Seeking Science

I'm wondering if anyone can explain to me how planetary orbits are self-correcting. Years ago, I read about them deviating from their paths, then correcting for these perturbations entirely on their own. Obviously this a natural part of them orbiting in elliptical patterns, but how do they correct for these deviations? Having done many online searches for such information, I've come up with absolutely nothing.

You mentioned electromagnetism. Can you explain more about how that would involve negative feedback, as that's actually much closer to what I'm trying to quantify than any of the other examples mentioned here. If it's as complicated as you say, maybe you could point me to a book, etc. where I could learn to understand it. Thanks for the earlier info btw. Having suspected that A & B might involve rates as well, it sounds like there's a light at the end of tunnel.

I mostly need an example of how the correct equation can be solved and am unable to find one. Understanding how it would be solved for a furnace or any other negative-feedback system would send me in the right direction.

Is feedback negative when AB < 0 or when 1/(1 - AB) < 1? Correspondingly, is feedback positive when AB > 0, or when 1/(1 - AB) > 1? I've found nothing but conflicting information on this. Also, while species, hormones, nutrients, and even entire populations are governed via negative feedback, how does one determine what A and B are? In a furnace, for example, governed via a thermostat, this is clearly a negative-feedback system. But what is A in this case, what is B, and which equation quantifies it as a negative-feedback system? AB < 0? Or 1/(1 - AB) < 1? According to my calculations, it's not possible for both equations to be valid. I need to know the answer to this in order to go forward with my work, so I really appreciate any help on this matter.

Life is technically defined as anything that both metabolizes and reproduces. But the more science advances, the more those distinctions diminish. Because everything in Nature is every bit a cyclical as life itself, there is actually little that separates us from our cosmos. Read Lee Smolin's book The Life of the Cosmos. Smolin is a well-known physicist who argues that our entire universe is very much alive. They even turned Smolin's idea into a one-hour show on Morgan Freeman's: Through the Wormhole. Or for an even better answer visit www.universalselection.com, where it's proven that every system in Nature that is of any real complexity is comparable to both an organism and an ecology.

Life is technically defined as anything that both metabolizes and reproduces. But the more science advances, the more those distinctions diminish. Because everything in Nature is every bit a cyclical as life itself, there is actually little that separates us from our cosmos. Read Lee Smolin's book The Life of the Cosmos. Smolin is a very well known physicist who argues, extremely well, that our entire universe is very much alive. They even turned Smolin's idea into an entire show on Morgan Freeman's: Through the Wormhole...

Is feedback negative when AB < 0 or when 1/(1 - AB) < 1? And, correspondingly, is feedback positive when AB > 0, or when 1/(1 - AB) > 1? I've found nothing but conflicting information on this. Also, while species, the regulation of hormones, nutrients, and even entire populations are governed via negative feedback, how does one determine what A and B are? In a furnace, for example, governed via a traditional thermostat, this is clearly a negative-feedback system. But what is A in this case, what is B, and which equation quantifies it as a negative-feedback system? AB < 0? Or 1/(1 - AB) < 1?

While the speed of light is governed by c = 1/(μo εo)½--a derivation of Maxwell's equations where μo is the magnetic permittivity in free space and εo is electrical permittivity in free space--does increasing mass help govern c as well? As shown by Einstein, when the Lorentz factor (y = 1/(1 - v2/c2)-1/2)is included in E = mc2 as E = ymc2, as a thing approaches the speed of light, its relativistic mass approaches infinity. So does this too help to govern c, or is increasing mass just a side effect? And if it's just a side effect, how does infinite mass when v = c not play a role in restricting this speed?

Do you know the name of this equation or that of its discoverer? Or do you know where I can learn more about it? c = 1/(eo Uo )½ Thank you!

If the Lorentz factor isn't what determines the speed of light, then what does?

The Lorentz factor would provide the mechanism/the negative feedback. Might you know how to then determine A & B? As that's what would prove it quantitatively.

Hello, I'm wondering if it can be demonstrated mathematically that the speed of light is caused by negative feedback in spacetime as a regulatory-feedback system. While no one to my knowledge has ever put it in those words before, Einstein appears to have have demonstrated this extremely well with General Relativity, relativistic mass, the Twin Paradox & more. I just don't know how to demonstrate that AB < 0, as well as the percentage of feedback. The speed of light is ultimately determined by the Lorentz Factor, which shows that the relative velocity between two observers is regulated via constancy in the frame of reference dt. This equation is as follows: wherein γ, or gamma, calculates the change in time, dt, relative to the change in proper time, dτ. Also, v is the relative velocity between these reference frames, and c is the speed of light. To then graph the Lorentz Factor, we have the following: As a function of velocity, when v is 0, γ equals 1 and rises only slightly as relative speed increases. As v approaches c, however, γ approaches infinity, making it impossible for information, waves or mass to travel faster than the speed of light. With the numerator fixed at one, or unity, the stimulus in the Lorentz Factor is provided by its denominator . When graphed separately (below, in red) the denominator, or dτ, illustrates the manner in which time, relative to the first observer, slows down for the second as she accelerates toward c. As revealed by the Twin Paradox, if the second observer was able to accelerate to the speed of light, relative to the first observer time for her would be at a standstill and, in turn, y would be infinity. Because the Lorentz factor thus increases as proper time decreases, this graph reveals a negative link, or negative feedback, between dτ as the stimulus and y as the end result. Moreover, because acceleration (A) leads to decreased proper time (B) and, in contrast, decreased proper time leads to decreased acceleration, we appear to be granted the following diagram: While greater velocity, or acceleration, provides the input, A, the Lorentz factor provides the output, which is of course a product of decreased proper time, B. Because the Lorentz factor regulates velocity in this manner, it becomes increasingly difficult to accelerate an object whose interaction with time is approaching a standstill, or τ = 0. With that said, what I'm unsure of here are A and B and, in turn, how to demonstrate that AB < 0, therein proving that c is governed via negative feedback.