A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

...WHAT IF ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 17th 11, 05:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default ...WHAT IF ?


Just for the sake of argument, accept the
following statement as scientific fact.

All visible order in the universe, physical or
otherwise, are merely less complex versions
of a biological system.

Chew on that for a minute, what if it's true?
This realization will change everything.

That's the gist of the rather new field of Complexity
Science I hobby in.

When looking at the list of institutions below, it should
be noted how this math applies to all kinds of entirely
different fields. From nuclear bombs to the arts.
That's what's so exciting about this new field.

It's universal.


LSE
http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/research.html

Univ of Mich
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/

Univ of Illinois
http://www.ccsr.uiuc.edu/

Indiani State
http://cnets.indiana.edu/

Arizona State
http://csdc.asu.edu/

Sante Fe
http://www.santafe.edu/


The Use of Complexity Science

"In 2002, the U. S. Department of Education asked the Washington
Center for Complexity and Public Policy to look at how complexity
science is being used -throughout the federal government, in
private foundations, universities, and in independent education
and research centers-"
http://www.hcs.ucla.edu/DoEreport.pdf

Research Findings

A. United States Congress

13 1. Congressional Research Service
13 2. House Science Committee
13 B. Executive Office of the President
13 1. Office of Science and Technology Policy
13 RAND/Science and Technology Policy Institute
14 C. Executive Departments
15 1. Department of Agriculture
15 USDA Forest Service
15 Agricultural Research Service
16 2. Department of Commerce
16 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
16 National Institute of Standards and Technology
17 3. Department of Defense
18 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
19 National Defense University
20 4. Department of Education
21 5. Department of Energy
21 Office of Science
21 National Laboratories
23 Argonne National Laboratory
23 Los Alamos National Laboratory
25 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
26 Sandia National Laboratories
27
2 National Nuclear Security Administration
29 6. Department of Health and Human Services
30 7. Department of Homeland Security
31 8. Department of Housing and Urban Development
31 9. Department of the Interior
32 US Geological Survey
32 10. Department of Justice
32 Federal Bureau of Investigation
32 11. Department of Labor
33 12. Department of State
34 Foreign Service Institute
34 English Teaching Forum
34 13. Department of Transportation
35 Planning in Air Traffic Control
35 Application of Agent Technology to Traffic Simulation
35 14. Department of the Treasury
35 15. Department of Veterans Affairs

36 D. Independent Agencies and Government Corporations

36 1. Central Intelligence Agency
36 Global Futures Partnership
36 2. Federal Reserve System
36 3. National Science Foundation
38 4. Smithsonian Institution
38 Resident Associates Program
38 E. University-affiliated Research Centers
39 1. Boston University
39 2. Brandeis University
40 3. California Institute of Technology
40 4. Duke University
41 5. Florida Atlantic University
41 6. George Mason University
41 The Krasnow Institute for Advanced Studies
41 Center for Social Complexity
42 7. Northeastern University
42 8. Notre Dame
43 9. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
43 10. UCLA
44 11. University of Illinois
44 12. University of Michigan
45 13. University of Texas
45 14. University of Wisconsin-Madison
46 3

F. Independent Education and Research Centers

46 1. Brookings Institution
46 2. CNA Corporation
46 3. Chaordic Commons
47 4. Institute for Coherence and Emergence
48 5. New England Complex Systems Institute 4
8 6. Plexus Institute
48 7. RAND Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study
of the Longer Range Global Policy and the
Future Human Condition
49 8. Santa Fe Institute
49 9. Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy
50 10. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
50 G. Private Foundations
51 1. John E. Fetzer Institute
51 2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
52 3. W.K. Kellogg Foundation
53 4. James S. McDonnell Foundation
54 5. David and Lucille Packard Foundation
55 6. Pew Charitable Trusts
55 H. Museums and Art Galleries
56 1. The Exploratorium
56 2. The Fine Arts Program of the Federal Reserve Board
56 3. Center for Art and Visual Culture University of Maryland Baltimore
County
57 I. Specific Complexity and Education-related Projects
58 1. American Educational Research Association
58 2. Center for Connected Learning & Computer-based Modeling
58 3. New England Complex Systems Institute
59 J. References Cited 60 K. Selected References
61 L. Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy










  #2  
Old June 17th 11, 07:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default ...WHAT IF ?

