Misleading Assumptions by Robert L. Oldershaw

Robert

I like your idea that the scale of things is highly stratified. I realise your concept is primarily directed at the cosmology side of the scale, but I can see the relevance to the tiny scale. If there were scale effects -from whatever cause- then there could be discontinuities in the manifestation of the physics. Which in turn could explain why quantum coherence does not apply to living cats, for example.

Thank you

Dirk

Hi,Robert

Are you familiar with this book?

http://www.amazon.com/Scale-Relativity-And-Fractal-Space-Time/dp/1848166508

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.

Robert

You can read my posts in essay of Philip Giibbs.

Robert

There are all my observations.

http://vixra.org/author/yuri_danoyan

My be you can catch some intersection with your interest?

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

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.

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