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

"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.

"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.

"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

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

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?

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.

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

"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

"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