Jonathan wrote:
Just for the sake of argument, accept the
following statement as scientific fact.

All visible order in the universe, physical or
otherwise, are merely less complex versions
of a biological system.

Chew on that for a minute, what if it's true?
This realization will change everything.

That's the gist of the rather new field of Complexity
Science I hobby in.


I think you have the cart before the horse. Complexity theory stands by
itself, biological systems follow that pattern in order to self-organize and
evolve.

However, one problem for you, our universe seems hell bent on destructure. A
truly 'complex' system might prefer stasis or at least a more favorable system
to evolve within.

Your only hope is that the complex system achieves enough sophistication to be
able to, at some point, opt-out of this universe for a more favorable one.

As an aside; I don't mean to complain (well maybe I do), but this thread
really and truly belongs in one of the sci.math... groups (note follow-ups). I
don't mean to be a snob, but this topic probably doesn't incite the
imagination of the readership here as much as you would hope. I think you'd
get a more sophisticated and rewarding discussion going on this in one of the
math groups. Perhaps even the moderated sci.math.research...

Just my two cents...

Dave
  #3  
Old June 17th 11, 10:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default ...WHAT IF ?

On Jun 16, 9:32*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Just for the sake of argument, accept the
following statement as scientific fact.

All visible order in the universe, physical or
otherwise, are merely less complex versions
of a biological system.

Chew on that for a minute, what if it's true?
This realization will change everything.

That's the gist of the rather new field of Complexity
Science I hobby in.

When looking at the list of institutions below, it should
be noted how this math applies to all kinds of entirely
different fields. From nuclear bombs to the arts.
That's what's so exciting about this new field.

It's universal.

LSEhttp://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/research.html

Univ of Michhttp://www.cscs.umich.edu/

Univ of Illinoishttp://www.ccsr.uiuc.edu/

Indiani Statehttp://cnets.indiana.edu/

Arizona Statehttp://csdc.asu.edu/

Sante Fehttp://www.santafe.edu/

The Use of Complexity Science

"In 2002, the U. S. Department of Education asked the Washington
Center for Complexity and Public Policy to look at how complexity
science is being used -throughout the federal government, in
private foundations, universities, and in independent education
and research centers-"http://www.hcs.ucla.edu/DoEreport.pdf

Research Findings

A. United States Congress

13 1. Congressional Research Service
13 2. House Science Committee
13 B. Executive Office of the President
13 1. Office of Science and Technology Policy
13 RAND/Science and Technology Policy Institute
14 C. Executive Departments
15 1. Department of Agriculture
15 USDA Forest Service
15 Agricultural Research Service
16 2. Department of Commerce
16 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
16 National Institute of Standards and Technology
17 3. Department of Defense
18 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
19 National Defense University
20 4. Department of Education
21 5. Department of Energy
21 Office of Science
21 National Laboratories
23 Argonne National Laboratory
23 Los Alamos National Laboratory
25 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
26 Sandia National Laboratories
27
2 National Nuclear Security Administration
29 6. Department of Health and Human Services
30 7. Department of Homeland Security
31 8. Department of Housing and Urban Development
31 9. Department of the Interior
32 US Geological Survey
32 10. Department of Justice
32 Federal Bureau of Investigation
32 11. Department of Labor
33 12. Department of State
34 Foreign Service Institute
34 English Teaching Forum
34 13. Department of Transportation
35 Planning in Air Traffic Control
35 Application of Agent Technology to Traffic Simulation
35 14. Department of the Treasury
35 15. Department of Veterans Affairs

