Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

dan winter: on 9/2/10 at 14:17pm UTC, wrote Gravity IS Love:Attractive Physics& Nassim Defense BLACK HOLE Physics...

Steve Dufourny: on 12/21/09 at 14:57pm UTC, wrote A serious question.... Are you sure about your infinity ? Do you insert...

Steve Dufourny: on 12/21/09 at 14:34pm UTC, wrote What an incredible science ,I am fascinated ,what I say ,I am happy to see...

Anonymous: on 12/21/09 at 6:01am UTC, wrote Howdy, If you don't mind I'll get back to the science of this thread. ...

Steve Dufourny: on 12/4/09 at 11:37am UTC, wrote The old school is the key ,......the HIGGS are imaginaries .....all...

Anonymous: on 12/3/09 at 4:35am UTC, wrote A new submission to hep-th at arxiv.org presents an interesting challenge:...

Steve Dufourny: on 12/2/09 at 11:40am UTC, wrote This world doesn't turn indeed in the right road . Why thus ...probably...

Anonymous: on 12/1/09 at 3:49am UTC, wrote Hermann Weyl once commented: 'While topology has succeeded fairly well in...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Robert, thank you. I now understand the difference between decisions and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Making a decision, means selecting between discrete, a priori established..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 15, 2019

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: The Infinite Fractal Universe by Robert L. Oldershaw [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 15:59 GMT
Essay Abstract

The paradigmatic transition from a small finite universe to an infinite unbounded fractal cosmos is briefly put into context and discussed.

Author Bio

Independent scientist

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator




Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 17:05 GMT
Perhaps if I had titled my essay "The Infinite Fractal Universe And The Reincarnation Of Michael Jackson" I might have gotten some response.

Then again the actions of the confederacy are beyond the ken of mere mortals.

RLO

Bookmark and Share



Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 03:01 GMT
Dear Mr. Oldershaw,

I have to admit, I did not paid the right amount of attention to your essay. Yes eternal inflation solves undoubtedly many core problems, but there are my questions.

If once the inflation starts, it cannot really be stopped and if it is eternal, I would expect it to be much more widespread all around us. In other words, why is our observable universe so stable and uniform? (Yes, we seem to observe a positive cosmological constant, but it is really tiny.)

Let’s also compare this with biology (a usual inspirational ground on string landscape and multiverse ideas). We see new life forms being born all the time all around us (just think of all the bacteria we are killing all the time with chemicals). If inflation does not have a beginning in time and is truly eternal, then why we are not witnessing nearby galaxies just disappearing suddenly in a burst of inflation? A truly fractal structure would also manifest at smaller scales as well, and why is the atom stable and electrons are not extracted from the atom in a mini local inflation?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 04:01 GMT
I’m afraid that cosmogenesis still belongs as much to the domain of metaphysics as it did in pre-Copernican times, never mind the impressive arsenal of instruments we have at our disposal today, the theories the ingeniousness of which seem to pass for proof, nor the huge amount of data which, if I’m right, can support a much simpler and consistent scenario of a self-creating universe which cannot but produce a homogenous, isotropic universe and answers questions Big Bang hypothesis doesn’t even try to: the mechanics and why of its creation. Your statement that ‘the Big Bang model of the Universe has provided an excellent explanation for the basis cosmological observations’ seems to me far too optimistic, ‘excellent’ being a self-congratulating adjective hiding the true state of affairs in cosmology, which is that of a building only standing because it hasn’t yet realized that it was founded on sand.

As some other essays of the contest touch similar matters, I have posted my arguments among the discussion posts at my essay ‘Mechanics of a Self-Creating Universe’ –see my post of 25 september.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 17:30 GMT
Greetings Florin,

You might want to give www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw a thorough checking out.

Most of the issues you raise are addressed directly or indirectly there.

I regard the inflationary scenario as a stepping-stone to an infinite discrete self-similar cosmological paradigm, i.e., a discrete fractal cosmos.

I find the conceptual framework of multiverses and anthropic reasoning extremely unfortunate, bordering on pseudo-science.

Yours in science,

RLO

Bookmark and Share



Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 02:42 GMT
Hello Anton,

The discrete self-similar cosmological paradigm that I work on says that the notion of "cosmogenesis" is naive and misguided.

An infinite discrete self-similar hierarchy has no spatial of temporal bounds.

The Universe does not get "born" or "expire". The infinite cosmological system is eternal.

Parts can come and go, but not the overall system.

Could the infinitude of the Universe ever be scientifically explored? Actually we might be surprised to learn that there is a way to test this seemingly unreachable prospect. By a very simple argument of the type that Cantor used to establish levels of infinity, one can demonstrate that if the self-similarity between the different cosmological Scales is exact, then the hierarchy must be at least countably infinite.

Of course, the exactitude of the self-similarity between two neighboring Scales would be hard to verify completely, but one could gradually build an empirical case for or against exact self-similarity.

In cosmological context, the Big Bang was probably just a little 'pwwttt'.

Cheers,

RLO

Bookmark and Share



Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 05:04 GMT
Cheers Robert,

Embarrassingly, for the second time I misunderstood your position: I thought you were for a fractal structure and inflation.

Your web page clarified many things, and the fractal position promises a very interesting solution to the dark matter problem. What I do not believe however is that this fractal pattern is repeatable at scales above the galactic ones (or below the atomic ones). In my opinion, the pattern’s root cause is gravity’s and electromagnetism’s infinite ranges and different strengths, and therefore it is not really a true fractal. Please convince me otherwise. A true fractal structure is observed in quantum field theories via virtual particles in the renormalization group approach. When scale does not matter, the only remaining relevant structure is the symmetry group which determines the nature of the interaction.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear Robert L. Oldershaw,

In a top-to-bottom approach, the cluster-matter universe model has a hierarchy of embedded cluster-matters and sub-cluster-matters up to infinity at the bottom, and not describes any inflationary universe in entirety.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 16:36 GMT
Hi Florian,

But you are saying that you BELIEVE the discrete fractal pattern does not repeat at Scales that we cannot observe and therefore have little reliable information about. Do you see the contradiction here?

I think we must thoroughly study the patterns that are available within the observable universe before we boldly extrapolate those pattern or say what can/cannot occur on unobservable Scales.

Bottom line: Let's put more effort into observable phenomena and testable science, and much, much less time into unobservale Platonic arm-waving and looney-tunes stuff like Boltzmann brains, anthropic "reasoning", unobservable dimensions, unobservable "particles", unobservable "strings", multiverses with random constants, tooth fairies, 10-D unicorns, etc.

On the other hand, t'Hooft's recent preprint on the possibility of standard General Relativity and exact scale invariance in the subatomic realm is a very interesting example of reasonable extrapolation.

Let's determine the nature of the dark matter, explain the enigma of the vacuum energy density problem, discover the meaning of the fine structure constant and Planck's constant. Then we might be in a better position to start thinking about extrapolating our discovered patterns.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 23:31 GMT
Hi Robert,

There is no contradiction. The fractal idea looks only like an empirical explanation, and not the actual root cause. I believe the root cause for the successful predictions to be the infinite range of electromagnetism and gravity and their respective relative strength. What if your parameters 5.2 x 1017 and 3.174 can be obtained from G, and alpha for example? Now if you can derive your parameters from the fundamental constants, and have a lot of successful data fits, then your dark matter origin prediction will suddenly become very credible and be accepted as the new paradigm.

But maybe I am putting the problem in the wrong way. The very first thing one should look is to try to derive the parameters from fundamental constants within existing theories. Only if unsuccessful, the case should me made for a new explanation like a fractal structure.

I am not aware of t’Hooft’s preprint you are mentioning. Do you have an archive reference?

FM

PS: I am not a fan of anthropic reasoning, landscapes, multiverses, extra dimensions, etc.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Sep. 27, 2009 @ 03:11 GMT
Hi Florian,

I believe the best way toward a better understanding of nature is to study nature, not mathematics [this only plays an important role after the new principles, symmetries and concepts are discovered] or undue reliance on previous theoretical assumptions.

This has been my approach - almost entirely empirical for the first 10 years. The discrete self-similar scaling equations were derived empirically. See the "Successful Retrodictions/Predictions" page at my website for 36 tests of these equations. How they are derived is of less importance than the fact that they relate the radius, period and mass parameters of fundamental atomic, stellar and galactic systems. We have been far too infatuated with mathematics. As Einstein showed repeatedly: first come the key concepts, then the mathematics to describe and elucidate the conceptual foundations.

The key concepts of the new paradigm are global hierarchical rganization, division of the hierarchy into discrete Scales, and exact discrete self-similarity between any two Scales. The discrete self-similar scaling for gravitation is foundational and completes Einstein's relativity program by showing in what ways scale is/is not purely relative, rather than being absolute.

