This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080904030801040100030407
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
rloldershaw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>On Mar 9, 10:16 am, Roger Bagula <rlbag...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>>Is the universe a fractal?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>A new paradigm is on its way and not even the well-organized group of
>arrogant and closed-minded "gatekeepers" has the power to stop its
>progress.
>Rob
>www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>
>
>
Robert Oldershaw,
The faster than light guy from Cambridge says the fractal
people can't be right ( Joao Magueijo) : it has to do with
homogeneousness of the universe: he says on page 137 that:
"If this is true , burn this book, forget about Big Bang cosmology
and start crying convulsively."
Joao Magueijo is definitely not one of the "gatekeepers".
But I go along with the "close-minded" interpretation :
the Weeks -Thurson manifold approach to the cosmic background blackbody
radiation
is the only one I find any real work being done on
by the cosmological physics community.
In these approaches fractal statistics have been rejected.
The most comprehensive paper that I've found on the subject is by
Janna Levin who also wrote a dummied down version as a book.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Universe-Got-Its-Spots/dp/1400032725/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-0029617-0633535?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173628472&sr=8-2
> *How the Universe Got Its Spots: Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite
> Space *
The "Soccer ball" dodecahedron manifold was the result.
She used Gaussian statistics in her paper's analysis.
> A very good analysis of the Thurston -Weeks approach in only 97 pages
> and it is actually readable to some extent!
>
> http://meghnad.iucaa.ernet.in/~himan/codes/pr.pdf
> [PDF]
> Topology and the Cosmic Microwave Background
> File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
> to observe the finite extent of the universe in the cosmic background
> radiation. ... Although the Weeks space is the smallest known manifold
> it ...
What to someone from fractals likes like a fractal distribution
they are attributing to any but...
I think part of the trouble is that the Russian school of fractal
inflation ( actually chaotic inflation by Linde 1987)
bears very little resemblance to any known actual fractal theory?
Most of the cosmology world seem totally innocent of any exposure to any
of Mandelbrot's work.
( they seem to avoid it like the plague: so other versions of
topological/ geometric fractal manifold theory
is ignorred as well?).
If any one is going to come up with a good cosmic background radiation
theory
from the fractal point of view it has to be a fractalist.
Fractal percolation or fractal Brownian motion seem to be the most
likely approaches.
The WMAP result picture clearly looks like a fractal percolation.
Roger Bagula
--------------080904030801040100030407
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:rloldershaw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
">rloldershaw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid1173504202.609301.321760@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mar 9, 10:16 am, Roger Bagula <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:rlbag...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"><rlbag...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Is the universe a fractal?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
A new paradigm is on its way and not even the well-organized group of
arrogant and closed-minded "gatekeepers" has the power to stop its
progress.
Rob
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw">www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
Robert Oldershaw,<br>
The faster than light guy from Cambridge says the fractal<br>
people can't be right ( Joao Magueijo) : it has to do with<br>
homogeneousness of the universe: he says on page 137 that:<br>
"If this is true , burn this book, forget about Big Bang cosmology<br>
and start crying convulsively."<br>
Joao Magueijo is definitely not one of the "gatekeepers".<br>
<br>
But I go along with the "close-minded" interpretation :<br>
the Weeks -Thurson manifold approach to the cosmic background blackbody
radiation <br>
is the only one I find any real work being done on <br>
by the cosmological physics community.<br>
In these approaches fractal statistics have been rejected.<br>
<br>
The most comprehensive paper that I've found on the subject is by
<br>
Janna Levin who also wrote a dummied down version as a book.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.amazon.com/How-Universe-Got-Its-Spots/dp/1400032725/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-0029617-0633535?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173628472&sr=8-2">http://www.amazon.com/How-Universe-Got-Its-Spots/dp/1400032725/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-0029617-0633535?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173628472&sr=8-2</a><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><b class="sans">How the Universe Got Its Spots:
Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite Space </b></blockquote>
<br>
The "Soccer ball" dodecahedron manifold was the result.<br>
She used Gaussian statistics in her paper's analysis.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">A very good analysis of the Thurston -Weeks
approach in only 97 pages<br>
and it is actually readable to some extent!<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://meghnad.iucaa.ernet.in/%7Ehiman/codes/pr.pdf">http://meghnad.<wbr>iucaa.ernet.<wbr>in/~himan/<wbr>codes/pr.<wbr>pdf</a><br>
[PDF]<br>
Topology and the Cosmic Microwave Background<br>
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML<br>
to observe the finite extent of the universe in the cosmic background
radiation. ... Although the Weeks space is the smallest known manifold
it ...</blockquote>
What to someone from fractals likes like a fractal distribution <br>
they are attributing to any but...<br>
I think part of the trouble is that the Russian school of fractal
inflation ( actually chaotic inflation by Linde 1987)<br>
bears very little resemblance to any known actual fractal
theory?<br>
Most of the cosmology world seem totally innocent of any exposure to
any of Mandelbrot's work.<br>
( they seem to avoid it like the plague: so other versions of
topological/ geometric fractal manifold theory<br>
is ignorred as well?).<br>
If any one is going to come up with a good cosmic background radiation
theory <br>
from the fractal point of view it has to be a fractalist.<br>
Fractal percolation or fractal Brownian motion seem to be the most
likely approaches.<br>
The WMAP result picture clearly looks like a fractal percolation.<br>
Roger Bagula<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------080904030801040100030407--
|
