The Complementary Space/Time (CoST) model

The non amateur stuff. Hawking, black holes, that sort of thing

Moderators: joe, Brian, Guy Fennimore

DoronShadmi
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Contact:

The Complementary Space/Time (CoST) model

Post by DoronShadmi »

Connectivity or integration is the property that is recognized by us as time or correlation among different entities.

A time-line of some universe is the most connected state where no discrete phenomenon exists and all we have is a smooth connectivity without space (no measured place).

Non-connectivity or differentiation is the property that is recognized by us as space or non-correlation among different entities.

A space of some universe is the most disconnected state where no smooth phenomenon exists and all we have is discreteness without time or correlation (no measured flow).

Our universe is both time_AND_space and this complementary relation can be found in any researched level within and without us.


A cone and a sphere are two separated models of a universe, where a sphere is a closed universe (has "start", "middle" and "end" along a time-line) and a cone is an open universe (has "start" but no "middle" and no "end" along a time-line).

A time-line in both models is like the “spineâ€
Mike Feist
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 6:43 am
Contact:

Post by Mike Feist »

HI
I notice that this page has been moved to a more suitable location but it still means nothing to me!!!
Mike
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

Mike,

"suitable"??

Regards, :?
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
DoronShadmi
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Contact:

Post by DoronShadmi »

Hi Mike,

Please tell us what is Astronomy for you?
Mike Feist
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 6:43 am
Contact:

Post by Mike Feist »

Hi Doron
Astronomy for me is looking and seeing - practical astronomy with small handheld optics (like a binocular). It is following Comet Machholz and locating Mercury, Vesta, Uranus, Neptune, watching eclipses, occultations and transits...a bit like birdwatching really. I would call my astronomy 'skywatching'.
Regards Mike Feist
Mike Feist
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 6:43 am
Contact:

Post by Mike Feist »

Hi Joe
This was originally under either observing or chat, hardly that!
Regards Mike
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

I'm not sure where Doron is coming from at all as he does not address anyone in his posting or seem to realise who he is talking to. There do seem to be links to a site that argues the case for intelligent design in the early universe, i.e. a creator, and articles challenging Darwinism.

Doron? :roll:
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
Cliff
Posts: 6600
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Post by Cliff »

Dear Doron
I have an acquaintance who is enthralled by the idea that the Universe is fractal and another who is anti-Big Bang. They seems to have adopted their two apparently somewhat different lines of thought because they cannot accept what I will refer to as the the "standard" cosmological model,ie the one (or at least that with a few slight variations) that most, though by no means all astronomer\cosmologists currently find the most acceptable ie the big bang.
I am just an enthusiastic amateur astronomer, who enjoys observing many different astronomical phenomena and I also try to understand what I have been observing (I think of that as my idea as to what "real" amateur astronomy actually is). Anything beyond the scope of my own astronomical observing is when I am delving into my idea of pure armchair astronomy, which includes most aspects of what I think of as far out Cosmology (eg Parallel Universes and Multiverses). So far as I am concerned our (meaning the currently generally accepted) ideas of cosmology are far from perfect, but they are certainly fairly palatable. On the other hand as things are I don't find the the concept of a Fractal Universe acceptable.I certainly would not want to condemn any other alternative ideas, such as those suggested by some anti-Big Bang enthusiasts out of hand. However, until there is more tangible (acceptable to me) evidence supporting one or other of the other cosmological concepts I will stick with my current very simplistic acceptance of the "Big Bang" model.
Of the anti-Big Bang astronomers I know of, Halton Arp is the one I have the greatest respect for. At the other extreme the "acquaintances" I mentioned at the start of this long winded e-mail are, at least in my opinion, rather limited in astronomical experience. It would be folly to blindly follow their extremely inadequate ideas. I have also read"Discovery of Cosmic Fractals" by Baryshev & Teerikorpi, which has a foreward by Benoit Mandelbrot, and I would not personally want to take those astronomical\cosmological concepts any further, certainly not for the time being. I am more than happy confining most of my own attention to the things that I can observe myself.
I can only wish you the best of luck with your personal researches in your astronomy which is very different to mine.
Best wishes from the Grumpy Old Codger Cliff
DoronShadmi
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Contact:

Post by DoronShadmi »

Joe wrote:I'm not sure where Doron is coming from at all as he does not address anyone in his posting or seem to realise who he is talking to. There do seem to be links to a site that argues the case for intelligent design in the early universe, i.e. a creator, and articles challenging Darwinism.

Doron? :roll:
Hi Joe,

I am from Israel.

The links you are talking about are my mathematical/physical research along the past 25 years, and most of them are based on non-convectional way of thinking about these subjects.