36 D. Independent Agencies and Government Corporations

36 1. Central Intelligence Agency
36 Global Futures Partnership
36 2. Federal Reserve System
36 3. National Science Foundation
38 4. Smithsonian Institution
38 Resident Associates Program
38 E. University-affiliated Research Centers
39 1. Boston University
39 2. Brandeis University
40 3. California Institute of Technology
40 4. Duke University
41 5. Florida Atlantic University
41 6. George Mason University
41 The Krasnow Institute for Advanced Studies
41 Center for Social Complexity
42 7. Northeastern University
42 8. Notre Dame
43 9. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
43 10. UCLA
44 11. University of Illinois
44 12. University of Michigan
45 13. University of Texas
45 14. University of Wisconsin-Madison
46 3

F. Independent Education and Research Centers

46 1. Brookings Institution
46 2. CNA Corporation
46 3. Chaordic Commons
47 4. Institute for Coherence and Emergence
48 5. New England Complex Systems Institute 4
8 6. Plexus Institute
48 7. RAND Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study
of the Longer Range Global Policy and the
Future Human Condition
49 8. Santa Fe Institute
49 9. Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy
50 10. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
50 G. Private Foundations
51 1. John E. Fetzer Institute
51 2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
52 3. W.K. Kellogg Foundation
53 4. James S. McDonnell Foundation
54 5. David and Lucille Packard Foundation
55 6. Pew Charitable Trusts
55 H. Museums and Art Galleries
56 1. The Exploratorium
56 2. The Fine Arts Program of the Federal Reserve Board
56 3. Center for Art and Visual Culture University of Maryland Baltimore
County
57 I. Specific Complexity and Education-related Projects
58 1. American Educational Research Association
58 2. Center for Connected Learning & Computer-based Modeling
58 3. New England Complex Systems Institute
59 J. References Cited 60 K. Selected References
61 L. Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy


Big stars don't seem to last very long, and our 3rd or 4th generation
star of considerable metallicity is no exception because, its kinda
too big and massive for its own good. A smaller main sequence star of
perhaps .5 Ms(1e30 kg) or perhaps Red dwarfs seem nearly ideal for
hosting Goldilocks approved planets, with brown dwarfs almost as good
if the evolved or directed panspermia of whatever nearby moons
offering intelligent life develops a favorably good sensitivity to IR.

Starting from scratch, what would be the ideal star and planet solar
system?

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”



  #4  
Old June 19th 11, 04:27 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default ...WHAT IF ?


"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...


Big stars don't seem to last very long, and our 3rd or 4th generation
star of considerable metallicity is no exception because, its kinda
too big and massive for its own good. A smaller main sequence star of
perhaps .5 Ms(1e30 kg) or perhaps Red dwarfs seem nearly ideal for
hosting Goldilocks approved planets, with brown dwarfs almost as good
if the evolved or directed panspermia of whatever nearby moons
offering intelligent life develops a favorably good sensitivity to IR."


Starting from scratch, what would be the ideal star and planet solar
system?"


From a Complexity Science perspective, the answer is derived
from living systems. Which would be that the ideal system
structure is found when the forces for order and disorder are in an
unstable equilibrium with each other. In the case of Darwin this
would be the balance between genetics and mutation.

static dynamic chaotic
genetics selection mutation

So, this provides a template for all visible order in the universe
from the simplest physical systems, to the platonic.
So for a star, the ideal solution should be found when it's
primary driving forces for order and disorder (solid vs gas)
have found this internal, unstable equilibrium.

So I googled and this article from the ESA probe
on star formation concludes....(they shouldn't have
wasted they money) g.

"Planck highlights the complexity of star formation"
26 April 2010

"The images both show three physical processes taking
place in the dust and gas of the interstellar medium.
Planck can show us each process separately."

"At the lowest frequencies, Planck maps emission caused
by high-speed electrons interacting with the Galaxy's
magnetic fields."

"At intermediate wavelengths of a few millimetres, the emission
is from gas heated by newly formed hot stars."

"At still higher frequencies, Planck maps the meagre heat given out
by extremely cold dust. This can reveal the coldest cores
in the clouds, which are approaching the final stages of collapse,
before they are reborn as fully-fledged stars. The stars then disperse
the surrounding clouds."

