On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:39:40 -0600, "Steve Bell"
wrote:


This belief of "an independent external world" of mine actually has nothing
to do with any mathematical development, it is purely philosophical, I would
say. My "world view" is that there exists an independent external world,
doing its "thing," and we as scientists and observes are just trying to
figure out what this "thing" is. In the Scale Relativity papers, given they
are really talking about deterministic chaos theory, why would a
deterministic world behave differently just because we gain better and
better resolution in our observations?

This is a very rough and ready response because its a while since I
looked at a Scale Relativity paper, but I think one answer would be
that there is only one world and it does what it does at all levels.
However, when we examine its behaviour at a microphysical level we see
quantum behaviour, because then we are using a resolution at which
that becomes visible, and when we examine at a coarser resolution we
see classical behaviour, because that is what is visible at that
level. As to the question of how Nature maintains these different
levels of behaviour that would seem to be one of emergence.

I am not sure how well Scale Relativity handles that, but there is at
least this paper:
Quantum-classical transition in Scale Relativity
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609161

That might provide a viable answer, though I can't promise.

I am being called away from my computer for a while, so I will comment
later on the rest of your post which looks very interesting.

Cheers,
Surfer

They seem to be tying a fundamental
characteristic of a physically chaotic deterministic system, i.e., the
degree of its "fractal-ness", to us and our ability to observe. If you
believe the external world is deterministic, its deterministic character to
me, is what it is, regardless of how accurate and precise we can observe.
And even if the progression from the present to the future is truthfully
stochastic, that is still to me, a characteristic of an independent world
that just makes it harder for use to figure out what the hell is going on,
more so than if it were deterministic. Either way, what we can or cannot
intuit from observation changes not the true character of the external
world. Not in my opinion, anyway.

This issue of truthful determinism or truthful stochasticism is unbelievably
important to me. I used to think the motion of electrons, say, in atoms, was
truthfully stochastic. But I think I'm changing my mind now because of chaos
theory. If the motion of electrons in the atomic world, and all particles
everywhere for all time were/are actually deterministic, but just really,
really complicated, that is a hard thing to accept too, because that means
all events, from the beginning of the universe were predetermined by the
initial conditions from that point onward. There is no "free will" or
anything like that. We've just been "faked out" into thinking such things as
"we have free will" because this tremendous deterministic complexity makes
it look like "nothing is cast in stone." But maybe it is. In certain ways,
that's comforting because "what will be will be," but them it's depressing
to think I can't do anything about tomorrow. I believe philosophers have
been struggling with this for decades, if not from the first time a
Neanderthal buried one of their dead with ceremony.

But the equations are beautiful. I worked up the tensor algebra of the Kerr
equations of motion (field equations) as linear algebra, for the purpose of
computation. You can see this representation at:

http://physics.clarku.edu/cip/sbell/suppl.pdf

There is no actual derivation in the above of the Kerr metric, but I
followed very nearly Wald's syntax. It's a fairly quick explanation of to
how get to the computational equations. I must stress, that to a true
GR'ist, I took "license" with issues of coordinate contraction/expansion,
this was mainly to basically get what one would see with our "inertial
brains". I wrote an orbit simulation, "fully Kerr," and generated the
following plots:

http://physics.clarku.edu/cip/sbell/fig1.pdf
http://physics.clarku.edu/cip/sbell/fig2.pdf

It's in FOTRAN, I've been meaning to convert it to C, but for computation
speed on a Windows PC, FORTRAN is just as fast as C. The source code is
available, if you wish. This is for a 10 solar mass black hole (remember,
this is no-where as complicated as n-body) with a test body (the satellite)
starting off with 0.14c at a 45 deg angle to x-y. The beginning eccentricity
was 0.5, the reason for the loop-to-loops. With ecc = 0, nice round circles
are produced, with beautiful deterministic frame-dragging effects bringing
the orbits out-of-plane. A shell can be produced like this. The second pdf
shows how if continued, a torus will be formed. This shows the wide
plasticity of Kerr orbits with their nonlinear frame-dragging effects
(geomagnetism). If GP-B doesn't find this, that would be a blow.