In my work we do not need a pre intelligent designer as the source of the universe and my research is defiantly based of the idea of Darwinism Evolution, which is described in terms of information structures, ordered along a time line by their self referential properties, which are based on symmetry breaking degrees.


This topic expending the wave-particle duality to a whole universe, where a universe is a complementary phenomenon that exists between two opposite properties, which are integration and differentiation.

Integration is understood as gravity and differentiation is understood as expansion.

The most integrated state is understood as the 4D which is time or time-line.

The rest 3 dimensions are the observed space, which is ordered relatively to the time-line that is considered as its attractor.

So the history of a universe is the story of space/time complementary associations along the time-line.

Without this time-line, no fundamental conditions can appear as natural laws of a universe.

By this model we can examine the idea of rich enough conditions in the space/time fabric, that maybe explains the origin and development of life phenomena along the time-line.

The next part of this research is to use the insights coming from Quantum-Mechanics, in order to develop a new fundamental mathematical language where Redundancy and Uncertainty are first-order properties of its axiomatic system.

By doing this, we actually re-examine the whole scientific cosmological research in a new light, where the researcher himself is both observer_AND_participator.

From this point of view any result in any level (and not just in QM level) is influenced by the researcher, and the researcher has to include this influence as an inseparable part of his results.

By using the word 'result' we mean that by this model, ethical results must also be considered as an organic part of the scientific research and development, where 'development' has two legs which are our technical skills and our ethical skills, which are combined to a one comprehensive scientific method, that can help us to survive the power of our developed technology along the time-line.

For further information please look at:

http://www.geocities.com/complementaryt ... roject.pdf

Thank you.
Mike Feist wrote:Hi Doron
Astronomy for me is looking and seeing - practical astronomy with small handheld optics (like a binocular). It is following Comet Machholz and locating Mercury, Vesta, Uranus, Neptune, watching eclipses, occultations and transits...a bit like birdwatching really. I would call my astronomy 'skywatching'.
Regards Mike Feist
Dear Mike,

As I wrote, I think that each of us is both observer_AND_participator of this universe, and if this is the case than maybe we can ask ourselves what is the meaning (if there is any) of our abilities of being both observers_AND_participators of this universe?

What do you think?
Cliff wrote: I can only wish you the best of luck with your personal researches in your astronomy which is very different to mine.
Best wishes from the Grumpy Old Codger Cliff
Ho, thank you very much dear Cliff.

By the way, a fractal-like universe is not an alternative to the Big-Bang theory, but a finer way to explain the non-linear properties of our universe that cannot be achieved from the linear point of view.

From this fractal-like point of view, the initial conditions of some researched system cannot be ignored.

Actually fractal geometry can be found in the basis of most non-trivial phenomena, like life phenomena, for example, and also can be found in a lot of other natural phenomena, which are not directly connected to the life phenomena, but maybe give us hints about some fundamental laws of nature which are the common base ground for the living and non-living phenomena in our universe (and maybe even beyond it).
Richard McC
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:50 pm
Location: Outside Chester, United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Richard McC »

Doron.

Would I be right in thinking that if we are both observer AND participator, that the action of just simply looking can and will change a certain string of events; not unlike 'If a butterfly flaps it's wings in Australia then there will be an earthquake in Japan'.
Is there room in this open mindedness to discount 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' and is there any real work to say that these things could be dismissed as the machinations of a lazy mind simply to plug a hole in what could be considered a flawed theory! i.e. it would then need to be relegated back to hypotheses status.
I think I might be getting confused now............must stop.

Rich.
Go placidly amidst the noise and haste, and remember what peace there is in silence....(and true darkness, without cloud cover).
DoronShadmi
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Contact:

Post by DoronShadmi »

Hi Richard McC,

I'm not talking about some "butterfly's effect" on the observed phenomena, but about our abilities to conclude things and act according to them, in order to improve our chances to survive in this universe in the long term.

Form this point of view we are both observers and active participators of our universe.
Mike Feist
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 6:43 am
Contact:

Post by Mike Feist »

Hi Doron

You say 'in order to improve our chances to survive in this universe in the long term. '

My, what optimism!
What, with the chances of
A) Blowing ourselves up in a nuclear holocaust
B) Asteroid impact.
C) Supervolcano
D) Making the Earth environmentally inhabitable.
E) Uncontrollable pandemic
F) Sun turning into a Red Giant
G) Being bathed in gamma rays from exploding star
and no doubt I have missed some....

The dinosaurs lasted millions of years, I do not think mankind will last as long as they did. And with a bit of stupidity or bad luck we will be lucky to last till I personally die...and I am 61 years of age!