The main failing of standard theoretical physics was the assumption that G is a universal scale invariant constant. I'm afraid it never was. If one adopts one fixed set of MLT units then G is different on each Scale by a factor of 10^38.

The paper by t'Hooft is at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf

free

Cheers,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 14:11 GMT
Hi Robert,

I can tell you about some recent development. I was hoping to derive the Klein-Gordon equation (see note [1] on page 4 on my essay) in the near future but Emile Grgin just beat me to it. (There goes one paper I was hoping to write.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 18:17 GMT
Hi Florian,

What I am looking for is someone who can offer real understanding of:

1. Benford's Law (why is nature dominated by power law distributions)

2. Why are there two basic types of galaxies (disk/spheriodal [Ferm./Bos.?])

3. Why are galaxy radii so limited in range

4. What is the Dark Matter

5. What are the lessons of the dynamics and kinematics of Rydberg atoms

6. Why is nonlinear dynamical systems theory so AWOL in atomic and subatomic physics.

7. Etc., etc., etc., etc.,...

What I am not looking for is ever more name- and technical term-dropping and pushing around abstract [and childlishly oversimplified] theoretical constructs on paper, with no apparent connection to the real world of atoms, stars and galaxies.

A great deal of modern theoretical physics virtually ignores nature and speaks in content-less Babel-talk. But our purpose is to understand nature. Or at least that is what is was in great awakening of 1900-1925. When will the next great awakening finally arrive?

Consider the typical cosmology text. It probably does not even have "hierarchical" or "fractal" or "self-similar" in the index. Pathetic ignorance of nature.

Yours in science,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

http://arxiv.org/a/oldershaw_r_1

Bookmark and Share



Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 15:05 GMT
Hi Robert,

Everyone should be free to pursue whatever questions he likes to answer. In math there are important open questions like Riemann’s hypothesis, and in the past there were questions regarding the set theory axiomatization. Same thing in physics.

From your set of questions, I think I know the answer for no. 6. In QM one can experimentally ask simultaneous questions for complete set of commuting observables. Those observables form an algebra (a Jordan algebra) which is a linear structure and this is why nonlinearity does not occur at this level.

Nonlinearity can and does occur at higher levels in emergent phenomena.

For lower levels, ‘t Hooft works on a theory where he hopes to show that nonlinearity and chaos characterizes the vacuum and QM is only an emergent phenomena from a deterministic theory, but there are no experimental verifications for this theory yet.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 03:09 GMT
Hi Florin,

My previous post was a rant, but hopefully not a totally unjustified rant.

I do believe that every scientist should follow his own intuition and inner voice, without undue coercion from external authorities of any type.

But here is my essential point.

If one does not have the right paradigm within which to work, then all the mathematics and analytical techniques in the world will not help one to a better undrstanding of nature. In fact they will be more likely to mislead one into thinking one has achieved a "deep" model of nature, when in fact one merely has the intoxicating and intimidating illusion of real understanding. Witness "string theory".

In my opinion, we are desparately seeking a new paradigm and the only way to create one is by studying the objective empirical properties of nature, searching for one coherent comprehensive pattern that fits the entire hierarchy of nature.

I am studiously aware of t'Hooft's work, and have watched him evolve from saying that my discrete cosmological self-similarity was worthless to his saying things that sound very much like they come from the foundations of my paradigm: e.g., (1) G is NOT scale invariant, and (2) 'same physics on different scales, and (3) causality, 4d S-T and General Relativity dominating subatomic physics, as well as in the macrocosm.

I believe the answer to the dark matter enigma will prove that Discrete Scale Relativity is the correct paradigm for the 21st century.

Yours in science,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 16:50 GMT
Greetings Robert,

I liked your essay for clearly stating your views, while neatly avoiding some of the complications inherent in this subject. I gave a talk last month on Fractals in the Cosmos, and cited the work of three scientists whose theories predict a fractal aspect to the universe in my contest essay. I also have some published papers on related topics. So I guess you could say I am fractal friendly. But I do have some comments.

I agree with your assessment of chaotic or eternal inflationary cosmologies being a large-scale fractal breeding grounds, although I would have given some credit to Linde. It seems that sometimes people would rather brush that fractality away, by asserting that the other branches of the fractal tree are in adjacent bubbles which are in another universe, but this is a semantic evasion in my opinion.

And there seems to be plenty of evidence that large scale structure continues up to levels of scale where it was thought it would smooth out. The void near the CMB cold-spot, for one (see Rudnick, et al. - Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold spot). I also recently read a paper by John Hartnett at UWA, on evidence for the largest structures yet observed, which might be of interest. And an article in Scientific American by Clifton and Ferreira suggests that what appears to be Dark Energy may actually be evidence we are in an immense void.

This begs the question about how the characteristics of the local neighborhood affect our views of large scale structure. Some statements about fractal dimension and hierarchality depend on whether we are on a 'structure point' or in one of the lacunae, or voids. That is, the overall fractal dimension may be different from what we can observe.

I wonder about the limits at the lower end. I tend to feel that natural fractals like the growth pattern of certain ferns provide a good example. Though each smaller level of form looks like a copy of the whole fern, it is fattened with each smaller generation, as it must also obey the natural laws of fluid flow, and so on.

But it was a well-written essay overall.

All the Best,

Jonathan J. Dickau

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 17:29 GMT
Hello John,

Thamks for your comments which, for the most part, I agree with.

However, two issues may need clarification.

1. Linde's work is discussed in the references by Guth and Tegmark that I cited. For the purposes of this essay, I kept things very simplified. Coming from someone who has a history of ignoring decades of published work on fractal cosmology, I am a bit surprised by your calling me to task on this particular issue. Well, maybe not.

2. Using the fern example to cast doubt on a bottomless hierarchy is quite lame. Macroscopic "kitchen analogies" are not appropriate for deciding cosmological issues. EVERY TIME we have "opened a box", we have discovered that it is full of smaller boxes. What do you think is most likely to happen when we "open the next box"?

Yours in science,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 21:33 GMT
Thank you Robert!

Your candor is appreciated. Too much good work gets ignored, and I too would be bogged down listing all the sources of my sources. But in all fairness, Linde studied with Starobinski so had a jump on thinking about Inflationary Cosmos over Guth, and it was his idea that brought the fractal aspect out in inflationary theory. It was no foul, on your part, however.

As to the other comment, I was just pointing out that perfect mathematical fractals, which have infinite depth, are not often seen in nature in their pristine form. My comment was not meant to imply that there is no fractality at the bottom, simply that we would be naive to assume things at the smallest scale can do the same things as larger aggregates of form.

This does not rule out some form of scale relativity, and it is agreed a discrete formulation avoids some of the complications thereof. Personally I like the idea from CDT and QEG that reality is 2-d down there at the Planck scale, but they are talking a fractal universe too. What we'll actually find remains to be seen.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 02:33 GMT
Right, and maybe fairies ride 2-d carpets made of Cabibo-Snot strings?

RLO

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 14:13 GMT
Hello again,

As I am completely unfamiliar with Cabibo-Snot theory, I want to steer things back to the topic of your essay, and try to relate it back to things I do know about. FYI - the result from CDT and Quantum Einstein Gravity, that reality is 2-d near the Planck scale, is very satisfying to Loop Quantum Gravity and Spin Foam folks. When numerous theories all converge on a similar...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 17:30 GMT
JD,

Of course you-know-what attracts flies? You too?

The conventional Planck scale is a joke, especially the mass value. I have shown how to calculate the correct Planck scale for each cosmological scale [see website: Technical Notes].

When I have more time I will read the rest of your discussion [or is it a random walk in fashionable ideas?].

I may comment tomorrow, or I may just give up.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 01:32 GMT
JD,

I'm back and feeling a bit more forgiving than before.

Here's a basic fact about science. If you want to understand nature, or models of nature, you have to put in the required effort and learn in DEPTH.

Of what use is knowing 100 things if one's knowlwdge of these things is completely superficial?

If you want to understand current fractal paradigms and models you are going to heve to do a lot of hard focused work. At my website I have done most of the work for you. All you have to do is start at the beginning and read things roughly in the tepmoral order that they were discovered and written up. The website is approximately set up to follow that order.

When you learn enough to have specific substantative questions, I am ready, willing and eager to help. But I cannot take much more ignore-ance, or superficiality, and the combination of both at the same time is devestating.

Feel free to ignore Discrete Scale Relativity in favor of cat's cradles and tooth fairies on 2-d carpets, or do an in-depth study of the discrete fractal paradigm that I am trying to promote. But please whatever you choose to study, use your intuition to guide you, take a deep breath , and explore physics/nature below the surface. Way below.

Yours in science,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 04:03 GMT
FM,

Saying that I ignore "all that we already know about gravity and electromagnetism" is absurd.

