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:

Post by DoronShadmi »

Dear joe,

In order to understand the goal of my work, please look at:

http://www.createforum.com/phpbb/viewto ... =geproject

Thank you,

Doron
Last edited by DoronShadmi on Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DoronShadmi
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Contact:

Post by DoronShadmi »

kliff wrote: 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.
One of the nice things in fractals is the equilibrium between order and disorder.

As a result, we get phenomena which is both different and identical is any examined arbitrary scale of it.

After all, this is the idea behind the meaning of the UniVerse concept, which is both made up of different entities, based on the same common laws, where the self-similarity over scales that can be observed in a fractal, is analogues to the common laws of nature, that can be found in any part of the cosmos.

What do you think?
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

Yep, Doron, done that and as I said in my posting, I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. This forum is mostly if not entirely astronomy related and I'm trying to understand where your ideas fit in. Are you able to tell me without using the words "integrated, differentiated, time-line and organic". Sorry to limit your vocabulary but this is a forum and I think it's better to communicate in ways other than passing on website addresses. Oh and please add "non-trivial" to the above list. And any maths whatsoever.

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

Post by DoronShadmi »

Dear Joe,

Let me ask you a simple question.

Why do you like to observe space?

(By the way, most of the stuff that can be found in this address http://www.createforum.com/phpbb/viewto ... =geproject is not mathmatics but expresses my goals, so please look at it, thank you).
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

Hi Doron,

I like to observe space, or the objects in it, for the same reasons that I observe other things in this universe, to learn and understand what they are and my place relative to them. Practically speaking, I like to use a telescope because it brings me closer to these objects and since it is a somewhat solitary pursuit it is nice to discuss these observations with like-minded people on forums like the one you are now part of.

Now forgive me Doron but there are many people on this forum who have put thoughts like these onto their own website but would never answer a query like yours with reference to a web address. I have looked at it and still fail to see how it relates to the broad spectrum of this astronomy society. I thought perhaps you could offer an insight to your point of view without recourse to formal mathematics but from a reasonably accessible cosmological/astrophysical emphasis. You obviously don't have to explain everything at once. If you cannot do it then perhaps you would like to discuss other related topics. If you want to just advertise your website and geproject then consider it done.

Best regards,
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
Mike Feist
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 6:43 am
Contact:

Post by Mike Feist »

Hi

Of course I agree that we are all made of stardust (and not just because of the Woodstook generation!) and that our genetic material is an ongoing thing but......................................oh dear, the fuse has just blown in my mind.....enough.
Understanding the universe is an impossibility despite all the cosmological mathematics. maybe this is why there is such a general turning away from science and towards things metaphysical (not that I agree with that either!).
This is all doing my head in...
must keep taking the tablets and avoid the astrophysical/cosmological part of this forum
must keep taking the tablets and avoid the astrophysical/cosmological part of this forum
must keep taking the tablets and avoid the astrophysical/cosmological part of this forum
must keep taking the tablets and avoid the astrophysical/cosmological part of this forum
Regards Mike Feist
Cliff
Posts: 6600
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Post by Cliff »

Dear Doron
It is still cloudy and looks like continuing.
I am sorry that we totally disagree with regards to our ideas about "fractals". Most certainly I accept fractals are an interesting concept. However, I personally don't want to get carried away with the significance of fractals. Amongst other things a year or so back I purchased "A New Kind of Science" by Wolfram. This like Mandelbrot's work is of a little interest to me. However, my personal interpretation of their undoubtedly impressive efforts are that they are still a very long way from producing the basic practical results that will be of direct interest to me. I suspect neither Mandlebrot nor Wolfram will be able to get rid of clouds when I would like to observe. I have looked at the two mathematicians work with my limited ability and do not see them having much great impact on me (in my remaining lifetime). I hesitate to say it but it occurs to me that both Mandelbrot and Wolfram might be sidetracking themselves into a culs de sac. Of course they might be the great geniouses that I would like to be myself. So far i am not convinced they are achieving anything more than carrying out an difficult mathematical excercise. I suspect they might get no where at all left to their own devices without modern computers. But I might be doing Mandelbrot and Wolfram great injustice. I must admit I also do my fair share of cheating and happily use GO-TO telescopes and computers (although with great difficulty). I have only limited interest in the the higher mathematical cosmological concepts. Though to be fair on both Wolfram and Mandelbrot, I do not think they think their ideas will solve all cosmologists problems.
I find the idea I think implied by your earlier suggestions that Mike Feist and I might be both the same age cosmologically speaking interesting, but not necessarily really significant.
It is one thing to claim that the Universe is fractal but that in itself might still make no worthwhile sense of it.
I have observed some fairly distant objects (according to standard accepted astronomical convention) using my own telescopes. However, left to my own devices I would not hav a clue how far away those objects are away. I might be able to assess they are further away than the Moon. I think might be just be able to roughly measure the distance of the Moon left to my own devices. I might be able to measure my distance from Mars (although to do so I might cheat by accepting Erastosthenese measurement of the size of the Earth rather than do that myself). If I can do that I can use Mr Kepler's Laws to get an idea of the size of our Solar System or at least the size of the astronomical unit in approximate terms. However, I think measuring the distances of other distant stars is beyond me. I can only marvel at Bessel's achievement measuring stellar parallax in the 1830s (i think it was). The same for the achievement of edwin Hubble. Since then things have got even more complicated. I am happy to let others (who I respect) decide the distance of the various Deep Sky objects that I have observed myself. I reserve the right to accept which astronomical theories or cosmological theories I accept. Others can disagree with the ideas I accept but I may not be interested in their arguments. If they are eventually proved right i will take my hat off to them. But I do not feel a duty to analyse their theories (even assuming I am capable of doing so). By the same token i hold the right not to accept normal astronomical \cosmological beliefs, if I so feel like doing.
Unfortunately i neither have the ability of understanding nor the desire to delve into many cosmological concepts that some think important, but are not so to me. Fractals are one such concept that I find interesting but not too seriously. I have made a variety of maps myself, of various levels of detail, carrying out such operations, admittedly using old fashioned techniques, but they actually worked. On the other hand I might have studied fractals for my whole lifetime and still not been able to produce an adequate map. But perhaps I am wrong about that?
Best wishes from Cliff
DoronShadmi
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Contact:

