• [deleted]

  • Post #41

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]

      • Post #45

      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.

      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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #47

      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

        Interesting comment.

        Others seem to have no trouble finding my essay.

        The essay identifies 3 assumptions that I think have led physics badly astray.

        I do not waste words, or time with cranks.

        If you want to learn something potentially revolutionary about the world you live in, read the essay and then go to the website to see where alternative assumptions lead to.

        If you want to toot your own horn [yes I have already seen more than I care to see at sci.physics.foundations], toot it somewhere else, thank you very much.

        "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.

        Morning gentlemen,

        For me the crucial criterion is whether or not the idea can yield definitive predictions, defined as prior, feasible, quantitative, non-adjustable and unique to the specific idea.

        Without the definitive predictions/testing part of the scientific method, you are in the realm of pure speculation and pseudo-science. If you continue on this path you end up in scientific Disneyland.

        The inability to make definitive predictions is a disease that has infected the most highly touted physics (string theory, supersymmetry, multiverse nonsense, anthropic reasoning, QCD, etc.) and the most lowly attempts at understanding our world.

        The most interesting question is whether or not theoretical physics can recover from the decades-long deviation from the time-tested principles of science. One would like to think so, but there has been no clear indication of that. The old paradigm is very deeply entrenched and fiercely defended by Swift's confederacy.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #53

        Robert,

        See my essay post about logarithmic spirale.

        See Peter Woit's blog "Not Even Wrong" for a new discussion today on the untestable pseudo-science being hyped by A. Linde, who thinks that the SUSY/SUGRA/strings/multiverse/anthropic reasoning rubbish is the only way to make sense of the cosmos.

        It is nice to see that a small minority of physicists sees the danger to science posed by the currently fashionable return to Ptolemaic pseudo-science.

        8 days later

        Hi Robert,

        please see some new pages in the Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter : Similarity of matter levels , SPF symmetry , Stellar constants , Strong gravitation , Strong gravitational constant , Scale dimension , Gravitational torsion field , Extended special theory of relativity, Metric theory of relativity, Covariant theory of gravitation .

        My essay as you can see is devoted to the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter as a whole, there is a shot overview of it.

        Sergey Fedosin Essay

          It appears to me that fractal modeling and fundamental self-similarity are not of much interest to people in theoretical physics these days.

          This has always seemed a bit odd to me since fractal structure/processes and self-similarity are ubiquitous in virtually every phenomena of nature that can be observed reasonably directly.

          The only places that self-similarity, fractals and hierarchical modeling are absent are in the Platonic fantasy fizzics of postmodern pseudo-science like string theory, SUSY and WIMPy cosmology.

          Only dramatic observational discoveries (probably relating to the galactic dark matter and/or the unexpected physics of astrophysical systems like exoplanet systems) will lead to a change in the current mediocre group-think that passes for physics.

          The basic principles of discrete self-similar cosmology are published and tested and ready to be developed into a more analytically sophisticated theory.

          All we can do is wait for nature to convince a deluded theoretical physics community that they have gone way off track and need to rethink everything in the context of a discrete fractal paradigm.

          Best,

          RLO

          • [deleted]

          • Post #57

          Dear Robert L Oldershaw,

          "...the Platonic fantasy fizzics of postmodern pseudo-science like string theory, SUSY and WIMPy cosmology.

          "...current mediocre group-think that passes for physics."

          And the correct direction for all to follow is?:

          "The basic principles of discrete self-similar cosmology are published and tested and ready to be developed into a more analytically sophisticated theory."

          But there are obstacles to be overcome?:

          "All we can do is wait for nature to convince a deluded theoretical physics community that they have gone way off track and need to rethink everything in the context of a discrete fractal paradigm."

          And nature has been revealed here? I don't think so. I have seen too much said that I think is easily not natural only theoretical. Theory is an invention of the mind. If it wasn't, it wouldn't even be needed. Empirical evidence would be the source of natural knowledge which, of course, must be the case. But just in case I am wrong about your information:

          From an early message of yours:

          "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."

          And from another one:

          "The central prediction of Discrete Scale Relativity is the exact identity and the exact mass spectrum of the dark matter."

          What came first, the empirical evidence or the prediction? Just wondering if the theory is predicated upon prior empirical knowledge, or, if the empirical knowledge was unknown, and, the prediction predated its discovery?

          James Putnam

          Mr Putnam says: "What came first, the empirical evidence or the prediction? Just wondering if the theory is predicated upon prior empirical knowledge, or, if the empirical knowledge was unknown, and, the prediction predated its discovery?"

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

          Discrete Scale Relativity has passed 3 definitive predictions relating to pulsar-planets, trillions of unbound planetary-mass "nomad" objects, and M-dwarf planet abundance anomalies. In each case, and for anything that qualifies as a definitive scientific prediction, the prediction must be in print before the observational test of the prediction. If a prediction is "adjusted" to fit the empirical results, then that is pseudo-science. The prediction must be an empirically testable extrapolation from the empirically-based foundation of the theory.

          You appear to be operating from a foundation of almost no understanding of Discrete Scale Relativity.

          The development of DSR was predominantly guided by empirical evidence of nature, especially the physical properties of fundamental systems on the Atomic, Stellar and Galactic Scales of nature's hierarchy.

          Once the empirical evidence led to the basic principles of the discrete self-similar paradigm, and once empirical evidence led to the discrete self-similar scaling equations that are the heart of the theory, then it was possible to derive at least 12 definitive predictions that can be tested now, and in principle a huge number of additional predictions.

          All this is carefully laid out at my website for anyone with an interest in learning about Discrete Scale Relativity. There are also many papers posted to arxiv.org and Independent.academia.edu.

          After you have a working knowledge of DSR, I would be happy to answer your questions and comments.

            Dear Robert L. Oldershaw,

            Your website is some other thing. The essay contest is this thing. I asked a question which in your first few sentences you almost gave the appearance of an almost reasonable answer:

            "Once the empirical evidence led to the basic principles of the discrete self-similar paradigm, and once empirical evidence led to the discrete self-similar scaling equations that are the heart of the theory, then it was possible to derive at least 12 definitive predictions that can be tested now, and in principle a huge number of additional predictions."

            Of course it did. What good is a theory that does not properly fit the patterns observed in empirical evidence. Afterall, regardless of what theorists claim for their own gratification, it is the continued usefulness of their accepted patterns of empirical evidence that allow for further accurate predictions.

            Where do you add something novel that is not credited to the patterns of previous empirical evidence? Where is the great discovery that is not a simple addition to the extrapolation of known empirical patterns?

            I will evaluate your website publicly after you justify your non-essay contribution to this essay contest. When there is a website contest, then, I will evaluate your website publicly.

            So far as I could tell from your present answer, you have borrowed from prior knowledge given to you by experimental physicists.

            James Putnam

            Mr. Putman,

            1. You appear to have little understanding of the Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm and the theory of Discrete Scale Relativity, which applies in the case of exact cosmological self-similarity.

            2. You also seem to have an idiosyncratic understanding of how science works.

            3. I do not suffer fools gladly.

            4. Please go pester someone else.