This only proves that you have no idea what Discrete Scale Relativity is.

For example I uniquely use the Kerr-Newman solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations to successfully retrodict the mass and radius of the proton. The reason everyone failed in their old attempts to do this was that they used the wrong value of G. DSR tells you specifically what value of G to use and the happy retrodiction is available for your study [website: Technical Notes: " Subatomic Particles...].

So let's be clear buddy, I do not ignore well-tested physics like General Relativity and Classical Electromagnetism. You ignore the discrete self-similar paradigm.

My dark matter predictions were published in The Astrophysical Journal [322, 34-36, 1987]. You might look it up.

My complaint is that people who act like they have no functioning right hemispheres have controlled physics for decades and filled countless theoretical physics journals with millions of incomprehensible equations which offer little or nothing in the way of useful and/or accurate understanding of nature. String theory is just the archetype of this truly mad and pervasive excursion that theoretical physics has been on.

FIRST COME THE CONCEPTS! And to generate conceptual advances you need TWO well-functioning hemispheres, with an emphasis on a powerful right hemisphere. Know what I mean? Probably not.

Yours in science,

Robert L. Oldershaw

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 11:22 GMT
Hello Dear Robert L. Oldershaw,

Nice to know you .

I read your essay and the interpretations of the infite fractals .It's short but we see your ideas .

These kinds of ideas is derived from Wheeler, when Borh and him discussed about some spritual point of vue .

The uniqueness of Bohr and the multiverses of Wheeler thus began ....and now too .

This interpretation of the universe causes problems about the entropy and the uniqueness .Thus too for the thermodynamics in a closed and evolutive system.

The only infinity is with a add of fractals and multiplication, the physical reality and its number is essential to encircle the real dynamic in my opinion.

The two hemisphère can synchronize with fundamenatsl and its number ,finite I think .

The uniqueness is an important key of our fundamentals It seems to me .

What do you think about ?

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 16:52 GMT
Sigh, I think something is lost in translation.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 18:25 GMT
re-sighs hihihi indeed after re-reading, I admit hihihi

Thanks for this link ,

Your website is super ,congratulations .It's very interesting and well made .

Of course all is linked,as an universal link between all .

You know ,I am persuaded what the number of cosmological spheres is the same than our quantum entanglement ,our quantum spheres and their rotations .Our quantum system is like a code ,a little if That was the foto of our future universal sphere and its spheres ,harmonized and in interactions with its lifes and intelligences .

It's logic in fact ,rational it seems to me .A specific number of spheres exists.Probably what the serie is correlated with prime numbers .And the complexification with naturals .Thus the serie with primes probably is finite ,furthemore specific of copurse with one for the main center ....like our center of our Universe ,and the center of our quantum architecture.After a specific fractal thus exists with its specific serie .

Best Regards and Good luck for the contest too

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 17:10 GMT
Want to see what the fine structure constant appears to mean, physically?

http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/
Papers/84954/The-Meaning-of-the-Fine-Structure-Constant

Want to see how to resolve the horrendous [120 orders of magnitude disparity!] vacuum energy density crisis in a simple, natural manner?

http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/Pape
rs/81261/Towards-A-Resolution-Of-The-Vacuum-Energy-Density-C
risis

No charge,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Owen Cunningham wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 19:15 GMT
Hi Robert,

Do you and Jonathan have some kind of professional rivalry or other historical antipathy? I'm trying to figure out why you'd needlessly be such a douchebag to someone who, to me at least, appears to be making an honest effort to understand your ideas.

I am totally on board with the idea that the universe is a giant infinite fractal (indeed that is what I argued in my paper), which is why it pains me to see someone in my camp leaving such an Amazonian swath of rhetorical slash-and-burn in his wake.

You keep saying "yours in science," but science is based on civility. In my experience anyone who says "You don't understand" really means "I'm not sufficiently articulate and/or patient to help you understand."

Hugs,

Owen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 21:16 GMT
Owen,

Is your post an example of the "civility" that you are advocating? Wow, what a world class hypocrite!

Mr. Dickau and I go way back, and he still is virtually clueless regarding discrete cosmological self-similarity. From this fact I infer that he has little or no real interest in my ideas, but rather has other and more self-oriented agenda. Does that help you to understand the situation better?

Most importantly, I am NOT "in your camp", by any means, nor are you in mine.

As civilly as possible,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Owen Cunningham wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 22:54 GMT
Yes, that helps me understand the situation better. And you are entirely justified in pointing out my hypocrisy. But I must ask, why do you emphatically deny any parity between our ideas, given that I agree with your basic thesis?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 03:02 GMT
Hi Owen,

If someone treats my ideas with respect, I will return that respect, for them and their ideas [within reason].

Many people say they are interested in new ideas, but their actions belie the fact that they have no real interest in anything other than their own personal "hobby horse[s]". Such people make very poor natural philosophers. When someone sends me their "TOE", and I have gotten many(!) over the years, I always take a careful look, even when they do not seem promising. I have no patience for someone who is not willing to spend a few hours working towards a basic understanding of the discrete self-similar cosmological paradigm.

All that said, I would enjoy talking about nature, fractals, self-similarity, infinite hierarchies, nonlinear dynamical systems, etc.

So let's dispense with the psychodrama and talk science.

Here's a conversation starter, if there ever was one: I think stars are the Stellar Scale equivalent of Atomic Scale atoms. I think the physics of these two classes of analogues from neighboring Scales of nature's discrete hierarchy are related by exact discrete self-similarity [same physics] and are equally fundamental. Therefore reductionism is appropriate only within each Scale. Reductionism is definitely not appropriate for anything beyond any given single Scale of the infinite hierarchy of Scales. To put it even more bluntly: a subatomic nucleus, a neutron star and a typical spiral galaxy are equally fundamental, and if you choose your representative analogues very carefully, are the same object seen at three different discrete Scales.

Thank goodness they do not burn people at the stake these days! Let's keep it that way!!

So, my friend, by all means, let's talk fractal cosmology.

Yours in science,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Owen Thomas Cunningham wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 17:03 GMT
Hi Robert,

Regarding your "conversation starter," I agree with literally every word except one: "neighboring." Does DSR make any assertions as to how many intermediate "ranks" there are between the stellar and atomic scales? Does DSR conceive of their being a 0th rank? If so, how many ranks are below the atomic scale?

Thanks,

Owen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 17:37 GMT
Owen,

Good questions, with easy answers, at least from the perspective of the discrete self-similar cosmological paradigm [aka Direte Scale Relativity when the cosmological self-similarity is exact].

1. If you study nature's hierarchy empircally, and very carefuly, you will find one and only one pattern of Scales and "internal" levels that maintains a high degree of self-similarity. This is a key universal symmetry that has not been fully apreciated.

Within each cosmological Scale there is a subhierarchy of levels [e.g., H, He, Li,... DNA, ...comets, ...]. This may correspond to what you are thinking about and calling "internal ranks". The cosmological Scales are related by exact discrete self-similarity. The self-similarity within any given Scale is much more continuous and can range from near-exact to merely statistial.

2. Discrete Scale Relativity firmly rejects a 0th Scale, since only for an infinite hierarchy can there be exact self-similarity.

Even sticking to the slghtly more conservative DSSCP with less exact self-similarity, the idea of a "bottom" to nature's hierarchy makes a good natural philosopher want to vomit.

DSR takes some work because the ideas are very new and radically conflict with some old ideas. But once one gets the basics [i.e., the basic scaling equations, division of nature into Scales, appropriate analogues of fundamental systems on the different Scales] one's progress comes much faster.

The website is full of empirical examples from nature that argue for the uniqueness and correctness of the paradigm. There are also theoretical results like deriving the mass and radius of the proton using the Kerr-Newman solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations, as trivially augmented by DSR.

I am ready and willing to help anyone with a genuinely open mind to understand this new paradigm. I confidently predict that it will be the paradigm for physical and biological science for the 21st century. [I am not lacking in chutzpah, obviously ;)]

Yours in science,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Owen Thomas Cunningham wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 18:09 GMT
Hi Robert,

I'm a bit slow to grasp your exact meaning of Scale. In one place you say there is "one and only one pattern of Scales" but this is followed by "within each cosmological Scale there is a subhierarchy of levels." To me, this says that there are really two "degrees of scaleness" -- a "coarse-grained scale," which corresponds to your Scale with a capital S, and a "fine-grained scale" each of which is entirely contained within the first kind of Scale. Is that correct? If so, then does fractal self-similarity hold only when comparing (a) two fine-grained scales within the same coarse-grained Scale, but not (b) two coarse-grained Scales or (c) two fine-grained scales within different coarse-grained Scales? If I'm mistaken in thinking that DSR calls for two "degrees of scaleness," please correct me.

