|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Papers on celtic astronomy or alike ? | Thierry | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | January 7th 05 11:23 PM |
SETICon04 Call for Papers too. | Jason H. | SETI | 0 | December 29th 03 05:33 AM |