Phi,quasicrystals and astronomy

My most treasured representation is found in the Wikipedia talk
section on quasicrystals where local crystal growth processes
encounter external background conditions -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quasicrystal

It does not matter if it is the evolution of crystals or stellar
evolution,the processes tend towards the greatest energy efficiency
which is why I could render that diagram into density/volume ratios in
stars back in 1990 using two large external rings and a smaller
intersecting ring,the conclusion being that some supernova events are
not the demise of a star but a transition from a large stellar object
to a smaller mass star with a solar system arising from the
event.Although called 'imposter supernova' these astronomical events
contain the signature geometries associated with all forms in nature
which reflect the Phi proportion - something which makes our planet
unique by virtue of the many forms with the golden ratio including
human form.

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted...asicrystalsPhi

The basis of the main diagram comes from a single historical source
and considering the contempt people here have shown towards the great
Western astronomers I couldn't bear to see this work mishandled,at
least on my account.

When Galileo talked of the laws of nature written in mathematics he
was speaking of the language of geometry,something which is lost in
the non geometric equations with their loose associations with
tangible objects -

"The laws of Nature are written in the language of mathematics ... the
symbols are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without
whose help it is impossible to comprehend a single word." Galileo

Of course he wrote at a time before sequential imaging and time lapse
footage makes the insights of astronomy so easy to understand.It is
these things that make a difference where form and function have a
more relevant role including the scaling up of the phi proportion to
large processes such as stellar evolution and the particular geometry
it generates -

http://chandra.harvard.edu/edu/forma...ges/sn1987.jpg

It is a different type of astronomy that would appeal to a certain
type of person,although it is well known the Kepler had a great
interest in the Phi proportion,generally speaking,it is a type of
spacial awareness that resonates with individuals who are most likely
to be productive and creative.

On Saturday, April 6, 2013 12:37:59 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

My most treasured representation is found in the Wikipedia talk

section on quasicrystals where local crystal growth processes

encounter external background conditions -



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quasicrystal

This article has the following sub-headings;

"This article is frankly bad"

"Needs Revision?"

"Needs improvement"

"This article is not very informative"

"Reversion Was Excessive"

Down at the bottom, under the "E pluribus unum" heading, there is a link which leads to these...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oriel36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oriel36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...ets_of_Oriel36

It seems that your own contributions to Wikipedia are not much appreciated...
Why is this?

On Apr 7, 6:11*pm, palsing wrote:

It seems that your own contributions to Wikipedia are not much appreciated...
Why is this?

Why, that's because the sheep are hypnotized by the mantle of false
prestige in which the army of empirical drones has managed to cloak
itself thanks to welfare payments it receives through deceiving the
U.S. federal government.

For example, there was the great "atomic bomb" hoax, that led to the
Manhattan Project, and the embarassing fizzling of two so-called
atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, before the U.S. had to
withdraw from Japan and accept its sovereignity over China...

John Savard

On Apr 8, 1:11*am, palsing wrote:
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 12:37:59 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
My most treasured representation is found in the Wikipedia talk

section on quasicrystals where local crystal growth processes

encounter external background conditions -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quasicrystal

This article has the following sub-headings;

"This article is frankly bad"

"Needs Revision?"

"Needs improvement"

"This article is not very informative"

"Reversion Was Excessive"

Down at the bottom, under the "E pluribus unum" heading, there is a link which leads to these...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oriel36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oriel36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...ets_of_Oriel36

It seems that your own contributions to Wikipedia are not much appreciated...
Why is this?

I can't say I am completely thrilled with the way they borrow and
steal but ultimately the concepts all head in the same direction I
give them and that is all that matters.You now wake up to a belief
that the Earth turned exactly once in 24 hours back in the year 1820
whereas the proper approach is to go through the construction of the
timekeeping systems from scratch using the proper references in an
appropriate way so although they appear to have jettisoned the
idiotic 'solar vs sidereal' view,neither have they adopted the proper
system.

"The reason for adding a leap second is that the planet does not
rotate exactly once every 24 hours (86,400 seconds). The rotation
actually takes 86,400.002 seconds so that each day this little
difference builds up between the atomic clock and the earth's
rotation. "

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_r..._day_and_night

In any case,I would have thought that the way the timekeeping systems
developed would appear so inspirational to readers that they couldn't
ignore them,for instance,the annual flooding of the Nile coincident
with the annual appearance of Sirius which anchored the natural
rotations to the orbital cycles in a proportion of 1461 rotations to 4
annual circuits.It is at this crucial juncture that the damage was
done insofar as the mechanical aspect of astronomy and its predictive
convenience is based on the 365/366 day format and that doesn't mesh
with the motions of the Earth which exist in a primal state of 365 1/4
rotations to one orbital circuit.