Regards Mike Feist
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

Doron,

Thank you for taking the time to try to explain yourself although, with the greatest of respect, you dropped a whole load of very complicated statements and diagrams all at once without an introduction. I'm still not quite sure what you are telling us and I'm afraid that personally the mathematics (expressed in the websites you point us to) are far more advanced than I am capable of following. If you are saying that a new way of looking at the language of mathematics will put us on the road to understanding our place in the universe then you very well might be right but how do you see this paradigm shift manifesting itself in everyday life? Wars are not fought or started by mathematicians...but then again.... I suppose they might be finished by them!

The observer/participant conjecture is well established in quantum theory even if only by committee, but what exactly is it that you mean when you place so much importance on us recognising this position. I have recently struggled through (most of) David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", are your thoughts in anyway similar to his?

I think language is extremely important to us and our evolution, if indeed we are still evolving, but to put it bluntly, could you tell us/me without using mathematics, what you are trying to say. For the sake of us mathematical monosyllabs.

Regards,
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
Cliff
Posts: 6600
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Post by Cliff »

Dear Doron
Broadly speaking I think you suggest that "fractals" is not an alternative to the "Big Bang". Well, that may be so by your way of thinking but not necesarily by other advocates of a so-called "fractal universe". From my point of view I would be happier if the "fractal" advocates would come to some sort of general consensus. At that stage the likes of simple minded observers like me might be happy to see their simplified conclusions. I am quite happy to accept that fractals" exist, even if only theoretically. I suspect that in reality not many fractals can continue increasing for ever or decreasing for ever. The effect of both conditions happening at the same time might be interesting, although some might say it is actually happening!. Whatever, my understanding is that currently in nature fractals can generally propgate about 20 to 40 times. I gather beyond that things tend to break down. However, I gather there are some exceptions ie more than 40 times, but non so far known expanding or decreasing forever.
However, irrespective of what I just said the only person I personally know who strongly advocates a fractal universe is extremely limited in his understanding of what I will call ordinary general astronomy and so far as I am concerned would be better employed getting to know his basics first. Of course there is also an argument for saying that an unfettered mind can think more original thoughts much more clearly by not learning the basics first. I suppose that might be what geniouses are made of. I would love to be a genious but I have to admit I am probably not. However, with regards to my other fractal friend, even if he is on the right track about fractals, it would be a matter of him being just lucky but almost certainly for the wrong reasons.
However, this is quite an interesting topic for discussion on cloudy nights.
There is an old saying that if given a typewriter a monkey would eventually type all the works of William Shakespeare (although I also once read somewhere that that is not really true). However, I might ask given instructions how to create fractals, how long would it take the same monkey to produce an accurate map of the coastline of Britain. I might do a bit of cheating and want the map making twice natural scale, or even more.
When the coastline of Britain has been produced I might then ask the monkey to contour the map. Then accurately draw on the rivers and lakes. Then towns and roads. Trees ,plants, then people.
Of course by the time the monkey has drawn that much the original coastline might not be the correct shape for a time when the map is "nearly" finished. Whilst when the Map is eventually finished I suspect it would very soon be out of date. I might go and stand somewhere else just to be award!
I will be happier when the sky is clear again and I can just observe a few stars or whatever and not bother too much about the exact detail.
Best wishes from a very happy pld codger Cliff , having seen some nice pics of Mercury, Moon and Saturn on this website.
DoronShadmi
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Contact:

Post by DoronShadmi »

Mike Feist wrote:Hi Doron

You say 'in order to improve our chances to survive in this universe in the long term. '

My, what optimism!
What, with the chances of
A) Blowing ourselves up in a nuclear holocaust
B) Asteroid impact.
C) Supervolcano
D) Making the Earth environmentally inhabitable.
E) Uncontrollable pandemic
F) Sun turning into a Red Giant
G) Being bathed in gamma rays from exploding star
and no doubt I have missed some....

The dinosaurs lasted millions of years, I do not think mankind will last as long as they did. And with a bit of stupidity or bad luck we will be lucky to last till I personally die...and I am 61 years of age!

Regards Mike Feist
Hi Mike Feist,

If you are able to write A) to G), then you probably do your first step, in order to develop what is needed to overcome A) to G), in the near, long and the very long term.

First we have to find how avoid A), which is our nearest mission on this planet.

If A) is avoided day by day, then, in my opinion, the sky is the limit.

Also I am not talking only about mankind, but about the DNA-based life forms on this planet, which are all based on the same principle.

So if our species is not going to survive, because of its own stupidity, then they will be another DNA-based life forms that they may continue the story of intelligent life on this planet (the idea in the long term is that the intelligent file form will find its way travel in the universe).

You are not only a 61 years old Mike, because your DNA is about 4 billion years old and some of the particles that construct it are maybe 12 billion years old, so from this point of view, you have a very old heritage that a part of it will find its way to your children, grandchildren … etc.
Post Reply