The Infinite Fractal Universe by Robert L. Oldershaw

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------足------

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

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

Yes of course it is testable and pragmatic .The topology is essential too.

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

"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

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.

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

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

Om MaNi PadMe Hum

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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