Misleading Assumptions by Robert L. Oldershaw

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

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

Robert

I'd thought the origin of all bars in galaxies was quite succinct, and fulfilled the same requirements. I agree there are precious few in physics generally, and yours certainly also, very rarely, qualifies, which is why I'm happy to discuss.

Did you not agree, or have a problem with it?

It's also difficult to pick a 'best' one from such a diverse range. You didn't pick a topic, but please do so if you wish.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Robert L. Oldershaw,

I just read an invitation to visit your website. I am supposed to be reading, conversing about, and rating your essay. There is no essay. Hopefully your effort here brings visitors to your website. Best Wishes.

James

"I do not waste words, or time with cranks." Ok.

James

Anonymous,

I can appreciate your frustration, but try to look at it this way: If among all the "coal" one finds a "diamond" that would have otherwise been overlooked would it not have been worthwhile to have this contest? Besides, even in mainstream science, most ideas in fundamental physics will eventually turn out to be wrong.

I have found that by skimming an essay and looking for some of the following characteristics it is fairly easy to quickly identify which essays deserve more time at the expense of the others:

1. Ideas are formulated clearly, concretely and precisely

2. Outrageous claims are avoided

3. Strong claims are supported by mathematics

4. Subjective opinions are not passed off as factual statements

Perhaps you might find this useful.

The problem is not that the theories do not match the data. They do.

The problem is that the "meaning" that has be slapped onto the theories does not match reality.

Robert,

See my essay post about logarithmic spirale.