My paper argues that there is only one "degree of scaleness," which I call "rank." This means that, while there is perfect self-similarity observed at every rank, there need to be "intermediate ranks" between those ranks that correspond to what we intuitively think of as scales. (Rank roughly corresponds to size, in the sense that an atom's rank is less than a planet's rank, which is less than a galaxy's rank; but this correspondence is not perfect, in the sense that two asteroids might have the same rank even though one is physically bigger than the other.) To illustrate, think of Douglas Hofstadter's invitation, in "Godel Escher Bach," to imagine that, between the "cloud scale" and the "raindrop scale" there are many intermediate scales from which one can better observe intermediate phenomena like isolated eddies of wind within otherwise still air.

As for a 0th scale, I didn't feel so much as the slightest twinge of indigestion when asserting its existence in my paper; I guess this means my aptitude for natural philosophy is inversely proportional to my aptitude for hypocrisy. While I share your nausea at the idea of a finite hierarchy (or, in my vernacular, a finite number of ranks), I feel obligated to point out that the set of natural numbers has achieved infinitude even though it indeed "has a bottom." Why demand a "number line" when you can get the same results with a "number ray"?

Regurgitationally yours,

Owen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 18:34 GMT
Owen,

1. Nature is a hierarchy of subhierarchies. The Scales form the basic discrete cosmological hierarchy. However, each Scale is hierarchically arranged. So you get a hierarchy of hierarchies. Moreover, if you take just one level from one Scale [say, hydrogen atoms] the systems of that level can exist in a hierarchy of energy states. Hierarchies and self-similarity everywhere!

My best advice is to read [slowly and careully] Papers #1+#2 from the "Selected Papers" section of the website.

The Scales are exactly self-similar. The levels within a Scale display varying degrees of self-similarity.

Natural numbers "have a bottom"? Do you mean 0? But what about -1, -2, -3, ... - infinity? Or the whole infinite imaginary plane? I see no "bottom' anywhere except the ones we arbitrarily impose.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Owen Thomas Cunningham wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 19:34 GMT
(1) I will try to get to the papers you recommend in the next couple days. In the meantime, I would like to pursue these statements:

"The Scales are exactly self-similar." Meaning that an object on the Stellar Scale has identical structure to an object on the Atomic Scale? Or merely meaning that any two objects selected at random from within the Atomic Scale has identical structure to each other?

"The levels within a Scale display varying degrees of self-similarity." Meaning that an object from sub-level A within the Stellar Scale has a strongly similar but not necessarily identical structure to an object from Stellar sub-level B?

(2) The natural numbers indeed have a bottom -- the number 1. Zero and the negatives are part of the integers, which includes the naturals as a proper subset, but are not the same.

It seems to me you are proposing a structure that has hierarchical characteristics, but is not truly a hierarchy. Strict hierarchies have roots from which they extend. Depending on how one orients one's metaphors, one can say that a hierarchy has a bottom but no top, or a top but no bottom, but if it has neither a top nor a bottom, it's not a hierarchy; it's just a graph.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 23:54 GMT
Owen,

Paragraph 1: The papers are available for free on my website 24/7.

Paragraph 2: For any fundamental object on any Scale there is a specific exact self-similar analogue on any other Scale. When doing tests of DSR, analogues from different Scales must be chosen carefully because they are completely specific, not "random".

See published paper comparing RR Lyrae variable stars with excited He atoms undergoing Rydberg transitions between s-states with 10 > n > 7. The masses, morphologies, radii and frequency spectra obey the discrete self-similar Scale transformation equations to the extent testable. This research is also presented in the "New Developments" section of the website.

Paragraph 3: Not quite right. Self-similarity between specific analogues from different Scales is exact. The examples of lesser degrees of self-similarity are found within one Scale. Consider the examples given in Mandelbrot's The Fractal Geometry of Nature, such as turbulence, stellar distributions, galactic distributions [aren't the frothy filaments in the large-scale structure breath-taking], tree branching, brain architecture, lung architecture, circulatory systems,... . A "Selected Paper" at my website gives 80 examples of the less exact forms of self-similarity in nature!

Paragraph 4: Here you discuss arbitrary human distinctions, not natural ones. The math nature uses is quite different. Symmetry is maximized.

Paragraph 5: This is not correct; it is just your subjective definition of a hierarchical structure. Democritus, Spinoza, Kant, and many others have argued that nature must be an infinite hierarchy with no top or bottom. Humans always want to put a "top" and/or a "bottom" on the hierarchy because of fear and/or anthropocentrism. I'm afraid you are going to have to change your mind on this issue.

Yours in science,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Owen Cunningham wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 17:20 GMT
You dismiss the distinction between the natural numbers and integers as "arbitrary human distinctions" as opposed to "natural" ones. To quote a certain respected scientist I know, I'm afraid you are going to have to change your mind on this issue. The natural numbers can be constructed using only a single logical operation -- succession. The integers require additional logical operations to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 22:00 GMT
Hello Robert, plus Owen, et al.

I wish there was a reset button sometimes. Or that I could feel I am free to agree strongly with some aspects of a theory, and have reservations about other claims because an author has failed to satisfy all my criteria. And I too was hoping that facilitated by this forum, I could finally understand some things well (with a little help from the authors - RLO included).

I pressed Easther on the issue of "isn't a multiverse really just an ultra-large scale fractal?" and he gave a satisfying answer. I summarized every aspect of J.C.N. Smith's proof, and explained why he feels it is a compelling reason to believe his premise. Then I calmly explained why I still don't feel like he offered scientific proof, and he was OK with that.

I am re-reading some of your web-site's Selected Readings, Robert, and I intend to examine all of the evidence presented. But at this point, I still feel like you are asking your readers to accept some extraordinary things on faith, rather than providing a rationale or mechanism by which they might come to be.

The contest essay nicely avoided raising the same red flags for me, and I was hoping it meant you had gotten more savvy. I'm still trying to gain a better understanding of your work, but my own knowledge and experience will temper my judgment.

Scientifically yours,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 02:49 GMT
1. Anyone want to see what what the Big Bang, global expansion and "peculiar velocities" of galaxies are all about?

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/ , choose "Galactic Scale Self-Similarity"

2. Anyone want to see a Revised Planck Scale that is sensible, and learn the physical meaning of Planck's constant?

http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/ , choose "New Developments", then choose "1. The Hidden Meaning of Planck's Constant"

RLO

www.amherstedu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 17:28 GMT
Want to see the simple answer to a physics enigma that Wolfgang Pauli was willing to die for, and that has never before been solved?

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.3501.pdf

Enjoy,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Owen Cunningham wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 21:36 GMT
Anyone want to see a response to my post?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 03:23 GMT
Nature does not use numbers. It does not need them. It does need geometry, but that can be done without absolute numbers.

Numbers were invented by humans to describe regularities/patterns in nature.

To say that nature's hierarchy is bounded because the "natural numbers" are bounded is a very dubious argument. Platonic reasoning is usually bad reasoning. Same as it ever was.

Okay?

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Steve D wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 09:05 GMT
Dear Mr Oldershaw ,

Here is my point of vue about numbers ,I think that the base is finite with primes ,the numbers of pairs twins ,this oscillation is periodically finite in its physicality .

The naturals are a complexification of these primes ,of course like our lattices ,products ,additions ,multiplication....these extrapolations are infinite ,but the base is finite ,a specific number exists for the physicality ,that s why I am very intrigued by the number of cosmological spheres .It exists a specific number of spheres in my opinion .The thermodynamic link is relevant too about the fractal of volume with our center and our cosmological limit of course like gauge.

Even our numbers must be directly linked with the physicality .

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 18:05 GMT
Mr. SD,

Maybe 42?

RLO

Bookmark and Share



Owen Thomas Cunningham wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 21:25 GMT
It is an interesting claim that nature does not need numbers but does need geometry, especially coming from someone whose paper is titled "The Infinite Fractal Universe." Isn't fractal geometry the only type of geometry that canNOT "be done without absolute numbers"?

Fractals need numbers. If nature is a fractal, then nature also needs numbers.

"Numbers were invented by humans to describe regularities/patterns in nature" is an argument that I understand but reject; and I admit that my rejection of it is grounded purely in intuition and gut feel. I respect your right to disagree on this point, but can't help but ask, if you really believe in the invented status of numbers, then what are your thoughts on what Wigner called "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences"?

It might be possible to sketch an argument for the position that nature needs fractals, but doesn't need numbers, if one suggests that fractals are patterns of behavior that can be produced through multiple mechanisms; one of these mechanisms is the numerical, computational one that we're all familiar with from things like the Mandelbrot Set; and another mechanism would be a mysterious non-numerical one that nature uses. But in order for this argument to have any credibility, it needs to be accompanied by a well-composed conjecture detailing how that non-numerical, natural mechanism would work. But again, I don't see anything like that in your work.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 03:42 GMT
Sly Porker,

One must distinguish between a thing and the description of the thing.

