Is our universe stationary ?

I know this only applies to the part of understanding cosmology when the subjectivity of the investigator is at issue but if the question was is the Universe moving inertially with respect to different genetics of humans then this DOES indeed apply to the thread head question here, for I think indeed I have found THE DELUSION that Gladyshev claimed was plaguing biophysics. I'll give more details later if anyone is interested but it (the illusion in the delusion) seems to result when trying to comprehensively use the words "predict" and "prescribe" when dealing with the subject matter of "Evolving Hierarchial Systems" wherein Stanley N. Salthe wrote in the 80s about "constuitive changes". I dont really think these are changes at all be issues about relative motion you brought down in your thread so where Salthe attempted to reinscribe, "The acquisition of increased internal stability (a kind of measure of negentropy) will mean that constitutive changes in the system will slow down."(page 28) I, BSM, think that Salthe confused HIS OWN AGING (and hence any motion of the UNIVERSE) with Russell discrimination (by claiming a lack of proof by Cantor gaining only the reals as limits of the rationals etc etc mathematically) of distance and interval. I will have more forthcoming. But if the universe is moving relative to human genetics (lets say the TWO DIFFERENT ASTEROIDS started two different chemical equilibria of life here with humans nonselfishly only arising from one side of these two rocks etc) then this "change" might be a symmetry of heritibility only and not an indication of dogmatic difference if I have correctly thought the non sequitar here as Gladsyhev's delusion in the c/e illusion on return not from space but from a transcendental "frame" of mind.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-24-2004 03:26 PM

Inifinte divisibility can exist even WHILE there is impentrability EVEN if there is not absolute space. I can imagine for instance Kant's "community" of Russell's understanding of space of space without absolute posistion but if the universe IS infintely divisible provided all humans are only seeing a part of it it might practically mean that the reason can always have a transcendetal PLACE to explore even if time travel were not possible.It is true this Had little relevance to the real world so far. But if nanotechnology wrongly proceeds along Watson's ideas for disease corrections where classical science already provides the equilibria to adjust our man-made designs (whehter during space travel or existence here on earth with diminishing biodiversity) and some nanoecological self-reproducing material destroys a food chain then IF the ecosystem engineers in the connection in nature were bound by infinite divibility THEN by catastrophe we would have learned of, this, a possible real world application of our relative discussion of motion in this universe. I am not a Prophet or a son of a....The "delusion" had to do with applying some of Russel's ideas without engaging biologically Cantor's organic THOUGHT. Sure one would expect if transfinite thought were to apply in nature it would find its place first in Opticks as Cantor had suggested and thus likely where for instance Bridgeman differed from Enstein but it seems to me that the reason objectively we do not SEE this in science as of yet is only because the motivation for applications of these NUMBERS that Aristotle would have rejected in the formation of them has to do with the organization of organisms but we have not gain said our information transmissions to the point of DISTRIBUTING the code attachements thought a community or guild of species. We are not "validating" our species just because we can not feel the universe moving but we can certainly observe things that are wrong with it.The illusion has to do as I tried to show in some of my first posts on Gladyshev with entropy misdiscussed which caused Georgi to respond to me a hugely respectful way

quote:

---

From : ’ ‘
Sent : Wednesday, May 5, 2004 2:35 AM
To : "Brad McFall"
Subject : Re: Brad's ...

​

| | | Inbox

​

05.05. 2004

​

Dear Brad,

​

This is my quote (from my site and my book) indeed! (Post: 332, berberry).

​

"During the last decades, an opinion has widely spread that there is . Besides, it is claimed that
this contradiction
living systems by the methods of equilibrium thermodynamics>. The author of
the present work states: if living systems are described in the framework of
hierarchic equilibrium thermodynamics, this contradiction does not exist.
" .

​

I would like to point out this quote is connected with the statement of I.
Prigogine. The statement one can find in the caver (and in a text) of his
well-known monograph.

​

I said about the contradictions between classical thermodynamics (as this
believe some scientists) and "biological order and laws of physics -
particularly the second law of thermodynamics". Now, the law of temporal
hierarchies has been discovered and we can use the approaches of the
thermodynamics of quasi-closed systems. Before my works, it was no
possibility to apply the equilibrium thermodynamics (quasi-equilibrium
thermodynamics, thermodynamics of quasi-closed systems) to investigate the
open living systems.