Post by DoronShadmi »

Dear Cliff,

The general idea behind fractals is very simple.

Instead of using only whole numbers to define a dimension, we are using also fractions to define the dimension of some phenomenon, that all.

So, you are the one to decide if you want to research the fractal dimension of some phenomenon, or not.
Last edited by DoronShadmi on Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
DoronShadmi
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Contact:

Post by DoronShadmi »

Dear Joe,

Astronomy is a beautiful science, but if you speak about the practical side of it, I think that it give us the motivation not only to observe objects from distance, but also to develop the technology that some day will give us the possibility to get there.

but meanwhile we have to do our best, not to use the power this technology, in order to destroy ourselves.

This is exactly the goal of my work, which is to put in front of our minds any method that can reinforce our survival in the long term, that will give us the opportunity to visit the deep space and learn more about our universe.
DoronShadmi
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Contact:

Post by DoronShadmi »

Dear Mike,

Indeed, keeping your fuses in a good shape, this is the most imprtant goal.

So don't jump beynod your mind.
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

Thank you Doron. I think it is something we indeed have to bear in mind and something that grows in importance as each day passes.

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
Using fractals I would like to make a map of the coastline of the UK (at 1 to 50,000 scale) as it was in 55BC could you suggest a suitable number to use.
Best wishes from Grumpy old Cliff
DoronShadmi
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:14 pm
Contact:

Post by DoronShadmi »

Dear Cliff,

In my opinion, you are the one to find the "right" unit that fits your purposes.

The fractal method only gives you more possibilities to choose the “rightâ€
Cliff
Posts: 6600
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Post by Cliff »

Dear Doron
Thanks for your response but all I wanted was to be told a particular specific number to solve a fairly specific problem. Unfortunately your answer is no help to me except to make me feel more convnced than ever that "fractals" are an interesting mathematical curiosity (or perhaps really immense number of curiosities) but they have limited use (at least with regards our current level of knowledge).
If I needed to make a map (certainly of a conventional type that I am used to) I do not think a knowledge of fractals would be of very much practical help. However, it might be interesting to make a conventional map of the present British coastline (arguably on siome particulr date about now) and try to use "fractal technology" as a sort of time machine to sistort the present day map and thus produce a map of the British coastline as it was in 55 BC.
I am afraid doing that would be beyond me. You would need to get Mandelbrot himself to do the job. Of course if he completes making the map we might have to take his word for it, that it is correct.
Sorry but although I accept "fractals" are quite interesting, I think there is a lot of work to be done before a convincing "fractal theory of everything" will be achieved. And it will not be me who does it, I just do not have the intellectual capacity.
But best of luck from Cliff, feeling an exceptionally Grumpy old Codger again!
Kaustav
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

fractal compression

Post by Kaustav »

Hi Cliff,
Fractals are great for compressing still images and video/audio down to incredibly small sizes. What's all this molarky about a factal universe? Erm. I love the fractal structures all around us like tree fern structures in nature and other such stuff... it's quite simple to write a simple fractal generator using GCSE maths. Love the intricate patterns they can produce. Wrote one once on my old 8bit BBC micro. Took one minute to render one frame of a factal image. Now-a-days, my PC can rendor 60 of those frames a second! HAHA!

Doron, you have quantumly entangled a few of the electrons in my brains with your posts and caused "strangeness" to occur elsewhere in my local vacinity! LOL
Kaustav Bhattacharya
>> http://kaustav.uk.com/unisphere/ - An online magazine about Astronomy, Science, Social Media and Society.
>> Follow me on Twitter @jupiterorbit
Post Reply