[deleted]
Hi,Robert
Are you familiar with this book?
http://www.amazon.com/Scale-Relativity-And-Fractal-Space-Time/dp/1848166508
Misleading Assumptions by Robert L. Oldershaw
[deleted]
Your point of view close to Spinoza's philosophy a religion of nature.Nature - is the cause of itself(Causa sui).He was the closest in their outlook for the Einstein.
Hi Yuri,
Yes, I am quite aware of all of Nottale's work.
Whereas I applaud many parts of his general outlook and his call for a fractal model of nature, I find the following problems with his proposed paradigm.
1. Nottale assumes that there are upper and lower limits to nature's hierarchy.
2. Nottale accepts the conventional scaling for gravitation and believes in the conventional Planck scale.
3. Nottale downplays the crucial role that dark matter plays in cosmology.
My research suggests that each of these assumptions is profoundly wrong, especially #1.
His Scale Relativity may apply within any single given discrete cosmological Scale of nature's hierarchy, but I seriously doubt that it is the correct fractal paradigm for the entire infinite and eternal hierarchy.
I have been a great admirer of Spinoza since I was made aware of his work by the work of Einstein.
I firmly believe that Spinoza has given humanity the final word on the true identity of "God", although very few seem to agree with Spinoza, Goethe and Einstein that the infinite eternal hierarchical Universe, with its elegant laws, principles and symmetries, is all in all.
God = Nature = everything natural and nothing supernatural.
If others need a more anthropomorphic God, let them believe what they will. I would only argue that they are selling God short, in fact infinitely short.
[deleted]
Robert
You can read my posts in essay of Philip Giibbs.
[deleted]
Robert
There are all my observations.
http://vixra.org/author/yuri_danoyan
My be you can catch some intersection with your interest?
[deleted]
Dear Robert,
I totally agree with you on questioning the 3 assumptions as given in the abstract, but for different reasons from your self-similar cosmology where I can see how they would be refuted. Just taking the idea seriously that the metric-field equations of General Relativity describe a closed physical surface of space-time is enough to question whether the 'constants' are really constant in an absolute sense. For a closed universe with radius R, physical analysis leads to the conclusion that the cosmological constant must depend upon R, and that GR formulated on a local basis could have a gravitational constant dependent upon R. Given that 2 of the 3 'constants' would then vary with the radius R of the universe, the suspicion would be that the speed of light would also vary with R, which would obviously effect conclusions from astronomic observations if correct. Assumption 1 being wrong - ticked.
Of course in GR, the scale R is not physically defined in a properly measurable sense and extensions to GR by adding extra dimensions can inherent this feature, as my Kaluza-Klein theory does. In a KKT like mine the compactified dimensions have the Planck scale L and the physical scale of the universe is then physically defined in units of L, ie. R/L is a physical quantity. But then L is only measurable in terms of itself, and so L is not an absolute physical scale. Assumption 3 being wrong - ticked. I understand that you don't like such cosmological models with upper and lower length scales.
For me, assumption 2 is wrong because the last step down in scale is blocked by mathematical incompleteness and so reductionism fails for this reason. Although this refutation of the 3 assumptions is different from yours, the key can also be viewed as being a reassessment of scaling in GR.
Best wishes,
Michael
Hi Michael,
For many years I have tried to interest people in the possibility that G is not an absolute constant, but rather has an infinite series of discrete values - one for each cosmological Scale (i.e., ..., Subquantum, Atomic, Stellar, Galactic, Metagalactic, ...).
Two relevant points are:
1. Einstein put the conventional Newtonian G into GR because it gave the right answers for the macrocosm. However, nothing in GR requires that the value of G be the absolute conventional Newtonian value.
2. If one seriously considers the possibility that G is not absolute, but rather has a infinite series of discrete values - one for each self-similar cosmological Scale (i.e., ..., Subquantum, Atomic, Stellar, Galactic, Metagalactic, ...), then one has the makings of a new discrete self-similar paradigm for understanding nature on all Scales in a highly unified and elegant manner.
Maybe if Discrete Scale Relativity's definitive predictions concerning the exact mass spectrum of the galactic dark matter are verified (say, by the NuSTAR X-ray telescope), then those who have studiously ignored this new paradigm for over 3 decades will be inclined to learn about its true potential.