It could be at the birth, very small, almost differential, slight
differences in initial conditions of what-ever-the-hell were the particles
back 13.7 by ago, has by now, produced a gigantic chaotic, but
deterministic, "settling in to some gigantic attractor." The chaos could
have evolved very rapidly (inflation) attaining almost that of today's
complexity in a very small amount of time, and now we are just along for the
ride. The resolution of this with quantized jumps in the world of the small
(atoms) is very difficult. But phase space quantized to h_bar will help.

Steve Bell

On Apr 29, 1:23 am, Dono wrote:
On Apr 28, 9:06 am, Surfer wrote:

We may need something like this.

"Modelling and Generating Complex Emergent Behaviour"http://www.users.on.net/~kirsty.kitto/papers/02whole.pdf

Kirsty Kitto is Rag Cahill new wife (a husband-wife crackpot team).
Which one of the two are you ?

Dude, you are imagining things. May I first point out my own anti-
Process-Physics credentials: if you look at the revision history of
the Wikipedia article on the theory, you will find me on 20 April 2007
attempting to insert a link to a Usenet discussion in which the "error
bar" criticism of the claims about absolute velocity was made.

I do, nonetheless, know Kirsty, and I can tell you she's not even at
Reg's university any more, let alone married to him. So may I ask how
you came upon this piece of misinformation? It does not inspire any
confidence in your own abilities to analyse, interpret, or otherwise
tell fact from fantasy, which are obviously abilities you need if you
are to be a credible champion of scientific orthodoxy.

Elsewhere in this thread I see it being asserted that Cahill's group
are here on Usenet incognito. Without investigating I can hardly say
yes or no, but the casual falsehood tossed off above leads me to think
it's just more paranoia. That laypeople should develop an enthusiasm
for an alternative scientific theory is hardly unknown, is it? If you
feel that these ideas have to be slapped down repeatedly, forget the
paranoia, just make a FAQ and focus on the substantive arguments.

On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:46:21 -0600, "Steve Bell"
wrote:


"Steve Bell" wrote in message
.. .
But the equations are beautiful. I worked up the tensor algebra of the
Kerr
equations of motion (field equations) as linear algebra, for the purpose
of
computation. You can see this representation at:

http://physics.clarku.edu/cip/sbell/suppl.pdf

There is no actual derivation in the above of the Kerr metric, but I
followed very nearly Wald's syntax. It's a fairly quick explanation of to
how get to the computational equations. I must stress, that to a true
GR'ist, I took "license" with issues of coordinate contraction/expansion,
this was mainly to basically get what one would see with our "inertial
brains". I wrote an orbit simulation, "fully Kerr," and generated the
following plots:

http://physics.clarku.edu/cip/sbell/fig1.pdf
http://physics.clarku.edu/cip/sbell/fig2.pdf

It's in FOTRAN, I've been meaning to convert it to C, but for computation
speed on a Windows PC, FORTRAN is just as fast as C. The source code is
available, if you wish. This is for a 10 solar mass black hole (remember,
this is no-where as complicated as n-body) with a test body (the
satellite)
starting off with 0.14c at a 45 deg angle to x-y. The beginning
eccentricity
was 0.5, the reason for the loop-to-loops. With ecc = 0, nice round
circles
are produced, with beautiful deterministic frame-dragging effects bringing
the orbits out-of-plane. A shell can be produced like this. The second pdf
shows how if continued, a torus will be formed. This shows the wide
plasticity of Kerr orbits with their nonlinear frame-dragging effects
(geomagnetism). If GP-B doesn't find this, that would be a blow.

It could be at the birth, very small, almost differential, slight
differences in initial conditions of what-ever-the-hell were the particles
back 13.7 by ago, has by now, produced a gigantic chaotic, but
deterministic, "settling in to some gigantic attractor." The chaos could
have evolved very rapidly (inflation) attaining almost that of today's
complexity in a very small amount of time, and now we are just along for
the
ride. The resolution of this with quantized jumps in the world of the
small
(atoms) is very difficult. But phase space quantized to h_bar will help.

Steve Bell



Here is a Kerr shell about half way to completion. It looks a little
squished due to perspective:

http://sb635.mystarband.net/kerr.pdf

The spherical shell is produced by the Kerr frame-dragging effects. It's
pretty, but I don't believe an actual electron shell is so perfect. I'm
thinking about how to produce a deterministic structure that would actually
look stochastic to the eye.

Those are very nice plots. The idea that particles could be held
together by GR effects is an intriguing one.
If Gravity Probe B were to confirm Cahill's frame-dragging prediction
then I believe the frame-dragging term in your model would need to be
given an extra component to make it respond to velocity through
3-space--as described here.

Novel Gravity Probe B Frame-Dragging Effect
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0406121

So I think the spherical shell would then be caused to distort by
fluctuations in 3-space velocity, which are probably stochastic.

-- Surfer

On May 2, 5:01 am, mitchell porter wrote:
On Apr 29, 1:23 am, Dono wrote:

On Apr 28, 9:06 am, Surfer wrote:

We may need something like this.

"Modelling and Generating Complex Emergent Behaviour"http://www.users.on.net/~kirsty.kitto/papers/02whole.pdf

Kirsty Kitto is Rag Cahill new wife (a husband-wife crackpot team).
Which one of the two are you ?

Dude, you are imagining things. May I first point out my own anti-
Process-Physics credentials: if you look at the revision history of
the Wikipedia article on the theory, you will find me on 20 April 2007
attempting to insert a link to a Usenet discussion in which the "error
bar" criticism of the claims about absolute velocity was made.

I do, nonetheless, know Kirsty, and I can tell you she's not even at
Reg's university any more, let alone married to him. So may I ask how
you came upon this piece of misinformation? It does not inspire any
confidence in your own abilities to analyse, interpret, or otherwise
tell fact from fantasy, which are obviously abilities you need if you
are to be a credible champion of scientific orthodoxy.

Elsewhere in this thread I see it being asserted that Cahill's group
are here on Usenet incognito. Without investigating I can hardly say
yes or no, but the casual falsehood tossed off above leads me to think
it's just more paranoia. That laypeople should develop an enthusiasm
for an alternative scientific theory is hardly unknown, is it? If you
feel that these ideas have to be slapped down repeatedly, forget the
paranoia, just make a FAQ and focus on the substantive arguments.



You are right, "Surfer" is neither Cahill, nor Kirsty, it is a guy
called Peter H. Brown who , among other things, hosts the Cahill
papers. As to debunking, "Surfer" has been debunked many times over,
see he

http://www.savefile.com/files/1339961

and he

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...1b06ddbdac5b5#

To no avail, he still comes back with the same BS.

"Surfer" wrote in message
...



Here is a Kerr shell about half way to completion. It looks a little
squished due to perspective:

http://sb635.mystarband.net/kerr.pdf

The spherical shell is produced by the Kerr frame-dragging effects. It's
pretty, but I don't believe an actual electron shell is so perfect. I'm
thinking about how to produce a deterministic structure that would
actually
look stochastic to the eye.

Those are very nice plots. The idea that particles could be held
together by GR effects is an intriguing one.
If Gravity Probe B were to confirm Cahill's frame-dragging prediction
then I believe the frame-dragging term in your model would need to be
given an extra component to make it respond to velocity through
3-space--as described here.

Novel Gravity Probe B Frame-Dragging Effect
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0406121

So I think the spherical shell would then be caused to distort by
fluctuations in 3-space velocity, which are probably stochastic.