The latter requires numbers, but the former does not.

You can test this yourself. Take a camera and venture boldly into nature. Search high and low for a number that is not artificial. If you find one, then take a picture of it. Let me know when you have succeeded.

I do not discuss reality with Platonists, who believe math is floating around out there in some hidden dimension waiting for us to discover it. What's the point?

RO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Owen Cunningham wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 15:06 GMT
I'm guilty of a lot of things, but I don't think Platonism is one of them. I just spent a few minutes scouring Wikipedia to make sure I have my terminology right, and this convinced me I am actually a devotee of Max Tegmark's "ultimate ensemble," which is a subspecies of "modal realism," which is apparently an historical antagonist of Platonism. So, it sounds like your personal code of ethics will allow us to continue discussing reality, after all. What a relief!

I can appreciate the spirit in which you intend the whole "Let me know when you have successfully taken a picture of an integer in the wild" shtick, but on some level even you must know that that's all it is -- a shtick. I could use the same shtick to disprove the existence of gravity, for instance.

Would it be fair for me to say that there are three properties that you and I both seem to agree that nature exhibits -- (a) discreteness, (b) infinitude, and (c) simplicity? If so, then I have a counterproposal for you. While I'm off with a camera crew in the Chilean desert hoping to capture the square root of negative one on film, I think you should be hunting for _another_ answer to the question "What is the (c) simplest thing that is both (a) discrete and (b) infinite?" _besides_ "the set of natural numbers." I predict you'll be taking my call before I take yours.

Oink,

Owen Cunningham

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 17:16 GMT
Sly,

Tegmark certainly fits my definition of a Platonist. Proof is his championing of the "multiverse" menagerie [aka the illusory house of smoke, mirrors, and randomness]. No realism here.

How could you "disapprove the existence of gravity"?!?

The simplest thing I know of personnaly is an electron. Surely it is highly discrete. I view it as essentially a singularity within a tiny sparse envelope of subquantum particles, which are 10^17 times smaller but have the same structure, which ..., and thus are infinite.

I think we need to start a new discussion from scratch and see if we have sufficient common ground.

See following post for possible talking points.

Howl.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 17:16 GMT
Here is the difference between science and "The Glass Bead Game".

SCIENCE:

1. Study nature.

2. Discover a new pattern or relationship.

3. Use proposed pattern/relation to generate a definitive prediction, which is unique to the hypothesis, quantitative [or very high quality qualitative], NON-ADJUSTABLE, and feasible.

4. Test your prediction empirically [not with thought experiments].

5. Accept nature's verdict.

————————————————————
———

THE GLASS BEAD GAME [Hesse, a good read]

1. Study mathematics [after all, nature and empirical evidence are only "anecdotal"].

2. Construct an abstract theory with ad hoc model-building; the more hermetic the better.

3. Use the abstract theory to generate pseudo-predictions, which are non-unique, quantitatively "plastic", highly adjustable, usually unfeasible.

4. Avoid real testing and apply copious arm-waving or heavy fudge to any "unwanted" empirical results.

5. Assume nature is wrong [it couldn't possibly be your "intuition"].

————————————————————
——————-

There you have the past and the present. Do you prefer the science of Democritus, Bacon, Galileo, and Einstein? Or are you happy with the post-modern physi-babble?

If it's real science, why can't they even predict the specific properties of the dark matter? That's an easy one to answer.

Yours in science [the testable kind],

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 03:06 GMT
Sly,

I forgot to mention that one of Tegmark's recent research efforts was to claim that the ultimate reality of nature is abstract mathematics and nothing else. That is not a misprint, or a misreading on anyone's part. He really argued that physical reality is pure mathematics and nothing else.

Wow! If that's not a Platonist through-and-through, I don't know what is.

And now a word on Crackpots. There are two varieties: educated crackpots and demented crackpots. That said, I think John Baez is a world-class crackpot of the educated variety. What index do you need for identifying educated crackpots? Simple! They propose hermetic pipe dream theories that are completely untestable in any definitive empirical way, and they do so with great flourish and obscurantism. That's all you need to ID them, and there are many wandering around the halls of science these days.

Out with the old SubStandard Paradigm, and in with the new Discrete Fractal Paradigm!

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 16:28 GMT
Regarding arxiv:0910.3374v1 (another just-so story)

Hogg says: "a fractal universe is untenable".

He looks at nature and can only see a homogeneous blur.

Ah, but the porcines are so notoriously near-sighted, don't you know.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 19:22 GMT
If you think the Nielsen/Ninomiya excursion was an isolated incident of two string theorists who 'lost it', then you should definitely take a look at this new example of "Theoretical Physicists Gone Wild!":

Peter Woit's Blog: Not Even Wrong - "Physicists Calculate Alternative Universes". The comments are priceless.

Something has ripened, rotted and died. I think it is the SubStandard Paradigm that is emitting the foul odor of pseudo-science [to put it politely].

Time for a new paradigm based on empirical study of nature and definitively testable predictions. It is also the time for new leaders in theoretical physics who have scientific integrity, if not personal integrity. Actually we are at least a decade past time for this inevitable house-clearing and rededication to the principles of science.

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 02:22 GMT
From "CosmoCoffee Blog"

Greetings High School "Anonymous",

I am confused by your question. General Relativity already demonstrates how to calculate and understand the advance in the perihelion of Mercury.

General Relativity is the theory of gravitational interactions involving Stellar Scale systems [technically within a Stellar Scale system but exterior to any Atomic Scale system]. I really don't think I can improve upon GR in this context, especially with high school math.

If you ask me to model something on the Atomic Scale, it might be a more interesting request.

Have you thoroughly studied: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701132.pdf

Already published in ApSS, 2007.

This paper explains how, in a discrete self-similar cosmos, GR must be modified in order to model the dynamics of Atomic Scale or Galactic Scale systems.

Here's something really ironic. GR can be abreviated: R = kT. In groping for a unified theory that would apply in the microcosm as well as the macrocosm, theoretical physicists tinkered with the R and the T, but assumed that the k was inviolate and therefore of little interest.

Actually it is in the k = 8piG/c4 that the needed breakthrough was waiting all along. If you want to know how the discrete fractal scaling for k works, read the friggin' paper. But the key concept is that G is not scale invariant [even t'Hooft has finally figured that out. Well better 33 years late than never]; each Scale has its specific value of G and it only takes high school math, actually only elementary school math, to understand the scaling.

Please read the paper. Discrete Scale Relativity is the new paradigm for physics in the 21st century. When the physical characteristics of the dark matter are revealed, the new paradigm will be fully vindicated. So far we see mostly the high mass tail: neutron stars, BHs, gamma ray sources, RRATS, etc, and there are billions of these ultracompact objects, but the main DM components are in much lower states and are stellar mass black holes with 0.1 < M < 0.7 solar masses.

Any questions?

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 09:12 GMT
ahahaha You won RLO ,you found the number of cosmological spheres congratulations,yes it's 42 ,8 planets ,1 sun ,thus 33 others in the moons ahahah you win a beautiful book about general relativity and spherisation .

Congratulations Mr Oldershaw ,you can take your prize in Belgium at the belgium bank of the spherisation .Don't forget your passport and documents .ahaha congratulations .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 21:38 GMT
Steve,

Take your meds!

RLO

Bookmark and Share



Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 16:28 GMT
From COSMOCOFFEE Blog, 10/26/2009

The following paper is about to be published:

The Proton As A Kerr-Newman Black Hole

Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, 6(22), 167−170, 30 Oct 2009.

Available soon at: http://ejtp.com/latest.html

A first draft of the paper can be found at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw if you click on "New Developments" and choose #2 "The Proton...".

Unfortunately the first draft does not report the retrodiction of the proton's mass and radius using the full Kerr-Newman treatment, but the paper does. Also available in "Technical Notes", #3 "Modeling Subatimic..."

I would welcome comments/questions relating to the scientific aspects of this paper.

Important note: Emotion has a bad influence on objective reasoning. This is part of the human condition, and in other respects emotion plays an important and highly beneficial role [like avoiding injury and procreating]. However, when a scientist wants to understand nature, he/she turns the emotion dial way down. Claro que si, eh?

Anger is rarely [never?] appropriate; it usually backfires and harms the source [and others] even more than the intended target. Understanding is harder but more appropriate and more likely to lead to intelligent responses.

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 19:12 GMT
Mr Oldershaw ,

Thanks it's nice ,It is not still the hour you know ,I take my anxiolytic ,neuroleptic ,just before sleeping .

How do you know what I take meds ,bizare I suspect the CIA ahahaha ,

Like you say ,emotions need a balance ,if not that hasn't any sense .