Best,
Rob O
7 days later
Robert
I also checked out your website, the fractal model is very close to the one I have explored and describe, developed from astronomy as well as physics. The form is based on the same toroidal (nuclear tokamak) form and also discussed in last years essay (2020 Vision).
The scale also includes each universe, consistent with CMBR anisotropy, it's helical resolution, and the 'axis of evil' equivalent to AGN/quasar jets, as described here; Feb 2011 Helical CMBR Asymmetry, Pre-Big Bang State, Dark Matter and the Axis of Evil. http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016
The form gives multiple spin axis. At the lowest scale is the fundamental twin vortex, again forming the toroid. I will get back to your website. in the meantinme I hope you may read my own essay and comment, the aspect considered showing how Relativity and QM may be one.
Thanks, and best regards
Peter.
Hello Peter,
Does you research lead to any definitive predictions?
These are traditional scientific predictions that are made prior to testing, feasibly tested, quantitative, non-adjustable (i.e., non-fudgable), and unique to the theory being tested.
Robert
A bit of an embarrassment of novel predictions arose, even before the research, which was mainly trying to falsify the conceptual ontology by proving some of the seemingly ridiculous predictions wrong.
I remember the very first one (of scores) well. It was that 'lensing' delays, from the first 2 nanosecond delay found by Shapiro radar ranging Venus near the sun, would be anomalously greater by perversely many magnitudes, even up to many years!!. In fact Shapiro also had to be wrong. Dirty washing is not done in public and it took some digging. I actually gave up and looked at other novel predictions, but they checked out so I returned (with help).
In a nutshell; Shapiro had lied to support SR (sponsored by the US army), was found out by Dicke and backed out of a lead talk (5th Texas Symposeum). Wallis publicised his deception but was suppressed and most official records disappeared. But the real results emerged and were analysed, showing massive 'refractive effects' had been subtracted to leave; ..well I never!, a tiny amount as the (wrongly interpreted) SR prediction. All papers with any truth only emerged in secondary journals, i.e. Evans, J. V., R. P. Ingalls, 1968: Absorption of Radar Signals by the Atmosphere of Venus. J. Atmos. Sci., 25, 555-559. doi: 10.1175/1520-0469 (1968) 0252.0.CO;2
Doing the same experiment on Jupiter shortly after this caused massive controversy, also suppressed as the results appeared to violate SR. Again buried, but traces with hints can be found. i.e. Kopeikin S.M. The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Theoretical Interpretation 2003. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302462
But now the big finds. The Belgians were told they were stupid when someone matched some spectroscopy readouts from Borud from the wrong year. Eventually they couldn't be denied, but did not match any theory, until another patch, 'gravity well' extensions with ,caustics' was put over it (light round one side of a cluster gets lost down a (wishful thinking?) 'well' for a year on the way here.
Then the biggest one to date Abell. Over 3 years delay. It was first dismissed as nonsense and astronomers expressing surprise in public were censored. But it's been confirmed, and consistent with the well known kinetic Sunyaev Zeldovitch effect and later kinetic findings including by my own (RAS) president, but which could not be assimilated into theory. Esentially, light being passed through the edge of a galaxy rotating towards us does so at c wrt the halo so arrives earlier, and also curved by diffraction. This solves scores of the biggest issues and anomalies in astronomy, and beyond. Re-ionization, dwarf galaxies, intrinsic rotation, the barycentric frame and celestial plane (see USNO Circular 179 p6; "there is as yet no consistent relativistic theoretical basis....etc.), ad infinitum.
But of course it is both too obvious and far too unfamiliar, and requires 'dynamic visualisation' skills we haven't developed as we rely totally on maths (1 flawed input = total wrong output). In fact the DFM proves the SR postulates, with Local Reality, and derives them directly from a quantum mechanism. I'm no mathematician, and trust logic more than maths, but see my end notes for the basic transform equations.
And when we start ;looking into optics there are just as many, perhaps more, novel predictions and 'poorly understood' jigsaw pieces that suddenly all fit together in the Discrete Field Model 4D ontological construction perfectly. Just try to explain the likes of Fraunhofer radiation and Non Linear Optics effects without it.