"The delicate balance between cloud collapse and dispersion regulates
the number of stars that the Galaxy makes."
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM0FVF098G_index_0.html



Complexity science provides a template of the correct solution
for any real world discipline/problem that exists. IMHO. I think
that's a big deal and I'll never tire of saying so.


Jonathan

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet"

















  #5  
Old June 19th 11, 04:27 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default ...WHAT IF ?


"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...


Big stars don't seem to last very long, and our 3rd or 4th generation
star of considerable metallicity is no exception because, its kinda
too big and massive for its own good. A smaller main sequence star of
perhaps .5 Ms(1e30 kg) or perhaps Red dwarfs seem nearly ideal for
hosting Goldilocks approved planets, with brown dwarfs almost as good
if the evolved or directed panspermia of whatever nearby moons
offering intelligent life develops a favorably good sensitivity to IR."


Starting from scratch, what would be the ideal star and planet solar
system?"


From a Complexity Science perspective, the answer is derived
from living systems. Which would be that the ideal system
structure is found when the forces for order and disorder are in an
unstable equilibrium with each other. In the case of Darwin this
would be the balance between genetics and mutation.

static dynamic chaotic
genetics selection mutation

So, this provides a template for all visible order in the universe
from the simplest physical systems, to the platonic.
So for a star, the ideal solution should be found when it's
primary driving forces for order and disorder (solid vs gas)
have found this internal, unstable equilibrium.

So I googled and this article from the ESA probe
on star formation concludes....(they shouldn't have
wasted they money) g.

"Planck highlights the complexity of star formation"
26 April 2010

"The images both show three physical processes taking
place in the dust and gas of the interstellar medium.
Planck can show us each process separately."

"At the lowest frequencies, Planck maps emission caused
by high-speed electrons interacting with the Galaxy's
magnetic fields."

"At intermediate wavelengths of a few millimetres, the emission
is from gas heated by newly formed hot stars."

"At still higher frequencies, Planck maps the meagre heat given out
by extremely cold dust. This can reveal the coldest cores
in the clouds, which are approaching the final stages of collapse,
before they are reborn as fully-fledged stars. The stars then disperse
the surrounding clouds."

"The delicate balance between cloud collapse and dispersion regulates
the number of stars that the Galaxy makes."
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM0FVF098G_index_0.html



Complexity science provides a template of the correct solution
for any real world discipline/problem that exists. IMHO. I think
that's a big deal and I'll never tire of saying so.


Jonathan

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet"

















  #6  
Old June 19th 11, 04:27 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default ...WHAT IF ?


"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...


Big stars don't seem to last very long, and our 3rd or 4th generation
star of considerable metallicity is no exception because, its kinda
too big and massive for its own good. A smaller main sequence star of
perhaps .5 Ms(1e30 kg) or perhaps Red dwarfs seem nearly ideal for
hosting Goldilocks approved planets, with brown dwarfs almost as good
if the evolved or directed panspermia of whatever nearby moons
offering intelligent life develops a favorably good sensitivity to IR."


Starting from scratch, what would be the ideal star and planet solar
system?"


From a Complexity Science perspective, the answer is derived
from living systems. Which would be that the ideal system
structure is found when the forces for order and disorder are in an
unstable equilibrium with each other. In the case of Darwin this
would be the balance between genetics and mutation.

static dynamic chaotic
genetics selection mutation

So, this provides a template for all visible order in the universe
from the simplest physical systems, to the platonic.
So for a star, the ideal solution should be found when it's
primary driving forces for order and disorder (solid vs gas)
have found this internal, unstable equilibrium.

So I googled and this article from the ESA probe
on star formation concludes....(they shouldn't have
wasted they money) g.

"Planck highlights the complexity of star formation"
26 April 2010

"The images both show three physical processes taking
place in the dust and gas of the interstellar medium.
Planck can show us each process separately."

"At the lowest frequencies, Planck maps emission caused
by high-speed electrons interacting with the Galaxy's
magnetic fields."

"At intermediate wavelengths of a few millimetres, the emission
is from gas heated by newly formed hot stars."