The anger is the sister of the vanity .Only the love rests ,even when a people is anger against you .

Don't forget to take your prize in Belgium ,I will show you our little country ,11 000 000 people only .One of the most dense in Europe ,about 350 /km² I think .But Beautiful .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 00:45 GMT
I hear that the percentage of people in that region of the Earth who believe in Darwinian Evolution is 2-3 times higher than in the USA.

It must be nice to live in a scientifically literate country.

Keep my prize on ice until I get there.

Thanks,

RLO

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 09:24 GMT
Hello Mr Oldershaw ,

I must say that yes indeed Belgium is a skill country where we have had good bases in sciences .Our schools system is very good like our social security ,it's one of the best in the world .Small but competent my little country .All are welcome for synergies .

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 16:15 GMT
Good Morning Readers!

And it is a bright and shining day today!

I think we all want to give Fulffy [at CosmoCoffee Bolg] a big hand for his dogged efforts. Heckuva job Fluffy.

Be sure to see the Oct. 28 issue of Nature: classical GR vindicated. Spin foams and other quantum gravity fantasies falsified.

On the subject of gravitation, here is a nice example of a particle physicist using his anti-Midas touch to turn gold into poop:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0910/0910.5167v1.pdf .

Does the Perimeter Insitute have anyone who is interested in anything besides Glass Bead Games, like maybe, reality?

Reading of the Day: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.3501.pdf

Omigod, can that possibly be right? Oh Ya!

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 18:20 GMT
Goodddd morrrrrrrrning scientists of the truth ,Robin williams will like .

I approve your dogged efforts in humor and little of sciences .

Perhaps you shall find a place in the several Labs ,I think that between fermi lab and perimeter more Kavli ,you are going to have good synergies .In all case for the Belgium ,it's too cold for you and too small .

ahahah let's laugh a little ,it's good for health .Pay attention I haven't already taken my meds .Still 3 hours and I am quiet hihihi

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 16:33 GMT
Last night I was reading [2nd or 3rd time] Ivars Ekeland's excellent book "The Best Of All Possible Worlds" and the revolutionary changes wrought by nonlinear dynamical systems theory.

I was moved once again the ask the following impertinent question:

Is Perfect Reversibility/Integrability A Myth?

Did Poincare discover this revolutionary idea already during the 1892−1899 period when modern chaos theory was founded in his "The New Methods of Celestial Mechanics"?

Are the examples of "reversibility" that physicists frequently cite actually one of two basic varieties: (1) artificial idealizations that do not exist in the real world [nature], or (2) systems that are briefly maintained in periodic states, but whose full, and unmanipulated, range of behavior includes periodic, semi-periodic, quasi-static and fully chaotic states.

Bottom line: Are reversible/integrable "systems" very limited artificial idealizations of true systems found in nature, which are nonlinear dynamical systems?

What are the best examples of real world systems that appear to be ideally reversible/integrable?

————————————————————
-

On a related note, it seems to me that the SubStandard paradigm is tottering around like an embarrassing drunk. It's going down, and the sooner the better.

The ingredients of the new paradigm are: (1) Classical EM, (2) Classical GR, (3) Discrete Scale Relativity, and (4) Nonlinear Dynamical Systems Theory. These ingredients cannot be combined randomly or with force. They must be carefully integrated by those who study nature and have developed the intuition to do so.

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 15:14 GMT
Hi Mr Oldershaw ,

You speak about these non linears systems which I don't know well .

You ask if the perfect reversibility is possible ?

My answer is evidently no of course in its whole .What do you mean by a perfect reversibility ,what are the parameters ,variables ?? The Time ,our physical Universe ,biological organisms ,....of course no they are not reversibles,fortunaly .Could you develop a little the real meaning of these reversibilities ?

Now of course if the chaos is taken in its local and instant analyzes ,thus of course the dynamic is perceived in a non linear or non balanced systems but it's just a step in a balanced system ,thus of course the chaos theory is false in its whole.The thermodynamic is universal and the linearity is correlated .Now of course the human has a mind of creativity and thus interprets with a limited perception thus implying false extrapolations about the reversibility and the irreversibility .

All combinations ,superimposings must be thus under specific universl laws .

The quasi static perception is not a good tool in my opinion and implies some confusions about our constants and mechanics .

Thus all add of forces or energy or .....must be pragmatic for the referential .The balance is better I think in thermodynamic .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 16:31 GMT
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

The following is from the CosmoCoffee Blog [10/31/09]



The original question was roughly: 'Are we sure that the value of G within an Atomic Scale system [say, an H atom or a proton] is the conventional Newtonian value, and if so what is the experimental basis for this surety?'

The answer, as anyone who is honest and willing to fight for an unbiased scientific result will find, is very clearly; "No!"

We have believed that G is the same no matter what the Scale or context. We have made it an axiom that G is a universal scale invariant constant. Moreover we have built up the prevailing paradigm around the assumption that this is inviolable.

But it is all based on pure and unadulterated speculation. Purely an assumption. Nothing more.

If each cosmological Scale, e.g., the Atomic, Stellar, Galactic Scales, etc. each have their own specific G values, then a completely different understanding of nature is possible. It would be a discrete self-similar cosmology, or one could call it a discrete fractal cosmology.

No valuable science is thrown out in the new paradigm, but nearly everything is reinterpreted. This is what new paradigms are all about.

I do not expect that Fluffy, or those who share his psychological makeup, will have much interest in considering a new paradigm. But perhaps there are one or two readers out there who would be interested in considering what nature would be like if the G-values are different for each Scale, and differ by a factor of ~ 10^38 between neighboring Scales.

I can promise you that the the results are elegant and amazing. I can also promise you that there is a very large body of scientific evidence that supports the new paradigm. I can also assure you that the paradigm's dark matter predictions will definitively verify/falsify the whole paradigm in the near future.

"The authority of a 1000 is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual",

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Nick Mann wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 22:33 GMT
"Some interesting questions immediately arise. Why are fractal hierarchies so ubiquitous in nature? By studying empirical phenomena within the observable universe, how much will we be able to learn scientifically about the parts of the Universe that lie beyond our observational limits? Does the infinite cosmological hierarchy have a bottom-most scale of subatomic particles, as is currently assumed, or is this another artificial boundary in an infinite fractal cosmos that actually extends without limits to ever-smaller scales?"

The question isn't limited to fractal hierarchies. Why are there isomorphisms in nature, period? By which I mean similar or near-identical behaviors on the part of phenomena between which no defined direct causalities exist.

Exhibit "A" might be the interference patterns exhibited by both hydraulic waves and quantum "waves" in double slit experiments. How come? Another head-scratcher is entropy, whose definition (as a mathematical formalism) applies to both energy transfer in thermodynamics and transfer of information seemingly independent of the physical media involved (most recently surfacing in Jan Kåhre's somewhat disconcerting Mathematical Theory of Information). Indeed puzzling. (Some people apply the concept, rather more dubiously, to such less objectively measurable phenomena as cultural disintegration and urban decay, but let's put that aside as unnecessarily confusing.)

Anyway, pourquoi?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 00:18 GMT
Hi Nick,

Most waves can exhibit similar interference phenomena because it is a general property of wave phenomena. So the wave mechanics of electronic wavefunctions, ocean waves, and guitar strings can all exhibit "isomorphisms.

Why are isomorphisms generally so common in nature? Perhaps because nature is simple and elegant and efficient. All nature is based on a relatively small number of geometric and physical principles which are used in a variety of contexts and on different scales.

Regarding entropy, I think the discussion of this topic in classical thermodynamics is very solid and useful. When entropy is applied in other, less well understood realms, such as high energy physics, quantum mechanics, "information theory" or cosmology, I feel like you do that "entropy" bcomes more pseudoscience than science. Throwing encyclopedias into black holes and seriously expecting to be able to recover the information! Totally insane!

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share



Author Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 03:03 GMT
Some people might ask:

"What IS this guy's problem?"

Well, let me explain.

I have watched theoretical physics descend

into untestable pseudoscience over the last

few decades, and it is very disturbing to anyone

who loves testable natural philosophy and

experimental science.

First it was the hordes of unobservable particles,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 14:14 GMT
What is to be done about it?

it is very simple in fact ,a rational sorting .

But the confusions are so important that only thus our mind can make a sorting ,like a border between our two hemispheroids .Like a balance between the imaginaries and the physicality .

How can we have a real taxonomy without limits and gauges.

The topology and its limits are essentials in my opinion.Even when the philosophy and the universal sciences are in correlation ,the simplicity of their complexities appear with harmony .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 16:25 GMT
Random thought of the day:

From "Backreaction" blog:

Bee [aka the devine Ms. Hossenfelder],

Knowing whether the population explosion

[which can be empirically documented, if one

looks up pop. vs time] is a huge threat to the

foreseeable future of humankind and other

species, or something we can successfully

deal with as we go along, is a matter of wisdom

and judgement.