Natural sciences,be they astronomical or terrestrial,have this quality
of local processes balanced with external conditions so this
'scientific method' was always a poor and extraordinarily limited
approach to observations.There is nothing forceful in genuine
inspiration,you may look at the prevalence of the phi proportion in
any object and never sense that it contains any relevance to greater
creation but some people do see it because it is in their nature to do
so -

"Eternity is in love with the productions of time" William Blake

When times get hard and there is not the slightest sign of integrity
and decency among men,these inspirational things more than make up for
those who live by their wants and their hates.

On Apr 8, 1:11*am, palsing wrote:

It seems that your own contributions to Wikipedia are not much appreciated...
Why is this?

You know,sometime in 2005 there was a discussion here in
sci.astro.amateur,or at least an attempt at one,where the idea that
all rotating celestial objects with exposed viscous compositions
display an uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar
latitudes or differential rotation as it is commonly known so that
applying this mechanism to the Earth's interior would have two
separate effects,one on crustal evolution/motion and the other on the
26 mile spherical deviation of the planet.Of course,because I took a
look at these things you have all the usual objectors however within
two years,the Wikipedians inserted a rotation mechanism into plate
tectonics by throwing every assertion they could find at it with the
resultant Frankenstein's monster of a thing instead of the neat
antecedent reasoning seen in this forum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...oldid=15921627

Since 2005 the correlation between fluid dynamics and terrestrial
effects has been developed in a more measured way,for
instance,introducing planetary comparisons between Earth and Venus via
their rotational characteristics or developing the lag/advance
mechanism of crustal generation off the Mid Atlantic Ridge through the
uneven rotational gradient and the Mid Atlantic Ridge cannot be
accounted for by two convection 'cells' whereas differential rotation
fits in neatly with that surface feature and its evolution.The
inspirational bit is drawing from observations of astronomical objects
in rotation,specifically fluid dynamics,and then applying them to the
Earth's fluid interior whereas the less helpful 'stationary Earth and
thermal driven 'convection cells' have overshadowed the better
perspective based on rotating fluid interior.

The application of a rotational mechanism as responsible for the
spherical deviation of the planet and plate tectonics would constitute
a major discovery instead of this sly attempt to insert it in
anonymously,after all,Wegener's approach of moving evolutionary
geology to a global scale could only be surpassed by moving it further
to an astronomical scale indicative of a rotational mechanism.My
business has been to explain evolutionary geological features in the
neatest way possible whereas the Wikipedia article on rotation is more
or less cobbled together with no linkage between the different facets
which differential rotation provides and that is a great shame.,

I love the way Copernicus,Galileo and even the old empiricists could
talk like men and explain things properly and in such a way that the
line of reasoning is in someway inspirational and spurs others into
researching the topics whereas today they steal without attribution
and mishandle the arguments rather than improve on them as the
Wikipedia articles have done,not just on plate tectonics but
elsewhere.I always thought that the unmoderated forums were the best
for opening up discussions and indeed it appears that their influence
does come through eventually so it is dismaying that with a whole
Universe to discuss,it appears that participation in saa has finished.

In article ,
palsing wrote:

[oriel36]

It seems that your own contributions to Wikipedia are not much appreciated...
Why is this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...oticeboard/Inc
identArchive646#User:Oriel36

--
Odysseus

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:57:38 PM UTC-7, Odysseus wrote:
In article ,

palsing wrote:



[oriel36]



It seems that your own contributions to Wikipedia are not much appreciated...

Why is this?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...oticeboard/Inc

identArchive646#User:Oriel36



--

Odysseus

I am not at all surprised...

On Apr 28, 2:45*am, palsing wrote:
On Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:57:38 PM UTC-7, Odysseus wrote:
In article ,

*palsing wrote:

[oriel36]

It seems that your own contributions to Wikipedia are not much appreciated...

Why is this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...oticeboard/Inc

identArchive646#User:Oriel36

--

Odysseus

I am not at all surprised...

I have to laugh at the attempt in Wikipedia to explain plate tectonics
using the Earth's rotation a few years after I explained how the
pieces fit together and especially the observation drawn down from
astronomy that rotating fluid compositions do not rotate as a unit but
have an uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar
latitudes which affect the shape of the rotating object and,in the
case of the Earth,driving crustal evolution/motion of the surface
crust off the Mid Atlantic Ridge.Instead they created a monster of a
thing in Wikipedia based on flinging every and any assertions they
could find to make it appear they understood the rotational mechanism
after years of the stationary Earth,thermal driven 'convection
cells'.It doesn't matter,I know all too well that sooner or later the
26 mile planetary spherical deviation has to mesh with the creation of
crust off the Great Ridge insofar as differential rotation makes sense
in combining these two facts of planetary geometry and
geography.Watching the Wikipedians spray graffiti over this new
approach to a mechanism for evolutionary geology may be temporarily
dispiriting but ultimately it will emerge.

Quasicrystals and the background against which they grow is so special
that I have left it as a private work for 20 years,the partitioning
between local growth processes and the intrinsic Phi beauty and
efficiency extends all through nature and right up to stellar
evolutionary processes hence beauty and efficiency seem so distant
from each other are really intrinsic and paramount in nature,whether
astronomical or terrestrial.