​

The situation with the thermodynamics is an analog of situation with the
entropy! There are different "types of thermodynamics". Scientists know
about this! I say, as a rule, about classical (equilibrium or
quasi-equilibrium thermodynamics).

​

Deer Brad,

​

I consider (I said about this before) it will be very useful if you
recommend to anybody, who would like to have a part in our discussion, to
have a look at any good textbook of physical chemistry.

​

In this case, there would not be any mistakes and misunderstanding. We will
understand each other very well! For example, there is the excellent
textbook in the USA: Alberty R.A. Physical Chemistry; 7th Ed.; Wiley: New
York, etc.: Wiley, 1987. 934 p. May be there is the next edition?

​

There are many terms in this book, which we use in chemistry, biochemistry,
biophysical chemistry, and physics, and so on. Some new terms one can find
in my website: http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/sntut/sntut.htm (in:
http://www.endeav.org/evolut ).

​

Sincerely,

​

Georgi

---

Salthe did this in his book "Evolving Hierarchical Structures" and I KNOW THIS becuase I discussed this book with SIMON LEVIN when it first came out. He later wrote about the Wright's landscape but never got the nested issue I was able to raise on reading SOME of it that caused me to think of how temperature was measured. My life later became a mess and I see the whole problem found on ONE PAGE in this book EXACTLY as Georgi Gladyshev had told me was mistaken. On Georgi's vie there is no contradiction and our misperceptions about motion are all bout some thoughts that this contradication in terms might exist. Only for the Artist can this really become an issue and then it is a matter for reception of the perception NOT UNDERSTANDING only.Seriously, no- I do not speak as much as I write here. Often I am pressed for time so I blurt out faster in print than anything I could say in public. So if you are really interested to hear me in my own voice pick up some issue on the BM thread and dont let me get away with a one response reponse. I am pleased to be at EVC posting and I will take all the time needed to get through to you if that is what you want.

Yes that was in reply to that post of yours.Yes, I will slow down- the explanation.Part of the problem IS NOT MINE, however.
Most of the participants here do not THINK through as many "issues" before they repost so I am often caught with more thoughts than words.
At present I need to respond in a rather lengthy way to the issue of Monod vs Stanely but Ook has already appreciated where I am heading and I have not finished this 'issue' sniwk issued.Sometimes I am at a public terminal with only 1 hour to get everything I want to say said and I find that I am pressed in internet time to get it all OUT so I do make some short cuts at that time. You might notice that my last posts in a session are often less comprehenisble in this regard than some of earlier ones. For that, indeed, I am to blame.What happens is that most of the posters here are interested in the the turn from a Creationist to and Evolutionary perspective and most really only want to see THIS, whatever it is, in print. I have no problem showing this but showing it both within a reasonbale amount of print & remaining in the weave of a particular thread head is often difficult.In this case I could probably do something in your issue about a stationary vs nonstationary UNIVERSE but I have so many more, and I hope more practical things, to write as I get to this point that you are correct it is best for sake of this threads continuity to hold off on this a bit more. I will be around. Simply remind me again once I start to talk about state trasitions. First I must figure out if whomever is communicating with me is thinking of the first equilibria I started to discuss or the Mt. Improbable I am trying to climb up in your isses or mine of universality.Bon Voage.We were talking about the difference of measurements of inertia vs relative inertia. Just think, it was not until the 1960s that we had the technology to disapprove of Maxwell's ideas of magnetic inertia (I think it was in the Bates book on Modern Magentism) which he thought quite a bit before but in the issue of SENSING the motion of our"" Universe we would need a device, other than our understanding, able to discrimate these small values relative to each other and not absolutely. I doubt there is any way to do this. There may be. I do not know as much objective physics as I do subjective biology.I see the spelling errors. Do you really think it would change my posts signficantly if I was to correct those in here?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-26-2004 10:22 AM

apparently doing so did not help with translating Croizat's ITALIAN in terms say of any TREE in CENTRAL PERK/PARK, friends, I'm fine.