"At still higher frequencies, Planck maps the meagre heat given out
by extremely cold dust. This can reveal the coldest cores
in the clouds, which are approaching the final stages of collapse,
before they are reborn as fully-fledged stars. The stars then disperse
the surrounding clouds."

"The delicate balance between cloud collapse and dispersion regulates
the number of stars that the Galaxy makes."
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM0FVF098G_index_0.html



Complexity science provides a template of the correct solution
for any real world discipline/problem that exists. IMHO. I think
that's a big deal and I'll never tire of saying so.


Jonathan

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet"

















  #7  
Old June 19th 11, 05:42 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default ...WHAT IF ?


"David Spain" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:
Just for the sake of argument, accept the
following statement as scientific fact.

All visible order in the universe, physical or
otherwise, are merely less complex versions
of a biological system.

Chew on that for a minute, what if it's true?
This realization will change everything.

That's the gist of the rather new field of Complexity
Science I hobby in.




I think you have the cart before the horse. Complexity theory stands by
itself, biological systems follow that pattern in order to self-organize
and
evolve.



Quantifying Complexity Theory

"Complexity Theory states that critically interacting components
self-organize to form potentially evolving structures exhibiting
a hierarchy of emergent system properties."
http://www.calresco.org/lucas/quantify.htm


There's nothing in that definition that limits this math
to physical, biological or platonic realms. Those "critically
interacting components" could be particles, biological systems
or ideas. Complexity Science defines the exact opposite
of standing on it's own. It underlies every real world discipline.

The point is that the patterns of evolution (criticality leading
to emergence) can only be fully seen and understood from
the ...emergent side of the relationship with components.
From the most complex available.

And the various levels of complexity spanning the physical
and living realms are as follows....

Static Complexity (Type 1)

"The simplest form of complexity, and that generally studied both by
mathematicians and scientists, is that related to fixed systems
Here we make the assumption that the structure we are interested
in does not change with time, so that we can approach analysis
of the system analogously to a photograph."

Dynamic Complexity (Type 2)

"Adding the fourth dimension, that of time, both improves
and worsens the situation. On the positive side, we can perhaps
recognise function in temporal patterns more easily than in
spatial ones (e.g. seasons, heartbeat),"

Evolving Complexity (Type 3)

"Going beyond repetitive thinking takes us to a class of phenomena
usually described as organic. The best known examples of this
relate to the neo-Darwinian theory of Natural Selection, where
systems evolve through time into different systems (e.g. an aquatic
form becomes land dwelling). This open ended form of change
proves to be far more extensive than previously thought, and the
same concept of non-cyclic change can be applied to immune
systems, learning, art and galaxies, as well as to species.."


Self-Organizing Complexity (Type 4)

"Our final form of complex system is that believed to comprise
the most interesting type and the one most relevant to complexity
theory. Here we combine the internal constraints of closed systems
(like machines) with the creative evolution of open systems
(like people). In this viewpoint we regard a system as co-evolving
with its environment, so much so that classifications of the system alone,
out of context, are no longer regarded as adequate for a valid
description. We must describe the system functions in terms of
how they relate to the wider outside world"


To paraphrase, "combine the behavior of machines and people".
This means essentially combining the objective and subjective realms
of our reality. Only from this perspective can a ...full description
and understanding be found. Reducing to Level One does just
the opposite.

98.6% of the planet still believes reducing to Level One is the way.

We live in the midst of the Dark Ages of science.
Even though the new way is out there for some
ten years now.



However, one problem for you, our universe seems hell bent on destructure.



The Second Law certainly is a relentless force for taking
systems apart, creating more and more variables and
randomness However, the ideal initial condition for
self-organization is described by random boolean networks.
Which is essentially a completely random system with zero-order.
For example, a totally random interstellar cloud
of gas and dust, being randomly disturbed by some
supernova, and spontaneously, solar systems and star
formation emerges.

So you see, there is a elegant relationship between the
Second Law and what some call the Fourth Law of
self-organization. One feeds the other in a cyclic
process. And as with any iteration, it doesn't really
matter where it began, but where it's going.