Alas, today we have an over-abundance of

analytical expertise - witness the geniuses

at work in the finance industry or in string theory

endeavors. What we seem to be badly missing

are wisdom and judgment, which are more weighted

toward right hemispheric conceptual abilities.

Regarding the severity [or not] of the population

problem, E.O. Wilson has an objective and candid

review of the situation in "The Future Of Life"

[esp. Ch. 2, "the Bottleneck"]. This is not a jeremiad.

Wilson calmly describes the reality of the situation.

We can wake up from our ignorance and our delusions

and our self-interests. Or we can suffer the consequences.

Our choice.

Hoping for a new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 03:14 GMT
ADDENDUM:

You mention good medical care as a crucial

factor in decreasing excessive birth rates.

Here is an excellent case in point. You are right,

but why is medical care often so poor? It is

because the whole economy of the area is poor.

And that is largely because the inhabitants have

overpopulated the territory and have started

decimating the natural resources upon which

they rely [whacking down all the trees for firewood

is like eating all your seed stocks].

So: over-population leads to environmental problems,

which lead to economic problems, which lead to

poor medical care, which leads to over-population.

See how it works? See how to break the cycle?

And this applies not just in highly under-developed

countries. With slightly modified inputs the same

basic analysis applies in the good ol' USA, where

we have just passed the 300 million mark, I believe.

Time for action, not just words,

Time for a new paradigm.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 09:11 GMT
Hello Mr Oldershaw ,

Your two last posts are very relevants about the responsability of scientists .

I think what we can improve the locality towards a kind of prosperity permitting the creativity after .For that the soil is the key .

Our main needs are food,water ,energy ,health,education,prosperity....Why thus the soil is the key ,because all depends of this soil .Afetr an improvement of the soil ,we plant and adapt the ecosystem with the multiplication of plants ,afetr we compost ....exponential (CH4,foods,compost...)

Of course the united and the synergies between systems increase the speed of the solution .

In USA you are 330 000 I think ,the problem there is not a real problem .On the other side ,some places need helps .The solutions are simples and possibles .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 04:20 GMT
The population problem, like the various environmental problems, is everybody's responsibility to solve.

We need a new paradigm, and the integrity to live honest rational lives.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 09:54 GMT
Yes indeed the individual responsability is important .But at this moment a responsability of the sciences community is still more important .Why because it is just a question of time and acceleration of the process of resoluton .Can we hope in the politic or in the habits .

For a big problem ,a big solution thus ....

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 17:04 GMT
The man of wisdom does not look to others for someone to blame or someone to solve his problems.

The man of wisdom begins the desired change in his own mind first, and then begins to put his new understanding into action.

Waiting for 'deus ex machina' is a fool's game.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 12:19 GMT
The just man never doesn't search the problem .And always love the bad .The secret is there with or without the agreement of others .A pure man loves all without discriminition ,presumption .He never search the problems but seauch the solutions .

A real wise tries to unify and don't accept the individualism due to his vanity .Because simply alone we are nothing .

We can't use all the words what we want ,the love is the love ,the universality is the universality ,and the vanity is the vanity ,but we evolve fortunally .The human instinct is young .

The wise man doen't crush insects ,never ,doesn't try to be better than his fellow man ,doesn't try to have the best words ,no the wise man loves simply .

Never be in the hate ,never .Neve to love monney ,never to loves the powers,the individualism,it doesn(t exist differences because all is the same .

It doesn't exist faith without the acts .A pure love of compasion is our only reason of life .We are catalyzers of the truth and that is all .The love always will eat the hate with wisdom ,simply.

To be or not to be that is the question NO ?

Regards and wisely .

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 02:50 GMT
2B or Knot too Bee? That is the fish hook! Oy, carumba!

Basta

RLO

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 11:43 GMT
Basta like you say ,all is said .

Ay Carumba .Basta indeed .AHAHAHAH

I am laughing and not a little .Don't be frustrated .

Vaya con dios

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 17:24 GMT
Y Usted

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 18:53 GMT
hihihi gracias

como esta usted ? muy bien .y ustedes? muy bien

Muchas gracias my amigo

saludos cordiales

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 10, 2009 @ 02:34 GMT
Viya con Natura

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 10, 2009 @ 16:50 GMT
I had planned to add this story to my pre-existing gravitational

coupling "constant" thread at the "CosmoCoffee Blog", but the

thread seems to have been censored and removed. Well, it

was a good run. About 75 posts and about 2200 views.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------------­------

In 1955 a conference was organized in Italy to celebrate

"Fifty Years Of Relativity". Einstein was invited, but could

not attend because of health reasons. Instead, he wrote up

an essay on his most recent efforts at further generalizing

General Relativity and formulating a unified theory that would

incorporate electromagnetism and atomic phenomena.

In this essay he noted that a general property of the unified

field equations, one that kept appearing and could not be

avoided, was the fact of solutions that were "similar, but not

congruent". In modern terms, it seemed that self-similar

solutions were generic to a more unified relativity.

But, he said, we know the atoms have definite sizes

and masses, and one does not find atoms that are

1.2 or 2.5 times bigger than the familiar ones. This

paradox between the intrinsic self-similarity of a more

unified relativity and the the apparently absoluteness of

scale in nature bothered Einstein greatly. He said it

might mean he was totally on the wrong track.

One thing he had not considered was discrete self-similarity.

There were no atoms that were 2.5 times bigger than "normal",

but might there be atoms that were 5.2 x 10^17 times bigger.

For example a neutron star is 5.2 x 10^17 times bigger than

an atomic nucleus and a galaxy is 5.2 x 10^17 times bigger

than a neutron star. This discrete self-similarity might be

consistent with observation - and solve Einstein's paradox.

If Einstein had lived long enough, I think he would have

come around to developing this idea. Alas, he died not long

after writing the essay. So his last student has taken up the

quest for that unified description of nature based on

discrete self-similarity.

Is that really so radical [unacceptable]?

Seems like sensible, testable science to me.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 11, 2009 @ 12:30 GMT
Super these similarities ,correlations between the quantum architecture and the cosmological dimension .Very very relevant .All is correlated in fact and the number is specific .

About the similarities ,do you know if the super groups of BH thus galaxies is in the same proportion ? thus we can calculate the approximative volume in evolution of our universal sphere if we know the step between the center of our Universe where all turns around and the limit of the universal sphere .This proportion seems to me very relevant .Now of course what is the specific serie before the center of our Universe in building.If the number 1 is the center ........how many step with ths proportion to know more about our universe ??

Very relevant

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


S D wrote on Nov. 11, 2009 @ 12:32 GMT
Yes of course it is testable and pragmatic .The topology is essential too.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 16, 2009 @ 02:09 GMT
On Nov 15, 7:24 pm, Igor Khavkine wrote:

>

> > On Nov 14, 10:11 am, Igor Khavkine wrote:

> > > As far as we know, all the time asymmetry that we have seen is due to

> > > initial conditions.

>

> I have a feeling you are trying to make a statement with a rhetorical

> question. Unfortunately, for the life of me, I can't figure out what

> it is. I've pointed out scientific consensus, which has been tested

> and prodded since the time of Boltzmann. If you have a comment or

> objection, please state it plainly.

>

------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------

I will be happy to offer an explicit comment, but first you must

explicitly explain how "all ...time asymmetry...is due to initial conditions".

Peter's colleague has stated the explicit idea that the strict

directionality of causality defines the arrow of time. Nothing

else is required, including an ex nihilo "creation" event.

Can your explanation for the arrow of time, or Sean Carroll's,

be stated in an explicit scientific form that does not involve

entities or processes that are unobservable?

Is it possible that the fact that an egg cannot be unscrambled

has nothing to due with the big bang?

How could the converse be scientifically tested?

Yours in science,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 21, 2009 @ 04:33 GMT
"How can physics live up to its true greatness except

by a new revolution which dwarfs all its past revolutions?

And when it comes, will we not say to each other,

'Oh, how beautiful and simple it is!

How could we have missed it for so long!'."

John Archibald Wheeler, 2000

Amen, brother

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 22:42 GMT
Hi Robert. How would your essay ideas account for/refute the following?

The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.

Reality must be understood (in varying degrees, of course) as pertaining to what is the integrated extensiveness of being, thought, and experience. Consider this carefully in relation to both astronomical/telescopic observations and dream experience. Consider that dreams and telescopic/astronomical observations are both interactive creations of thought, to a significant extent. (Importantly, my essay talks more about this.) Now consider all of this post in keeping with the fact that waking experience (including that of the stars at night) is significantly different in comparison with BOTH dream experience and astronomical/telescopic observations. Dreams have SIGNIFICANT AND VERY IMPORTANT similarities with astronomical/telescopic observations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 27, 2009 @ 17:18 GMT
Steve,

The large-scale distribution of matter into a froth of filaments and voids is hardly what I would call "homogeneous". Take a look at the distribution of Atomic Scale matter in the Crab Nebula for the correct analogue.

Both are plasma-like distributions with a very strong fractal structure.

Galactic Scale phenomena, especially the plasma-like distributions seen in the filament/void structure, is explained in the "Galactic Scale Self-Similarity" page of my website.

If you actualy studied the discrete self-similar cosmological paradigm, your opinion of it might change radically.

No definitive predictions - no science,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 29, 2009 @ 11:26 GMT
ahahahah

Dear Robert , I will change my opinion if I take too much meds .

I love the words of Wheeler

'Oh, how beautiful and simple it is!

How could we have missed it for so long!'."

Heu in humility of course ,thus Eureka Steve ,it is well ,now Steve You must work your vanity ,it was so simple that this .The spherisation of spheres in a sphere by quantum spheres ,viva el rotations of thes spheres thus .EUREKA .

AHAHAHA take your meds too dear Robert .A little of anxiolitic ,a little of benzodiazepin ,a lttle of neuroleptic and anti depressor ....you will sleep better ....for the galaxies ,they go to the spherisation too ,all turns around centers and of course around the center of our Universe .Let's see what the time builds in this space .A perfect sphere with its spheres ,it is logic ,rational ,pragmatic and universal .

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 30, 2009 @ 01:57 GMT
Om MaNi PadMe Hum

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 30, 2009 @ 17:01 GMT
To be serious a little ,

Very interesting your website in fact ,the correlations and similarities ..

could you tell me more about this 1.92 x 10-20 cm3. Relevant volume like you say .

I am persuaded that all is linked and the number of spheres is the same ,we are going to have so many still similarities ,simply because our quantum architecture is like a code of becoming for our universakl sphere in evolution .All of course is under the same logic relatively speaking .I don't see these similarities like stanges ,but foundamentals .Our galaxies and stars ,planets ,moons, BH..super groups with mass centers ...all is relatively similar with its quantum architecture .In this line of reasoning thus if the center of the universe exists thus we know the two senses .Just in understanding of this quantic and prime number serie .between 1 ...and 1 thus what is the specific serie of spheres .

An important thing is the instant foto or perception of a system ,of course it is just a foto thus the movement is not considered .The causes and and effects must be harmonized on the line time constant more a relative superposition for a better understanding of te system .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 30, 2009 @ 17:15 GMT
R = 5.2 x 10^17 r

T = 5.2 x 10^17 t

M = [5.2 x 10^17]^3.174 m

That's the discrete self-similar scaling between ananloues on neighboring cosmological Scales.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Dec. 1, 2009 @ 03:49 GMT
Hermann Weyl once commented:

'While topology has succeeded fairly well in mastering continuity, we do not yet understand the inner meaning of the restriction to differentiable manifolds. Perhaps one day physics will be able to discard it. '

We are now ready to do that. In fact it has been done and the results are so amazing that most theoretical physicists cannot even recognize or understand the successful completion of Einstein's 3-part relativity project: [1] Special Relativity (relativity of S-T for inertial frames); [2] General Relativity (relativity for inertial + accelerated frames); [3] discrete conformal relativity (discrete relativity of scale).

Welcome to the 21st century,

RLO

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 2, 2009 @ 11:40 GMT
This world doesn't turn indeed in the right road .

Why thus ...probably some people think that they are gurus of the economic system without the respect of the soul if I can say .

We are all the same ,it is simple ,all is the same and uniques ....thus why ...perhaps it is just a question of good governance ,thus we return always at this human nature .To be or not to be .It is so difficulti sometimes to understand this universality and its laws when you live inside a chaotic system .Thus why ,..perhaps we add some bad habits ...we are youngs indeed and we evolve fortunaly .....

Sometimes some people think that the others are gurus ...perhaps they think they are gurus themselves .The truth is a learning .....

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Dec. 3, 2009 @ 04:35 GMT
A new submission to hep-th at arxiv.org presents an interesting challenge: Sort of a 'Where's Waldo?' except that instead of 'Waldo' we are hunting for a Definitive Scientific Prediction.

The paper deals with cosmology, dark matter, the putative Higgs boson and the Fermi satellite.

Here is the paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0004v1.pdf

We remember that a Definitive Prediction is:

1. feasible

2. made prior to the tests

3. quantitative [an exact number or very restricted range of numbers]

4. non-adjustable [fudging and excessive hedging not allowed]

5. unique to the theory being tested

We also remember that the mass of the putative Higgs particle is highly uncertain, except for a reasonable lower limit already set by previous testing. There is no definitive upper limit that cannot be circumvented, to my knowledge. Lattice theories can generate very heavy putative Higgs particles. So it would appear that the predicted putative Higgs masses might vary by factors of 3 or more.

Given the above, can anybody identify a truly Definitive Scientific Prediction by which we might define this paper as science, as opposed to effectively untestable pseudoscience?

Yours in traditional science and its time-honored methods,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 4, 2009 @ 11:37 GMT
The old school is the key ,......the HIGGS are imaginaries .....all predictions indeed need the good referential and the limits .

I think strongly what an universal axiom exists ....thus of course all good extrapolations shall be correlated inside this finite system in evolution only and only if we insert the good methods and equations .

The traditional sciences or the actual confusions ?,a sure thing is that the rationality will rest and will continue its improvement with the foundamentals .The sciences are universals and it is well like that .We see sciences everywere ,thus we see when the axiom of perception is everywhere and correlated with these universal similarities and links of evoluton and uniqueness.

The sciences indeed is not a play but are universals .

All predictions thus are rights if they are correlated foundamentaly with this universal rationality and its intrinsic laws .Perhaps it is important to encircle the globality before to analyze the locality thus ?....

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Dec. 21, 2009 @ 06:01 GMT
Howdy,

If you don't mind I'll get back to the science of this thread.

Kerr solution: J = aGM^2/c

m(n) = [n]^1/2 [constant], i.e., sqrt[n] [constant]

where: a = 1/n and

constant = corrected Planck mass = 674 Mev

-n----n]^1/2[constant]----Empirical mass---Agreement

1/36------112.3------muon 105.7------------94.0 %

1/25------134.8------pion 134.98-----------99.9 %

1/2--------476.6-----kaon 497.7-------------95.8 %

3/4--------583.7-----eta 547.8--------------93.4%

1----------674---------Planck mass-------- -----

2----------953.2-------proton 938-------------98.3 %

2----------953.2-------neutron939.2?--------98.5%

2----------953.2-------eta' 958--------------99.5 %

3--------1167.4-------Lambda 1115.7------95.4 %

3--------1167.4-------Sigma 1192----------97.9 %

4--------1348.0-------Xi 1314.8------------97.5 %

5--------1507.1-------N ~ 1450------------96.1 %

6--------1651---------Omega 1672.5-------98.7 %

7--------1783---------TAU 1784.1---------99.95%

8--------1906.3-------D 1864.-------------97.8 %

10------2131.4-------D(s) 2112.2-----------99.1 %

12------2334.8-------Lam(c)2284.9---------97.8%

Well, that is the 16 most common and stable of the

particles observed, with the exception of the electron

which has n = 1/(1319)^2 and I want to study that a

bit more. Maybe only a full K-N solution will suffice here.

My argument is that this high degree of ordering

demands an explanation. The fact that it was achieved

with the admittedly very approximate Kerr solution

makes things even more interesting. The fact that

Discrete Scale Relativity is definitively required to

determine the crucial value of the corrected Planck

mass should be fully appreciated.

Barking dogs may now start barking.

Scientists will undoubtedly start thinking.

Happy Winter Solstice [33rd anniversary of DSR]

Robert L. Oldershaw

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 21, 2009 @ 14:34 GMT
What an incredible science ,I am fascinated ,what I say ,I am happy to see the real truth .....you are a real scientist ,probably the best at this moment when you take your meds of course .

hahaha the laugh is good for health .

waf waf waf ,snoopy is happy .

Spherically yours

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 21, 2009 @ 14:57 GMT
A serious question....

Are you sure about your infinity ?

Do you insert the volumes and the thermodynamics ?

Why the necessity to utilize the Discrete Scale Relativity ?

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


dan winter wrote on Sep. 2, 2010 @ 14:17 GMT
Gravity IS Love:Attractive Physics& Nassim

Defense BLACK HOLE Physics CENTERS on PHI

+FilmGolden Ratio Physics of KABBA-&Imploder News AND PYRAPHI WORKS!

www.goldenmean.info/gravityislove

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.