So the short answer is; Yes. But I'm not sure what good it will do as all physicists are taught otherwise. If you have a pet wish to put through the sausage machine give it a try, Pre big bang conditions perhaps? Black Holes? Infinities? CMB anisotropy? The shape of fractals?
The questions we can't yet get it to answer are; 1. Is it a good idea that we know all this yet? And; 2. How do we make some parts of humankind intelligent enough to explain it to others in a way they might be able to assimilate. Reviewers certainly seem terrified of it! and with so many crackpot ideas around who can blame them. We are very few. Any ideas or help is very welcome.
Best wishes
Peter
Robert
Sorry, the list runs to almost 5 pages. It seems you may not count that as succinct.
I hadn't realised pseudo-science had taken over. Am I too late?
It also predicts that starlight passing through the ionosphere will refracted to c in the (non rotating) ECI frame, then when passing into the atmosphere will change speed to do c/n in the rotating ECRF, thus producing scintillation, ellipticity, scattering, and the need for the addition of a significant refractive component of
..up to 34 arc mins at 90 degree azimuth to achieve accurate predictions for stellar aberration.
Best wishes
Peter
PS some bizarre pseudo-physics going on with this posting system! 3rd time lucky!
Robert
And the bars of barred spiral galaxies of course (prediction No.40 odd). Made up of the inner arm matter of spent AGN quasar jets.
(non succinct version and links on Hope He's blog).
Best wishes
Peter
[deleted]
The efforts of John Baez notwithstanding, it is virtually impossible to devise a perfect test for crackpottery. Some of the lions of physics would have scored badly on JB's test.
But like art, wherein 'I cannot deine great art, but I know it when I see it', one can unambiguously identify a 'lost-without-a-reliable-compass pseudoscientist when one is burdened with enough of his thinking.
Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts that the galactic dark matter is composed of stellar-mass and planetary-mass black holes. The theory also gives the exact mass spectrum of these objects. The prediction is prior, feasible, quantitative, completely non-adjustable and totally unique to DSR.
NuSTAR may observe the high-mass tail of this population, and Sumi et al [Nature, 18 May 2011] may have already reported the discovery of the planetary-mass component.
See how easy it is when you are working with a scientific paradigm?
Dear Robert,
I have read your essay and I appreciate your viewpoint.
As you know, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.
You are also requested to read and comment my essay titled "Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".
Best Wishes
G S Sandhu
Robert
I've heard Baez described as the definitive 'crackpot' in terms of clogging up the arteries of improved understanding of nature. But many non mainstream theorists have a similar problem, a closed fixation on just their own way of looking at nature, mainstream or not, that prevents them seeing or even looking for other aspects. That re-establishes the common 'inside the box' thinking at each new level. That is perhaps what leads to the real blinkered 'pseudoscience' crackpottery.
I'm a great supporter of the viewpoint of Sir William Bragg, so oft proven correct but still so oft ignored; "The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them."
From that view I confirm I absolutely agree with your propositions as one view of a great truth that we need to better present to 'the gatekeepers.' But there are always other aspects giving a proposition the far greater power and clarity of dimensionality.
As far as discrete scale relativity is concerned I find is has great consistencies with the DFM ontology. As an astronomer I know a black hole as a toroidal AGN also extant at stellar scales and in fact scale invariant, which implements the process of re-ionization of matter via the well known (in astronomy) accretion discs and quasar jet emissions. Taking the broader not narrower view, that seems to join and reinforce your model exceptionally well, and has overwhelming physical evidence.
But I suspect you may not agree, and be tempted turn away to look only back inside the box you8 have so well crafted. Is that really true?
Peter
I asked for your best definitive prediction in a succinct form.
As a clear example, I gave you Discrete Scale Relativity's version of what I asked for.
Please comply with my request or take your discussion elsewhere.
[deleted]
Special and General Relativity are the most conceptually elegant theories we currently possess.
They have been tested in a large number of fundamental ways and have never been contradicted empirically.
I think fqxi has opened a Pandora's box of pseudo-science, and finding intelligent discussions about where our assumptions might be leading us astray is like searching for diamonds in a coal bin.