Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pesky Starlight
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 31 of 37 (26442)
12-12-2002 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-15-2002 2:39 AM


This is not my "area of expertise" but on reading how Wolfram deals operationally with 'complexity' I am developing his "intuition" (which I-time think subjectively is an 'impression' only) but that Choas "theory" with or without Wolfram is at an ebb. I am begining to "see" in the Solar System that problem I had with dual writings of the word "chaos". I used to be able to only do this with words biological, such as "kidney".
I Wonder if there is not some catastrophe set tiling that can be overlayed EXPANDING from the Mars Rift Vent out of the Asteriod belt and thru the Saturn rings that Turns TWO ways in jupiter such that twists occur for venus all the way to a virial calcualtion for the stom on Neptune that in fact was the space of seperation of Pluto from it's "companion" and connotes any Newton Comet. That is the "physiolognomy" of the system I may be able to show is topographically the peak of the indepenendt (not tied to topology) use of Chaos numerology. It is only a guess and would have to be in line with Feigenbaum which work I have not attempted to parrallel in significant detail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 2:39 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by forgiven, posted 12-13-2002 10:35 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 37 (26558)
12-13-2002 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Brad McFall
12-12-2002 4:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
This is not my "area of expertise" but on reading how Wolfram deals operationally with 'complexity' I am developing his "intuition" (which I-time think subjectively is an 'impression' only) but that Choas "theory" with or without Wolfram is at an ebb. I am begining to "see" in the Solar System that problem I had with dual writings of the word "chaos". I used to be able to only do this with words biological, such as "kidney".
I Wonder if there is not some catastrophe set tiling that can be overlayed EXPANDING from the Mars Rift Vent out of the Asteriod belt and thru the Saturn rings that Turns TWO ways in jupiter such that twists occur for venus all the way to a virial calcualtion for the stom on Neptune that in fact was the space of seperation of Pluto from it's "companion" and connotes any Newton Comet. That is the "physiolognomy" of the system I may be able to show is topographically the peak of the indepenendt (not tied to topology) use of Chaos numerology. It is only a guess and would have to be in line with Feigenbaum which work I have not attempted to parrallel in significant detail.

i gotta admit you leave me in the dust but i do enjoy your posts... i'd sure be happy if i could reply to one every now and then, but i can't see any possibility of that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Brad McFall, posted 12-12-2002 4:23 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Brad McFall, posted 12-14-2002 3:17 PM forgiven has not replied
 Message 36 by Born Again Atheist, posted 07-24-2005 11:48 PM forgiven has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 33 of 37 (26598)
12-14-2002 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by forgiven
12-13-2002 10:35 PM


Turns out you and I do not need to respond. Albert Einstein already said the same thing in more-clear words {find this in Sidlights on Relativity SECOND lecture) whereThe quote isp46-47Dover Publ1983 "Suppose that we are provided with a great many wooden
cubes all of the same size. In accordance with Euclidean geometry we
can place them above, beside, and behind one another so as to fill a
part of space of any dimensions; but this construction would never be
finished; we could go on adding more and more cubes without ever
finding that there was no more room. That is what we wish to express
when we say that space is infinite. It would be better to say that
space is infinite in relation to practically rigid-bodies,
{[chance dispersal vs vicariance in the case of creating
biogeographically ]}I added(BSM)
assuming that the laws of disposition for these bodies are given by
Euclidean geometry.
Another example of an infinite continuum is the plane. On a plane
surface we amy lay squares of cardboard so that each side of any
square has the side of another square adjacent to it. The
construction is never finished."
Peace oUt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by forgiven, posted 12-13-2002 10:35 PM forgiven has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 34 of 37 (27427)
12-19-2002 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by quicksink
03-15-2002 10:57 AM


Do you say this is "music" because of Humphreys relying on the relation of light to sound to get the point a metric? You must be careful if this is the reason to belive that Humphries is just a misspelled word in my net postings because there is quite a difference between a steady motion and an undulation. The last term need not only apply to light as Humphreys has correctly keyed in I believe. As for what Newton thought on the relation of sound and light in scientific composition however can be quite otherwise expanded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by quicksink, posted 03-15-2002 10:57 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by forgiven, posted 12-21-2002 10:00 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 37 (27590)
12-21-2002 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Brad McFall
12-19-2002 10:02 PM


bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 12-19-2002 10:02 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Born Again Atheist
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 37 (226075)
07-24-2005 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by forgiven
12-13-2002 10:35 PM


Forgiven writes:
i gotta admit you leave me in the dust
You wrote this in response to a long quote by Brad McFall. I read it over a couple of times and came to the conclusion that it is non-sensical. He is throwing words together and they mean nothing at all. It's a talent some people have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by forgiven, posted 12-13-2002 10:35 PM forgiven has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 07-24-2005 11:54 PM Born Again Atheist has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1423 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 37 of 37 (226077)
07-24-2005 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Born Again Atheist
07-24-2005 11:48 PM


brad's good at that. i suspect he's not just throwing words together, and that he actually means something -- it's just that none of us seem to actually understand what the heck he's trying to say.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Born Again Atheist, posted 07-24-2005 11:48 PM Born Again Atheist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024