RE: the end of fermi's paradox?

From: Jef Allbright (
Date: Sat Jan 06 2007 - 10:43:17 MST

Mike -
If you would set your Outlook to post in plain text it would make reply
quoting much easier.


        From: [] On Behalf Of
Mike Dougherty
        Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 9:13 AM
        Subject: Re: the end of fermi's paradox?
        On 1/6/07, Jef Allbright <> wrote:

                Considering that the surface of a sphere increases with
the square of
                the radius, while the volume increases with the cube,
there seems to be
                an inherent physical constraint on the growth of any
system that defines
                intentions in terms of itself.
                With increasing growth of "self", and proportionally
diminishing surface
                area with which to interact with the "adjacent
possible", it would seem
                that expansion would reach a limit and growth would
necessarily become

        does the surface area/volume analogy extend to a hypersphere?
Is there any difference in the "adjacent possible" relationships between
higher dimensional hypersurfaces and lower? If a 4d space-time is in
adjacent contact with a higher-dimensional parent only at a single point
(t=0 for example) then wouldn't the relationship imply a one-way
influence? (such that the higher dimensional parent could easily
influence the life of the lower order universe through easily randomly
accesible 'starting' conditions, while the low-order universe would
appear to be predetermined at creation)
        I visualize this not as a mathemagically complex version of a
simple sphere (like a soap bubble), but as more a foam of soap bubbles
inside other soap bubbles. The 'surface area' is the soap, which may be
greater than the surface of the largest containing bubble. A point of
adjacency could be shared between several bubbles in the foam.

I can't say much, if anything, wrt speculation about additional physical
dimensions. Concepts can be extrapolated, but this says nothing about
whether physical reality supports such constructs. However, within the
subjective space, a model can be effectively as good as reality.

                It might also be interesting to consider the radiation
and reflection
                signature of a highly fractal body in space.

        I would google radiation and reflection, but I doubt I will find
the context in which you are using them. Do you have a link that better
describes these terms?

You can find pertinent references if you search "black body radiation",
"fractal antenna", and possibly some descriptions of the stealth fighter
- Jef

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT