On 09/23/2010 05:39 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > Mauro, > > I agree that numerical/finite-based simulations can never model real > systems like our solar system in the absolute sense. At present I'm > certainly not trying to model such systems, at least not in the > strictest sense. The best that models like mine can ever hope to > achieve would be to generate reasonably acceptable approximations of > the living mystery itself. > > Actually, at present I'm more interested in exploring the strange > behavior of CM chaos, in what might be considered a foolish attempt to > map out some of the observed characteristics. Who knows, perhaps there > may be practical applications. >
It certainly looks interesting to produce and introduce additional perturbations. That can maybe be a form of mapping or replacement for the missing dynamical character of the celestial mechanics simulation. > ... > > >> To say or think that the solar system is completely >> mechanicistic, would be the same as saying that it is dead. >> And if that where the case, long ago everything would have >> escaped the system, or collapsed, i.e. it would have >> effectively manifested its death, long time ago. And of >> course, we would not be here. We're here because there's >> something in the Cosmos that's inherently equal to us, i.e. >> it's inherently alive. We are no more (and no less) than >> the most clear, recent, evident manifestation of the living >> nature of the Universe. >> > Ah, an eloquent observation. Nevertheless, we must occasionally guard > against the danger of waxing on to such perturbat-ed depths as to > induce apoplexy within the souls of our brethren who prefer following > the sacred path of rationalism, or what often seems to me to be an > extreme form of: "Worshiping the Deity of External Measurement". But I > do agree with you: Seems to me that We simply are - as is the > Universe. Is there really a difference. > Yes. But please don't forget that these observations are true and pertinent. That is, they are not merely an issue of taste, or personal opinion. It's always rational to adhere to verifiable and comprehensible truth, even or particularly if that truth does not conform to our previously held notions. > But, once again, returning to objectively perceived manifestations... > (:-)) it's conceivable that the same analogy as it pertains to the > "death" of solar systems might also apply to the predicted "death" of > galaxies. It is predicted that most galaxies will fly apart, > eventually losing all of their stars. But then... Perhaps the Mystery > of MOND will come to our rescue. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics > I've studied MOND, to a certain extent. The problem with MOND, besides its ad-hoc approach, is that MOND is too simple. It only works for radially symmetrical cases; spiral and elliptical galaxies. The best I've found at the moment in relation to "modified gravity" approaches, is the work of Zhao and Li. In a groundbreaking paper, Zhao and Li propose that gravity is caused by a dynamical dark fluid. Not only that(I had informally proposed the same on my own), but they are also able to show that the different modified gravity theories can be derived from this unique "dark fluid" vector field. The dark fluid approach dispenses also with dark energy, dark matter and dark energy being just two sides of the same coin. The math is almost incomprehensible, at least to me, but the approach and the results are wonderful: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1588 ”One Field which rules them all and in the darkness bind them” as is beautifully said in the paper.