You have to predict the real world like you would
say a spinning top. Which is why attractor theory is
so central to grasping reality and nature.


A truly 'complex' system might prefer stasis or at least a more favorable
system to evolve within.


A truly complex system is a completely random or chaotic system.
A system with zero-order. So, any...random interaction...of such
a complex system MUST create a non-zero level of order.
There is no such thing as negative order in nature. And zero-order
only lasts until the next even happens.

Spontaneous cyclic order is the preferred, or most likely, outcome.
Just as stars and planets are the preferred future within
a gravitational system. Gravity and biological systems /both/
follow inverse-square law behavior.


Your only hope is that the complex system achieves enough sophistication
to be able to, at some point, opt-out of this universe for a more
favorable one.


Since self organization follows a power law (or inverse-square) law
behavior. Analogous to an earthquake. This opting out or one-off
events happen in the same way. Emergence is the rare 'big-one'
from a history of countless minor changes. But in nature emergence
is as likely has having two waves constructively interfering with
each other. The non-linear or exaggerated one-off events
are random and unpredictable. Yet they are absolutely inevitable
given only enough time and complexity.

And fluids define the highest level of physical complexity.


As an aside; I don't mean to complain (well maybe I do), but this thread
really and truly belongs in one of the sci.math... groups (note
follow-ups). I don't mean to be a snob, but this topic probably doesn't
incite the imagination of the readership here as much as you would hope. I
think you'd get a more sophisticated and rewarding discussion going on
this in one of the math groups. Perhaps even the moderated
sci.math.research...




People that are immersed in the details of reductionist math
can no more accept these ideas than an atheist accept Christ.
They just don't do 'subjective'. Period! It's not science they
all say.

And the vast majority still sees the world from the Level One
of complexity. In keeping with the math, nature likes to fill
the most unoccupied or damaged niche~

biological systems follow that pattern in order to self-organize and
evolve.





Just my two cents...

Dave










  #8  
Old June 19th 11, 06:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default ...WHAT IF ?


"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...


Big stars don't seem to last very long, and our 3rd or 4th generation
star of considerable metallicity is no exception because, its kinda
too big and massive for its own good. A smaller main sequence star of
perhaps .5 Ms(1e30 kg) or perhaps Red dwarfs seem nearly ideal for
hosting Goldilocks approved planets, with brown dwarfs almost as good
if the evolved or directed panspermia of whatever nearby moons
offering intelligent life develops a favorably good sensitivity to IR."


Starting from scratch, what would be the ideal star and planet solar
system?"


From a Complexity Science perspective, the answer is derived
from living systems. Which would be that the ideal system
structure is found when the forces for order and disorder are in an
unstable equilibrium with each other. In the case of Darwin this
would be the balance between genetics and mutation.

static dynamic chaotic
genetics selection mutation

So, this provides a template for all visible order in the universe
from the simplest physical systems, to the platonic.
So for a star, the ideal solution should be found when it's
primary driving forces for order and disorder (solid vs gas)
have found this internal, unstable equilibrium.

So I googled and this article from the ESA probe
on star formation concludes....(they shouldn't have
wasted they money) g.

"Planck highlights the complexity of star formation"
26 April 2010

"The images both show three physical processes taking
place in the dust and gas of the interstellar medium.
Planck can show us each process separately."

"At the lowest frequencies, Planck maps emission caused
by high-speed electrons interacting with the Galaxy's
magnetic fields."

"At intermediate wavelengths of a few millimetres, the emission
is from gas heated by newly formed hot stars."

"At still higher frequencies, Planck maps the meagre heat given out
by extremely cold dust. This can reveal the coldest cores
in the clouds, which are approaching the final stages of collapse,
before they are reborn as fully-fledged stars. The stars then disperse
the surrounding clouds."

"The delicate balance between cloud collapse and dispersion regulates
the number of stars that the Galaxy makes."
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM0FVF098G_index_0.html



Complexity science provides a template of the correct solution
for any real world discipline/problem that exists. IMHO. I think
that's a big deal and I'll never tire of saying so.


Jonathan

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet"











 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.