modern orthodox physics". I work in frames of
CLASSICAL PHYSICS. And second: quantum, neither orthodox, nor classical
physics today is able to answer with a sufficient substantiation the
questions you are rising:

quantity of electron mass,
quantity of mass of a positive proton,
quantity of mass of a neutron,
a mass DISTRIBUTION in the Solar SYSTEM

(add to them also the principal question - phenomenology of measure of
inertia ;-) )

But classical physics is able to sequentially substantiate the
approaches to these issues, - and this is just what we do in our
laboratory. And this is incorrect to rely on the fact that we still
have not the phenomenology of this feature, so we may substantiate by
Fibonacci numbers. It would be correct first to find the phenomenology,
then to substantiate the numbers. If you do not so, someone other will
do it. This is the physics. And Butusov well understands it. In my
previous post I raised a number of descriptions made by Butusov that
are physically wrong. What for did he write them? ;-) This means, he
understands, he may not substitute the phenomenology by numerical
manipulations with approximate values of masses and orbits. This is
what about I wrote you in the post to which you responded in so strange
way. Of course, I can go to Usenet. But this will not change the truth
and horses will not begin croaking. ;-) Thus, as for me, it would be
better to come to understanding, and just in phenomenology. This is the
Ariadne thread holding on to which we can come out of labyrinth of
relativistic Minotaur. ;-)

Regards,

Sergey

None wrote:
Dear Sasha,

This is not best way - to excuse incorrect approaches
by reason of difficulties of existing mathematical tool.
And the many-body problem is not so unambiguous as it is
thought. If speaking of a system of many elastically
constrained bodies, for one dimension we have this problem
fully solved (analytically, for all possible variants, both
linear and nonlinear); you can check the materials in our
journal. I can assure you, 2-D and 3-D problems are also
solvable, only their mathematical tool will be more
complicated. ;-)

Really? ;^)

Look at:

http://afrodita.phys.msu.su/download/malyh/atdu.pdf

Pages 51-52

Chapter 4. Algebraic integrals of a motion.
4.1. A problem of N-bodies.

" By the begining of 18 century the numerical solution
of system of the differential equations has allowed
to explain an evolution of elements of orbits of comets
and planets and since then numerous attempts

analytically to decide a problem of N-bodies are done
at any rate for N = 3,

but these attempts are unsuccessful till now.
The reached advance in the solution of a problem
of N-bodies contrasts sharply with spent vast gains:
since 1750 for 1900 there were from above 800 printed
papers on this problem, the part from which one belongs
to greatest mathematicians of a world."

See: Pages 96-99

If we approach the system of many
colliding bodies from the view of nonlinear interaction, it also is
basically solvable, we would simply develop this mathematical tool.

http://afrodita.phys.msu.su/study/malyh/

[snip all the rest for my answer in next my message]
Sincerely yours,
Aleksandr