-- Surfer

I've never heard the name Cahill associated with frame dragging, it was
known early on by Lense-Thirring and then formalized by Kerr in the 1960s.
It's amazing that not much work was done for a few decades until Kerr did
his work. The Kerr frame dragging effects I am referring to in an atom are
not mass based, they are charge based. I worked up an electronic
Schwarzschild representation of an electrostatic Coulomb field first, then
generalized it to an electronic Kerr field. It looks like it unifies geo and
electro magnetism.

I would say the stochasticism is probably only approximate. One of the neat
things about using Kerr orbit theory, is that shells can be produced, as my
pictures show. I was thinking about what a completely isolated hydrogen atom
in ground state would settle down to, and I believe that then, the shell
goes away, and the electron settles into a plane perpendicular to the roll
axis of the proton. The magnetic fields of the electron and the proton would
naturally line them up like that. The proton is still spinning, but at zero
inclination for the electron, the electronic Kerr frame dragging effects do
not throw out of plane (but there is an effect on the binding energy). Then,
if this hydrogen atom were to be brought close to other matter, this
pristine condition gets modified, the electron gets pushed out of plane by
exterior forces, the frame dragging effects kick in and the shells are
produced. The motion though, through the shell is not as pretty as I showed
in the image, but gets deterministically chaotic, which might look
stochastic, but really is not. There is, though, an effective randomizing
effect, where due to the chaos, the electron's orbital plane is all over the
place, and any orbital-based magnetic field gets washed out. It's
instantaneously there, but it's direction changes fast enough to get washed
out. I think this is why it looks like there's no orbital-based magnetic
field interaction in an atom, at least in spherical shells anyway.

Steve

"Steve Bell" wrote in message
...

"Surfer" wrote in message
...



Here is a Kerr shell about half way to completion. It looks a little
squished due to perspective:

http://sb635.mystarband.net/kerr.pdf

The spherical shell is produced by the Kerr frame-dragging effects.
It's
pretty, but I don't believe an actual electron shell is so perfect. I'm
thinking about how to produce a deterministic structure that would
actually
look stochastic to the eye.

Those are very nice plots. The idea that particles could be held
together by GR effects is an intriguing one.
If Gravity Probe B were to confirm Cahill's frame-dragging prediction
then I believe the frame-dragging term in your model would need to be
given an extra component to make it respond to velocity through
3-space--as described here.

Novel Gravity Probe B Frame-Dragging Effect
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0406121

So I think the spherical shell would then be caused to distort by
fluctuations in 3-space velocity, which are probably stochastic.

-- Surfer


From reading the above, it is obvious that Dr. Cahill know his stuff. His
mathematics is immediately clear right from the start, based on first
principles. But if the stronger-than-Kerr frame dragging effects are
significantly bigger than Kerr, to me they should have been seen by now. I
believe the researchers are having a difficult time right now in quantifying
any significant frame dragging effects due to unanticipated determinsitic
errors. But since the above equations predict different-than-Kerr frame
dragging effects, if the researchers attain the level of precision and
accuracy they think they can, the GP-B data should show if Cahill is correct
or incorrect. Right now, I bet on Kerr, but we will see.

I've read a lot of Cahill's work now and I see what he is getting at. He
describes full blown gravity as containing the usual Lorentzian specially
relativistic effects plus a velocity vector field of space itself. A test
particle in free fall in this velocity field is coasting along a geodesic,
but with a generalized definition of what a geodesic is as compared to
classic GR. This vector field can flow, and it is this flow effect of space
that is actually frame dragging. This is a very interesting approach towards
gravity, and is a strong competitor to any other well formulated theory I've
seen. If GP-B comes up with numbers in agreement with Cahill, then I'd say
this guys is on his way to recognition, and justifiably, so if the
predictions agree. Of course it's a natural question of what exactly it is
that's "flowing," and I'd imagine Cahill would say space itself. This smacks
of an aether, but in truth, in classic GR, space itself get curved, which is
just as "aetheristic" to me.

Steve Bell


I've never heard the name Cahill associated with frame dragging, it was
known early on by Lense-Thirring and then formalized by Kerr in the 1960s.
It's amazing that not much work was done for a few decades until Kerr did
his work. The Kerr frame dragging effects I am referring to in an atom are
not mass based, they are charge based. I worked up an electronic
Schwarzschild representation of an electrostatic Coulomb field first, then
generalized it to an electronic Kerr field. It looks like it unifies geo
and
electro magnetism.

I would say the stochasticism is probably only approximate. One of the
neat
things about using Kerr orbit theory, is that shells can be produced, as
my
pictures show. I was thinking about what a completely isolated hydrogen
atom
in ground state would settle down to, and I believe that then, the shell
goes away, and the electron settles into a plane perpendicular to the roll
axis of the proton. The magnetic fields of the electron and the proton
would
naturally line them up like that. The proton is still spinning, but at
zero
inclination for the electron, the electronic Kerr frame dragging effects
do
not throw out of plane (but there is an effect on the binding energy).
Then,
if this hydrogen atom were to be brought close to other matter, this
pristine condition gets modified, the electron gets pushed out of plane by
exterior forces, the frame dragging effects kick in and the shells are
produced. The motion though, through the shell is not as pretty as I
showed
in the image, but gets deterministically chaotic, which might look
stochastic, but really is not. There is, though, an effective randomizing
effect, where due to the chaos, the electron's orbital plane is all over
the
place, and any orbital-based magnetic field gets washed out. It's
instantaneously there, but it's direction changes fast enough to get
washed
out. I think this is why it looks like there's no orbital-based magnetic
field interaction in an atom, at least in spherical shells anyway.

Steve

On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:59:05 -0600, "Steve Bell"
wrote:


"Steve Bell" wrote in message
.. .

"Surfer" wrote in message
...



Here is a Kerr shell about half way to completion. It looks a little
squished due to perspective:

http://sb635.mystarband.net/kerr.pdf

The spherical shell is produced by the Kerr frame-dragging effects.
It's
pretty, but I don't believe an actual electron shell is so perfect. I'm
thinking about how to produce a deterministic structure that would
actually
look stochastic to the eye.

Those are very nice plots. The idea that particles could be held
together by GR effects is an intriguing one.
If Gravity Probe B were to confirm Cahill's frame-dragging prediction
then I believe the frame-dragging term in your model would need to be
given an extra component to make it respond to velocity through
3-space--as described here.

Novel Gravity Probe B Frame-Dragging Effect
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0406121

So I think the spherical shell would then be caused to distort by
fluctuations in 3-space velocity, which are probably stochastic.

-- Surfer


From reading the above, it is obvious that Dr. Cahill know his stuff. His
mathematics is immediately clear right from the start, based on first
principles. But if the stronger-than-Kerr frame dragging effects are
significantly bigger than Kerr, to me they should have been seen by now. I
believe the researchers are having a difficult time right now in quantifying
any significant frame dragging effects due to unanticipated determinsitic
errors. But since the above equations predict different-than-Kerr frame
dragging effects, if the researchers attain the level of precision and
accuracy they think they can, the GP-B data should show if Cahill is correct
or incorrect. Right now, I bet on Kerr, but we will see.

I've read a lot of Cahill's work now and I see what he is getting at. He
describes full blown gravity as containing the usual Lorentzian specially
relativistic effects plus a velocity vector field of space itself. A test
particle in free fall in this velocity field is coasting along a geodesic,
but with a generalized definition of what a geodesic is as compared to
classic GR. This vector field can flow, and it is this flow effect of space
that is actually frame dragging. This is a very interesting approach towards
gravity, and is a strong competitor to any other well formulated theory I've
seen. If GP-B comes up with numbers in agreement with Cahill, then I'd say
this guys is on his way to recognition, and justifiably, so if the
predictions agree. Of course it's a natural question of what exactly it is
that's "flowing," and I'd imagine Cahill would say space itself. This smacks
of an aether, but in truth, in classic GR, space itself get curved, which is
just as "aetheristic" to me.


Thanks very much for this evaluation.

-- Surfer