Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Stellar/Atomic Self-Similarity Paper in PRL
20 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 26, 2012, 3:13:16 AM1/26/12
to
Be sure to take a look at this very nice example of discrete stellar/
atomic self-similarity.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124162351.htm
The research paper will be published this week in Physical Review
Letters.
Another small step towards a new paradigm?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://wwww3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
atomic self-similarity.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124162351.htm
The research paper will be published this week in Physical Review
Letters.
Another small step towards a new paradigm?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://wwww3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Jos Bergervoet
Jan 26, 2012, 5:00:36 AM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 9:13 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
hearing about a theory that the entire universe is one
single plutonium atom! (Atom-totallity, if I recall correctly.)
I'm sure you will find references to it! That would be your
ultimate new paradigm, don't you think?
--
Jos
wrote:
> Be sure to take a look at this very nice example of discrete stellar/
> atomic self-similarity.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124162351.htm
>
> The research paper will be published this week in Physical Review
> Letters.
>
> Another small step towards a new paradigm?
Yes, they only built a solar system in an atom.. I recall
> atomic self-similarity.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124162351.htm
>
> The research paper will be published this week in Physical Review
> Letters.
>
> Another small step towards a new paradigm?
hearing about a theory that the entire universe is one
single plutonium atom! (Atom-totallity, if I recall correctly.)
I'm sure you will find references to it! That would be your
ultimate new paradigm, don't you think?
--
Jos
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Jan 27, 2012, 3:57:41 AM1/27/12
to
In article <mt2.0-32699...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
admiration for the technical expertise, nothing new or exciting.
To a good approximation, the Sun is a sphere and the Earth is a sphere.
But that doesn't mean that because there is life on Earth there must be
life on the Sun. The "as above, so below" philosophy of the Great Chain
of Being is just not how the world works.
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> Be sure to take a look at this very nice example of discrete stellar/
> atomic self-similarity.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124162351.htm
>
> The research paper will be published this week in Physical Review
> Letters.
>
> Another small step towards a new paradigm?
Actually, an old paradigm, citing work by Niels Bohr. With all
> Be sure to take a look at this very nice example of discrete stellar/
> atomic self-similarity.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124162351.htm
>
> The research paper will be published this week in Physical Review
> Letters.
>
> Another small step towards a new paradigm?
admiration for the technical expertise, nothing new or exciting.
To a good approximation, the Sun is a sphere and the Earth is a sphere.
But that doesn't mean that because there is life on Earth there must be
life on the Sun. The "as above, so below" philosophy of the Great Chain
of Being is just not how the world works.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jan 27, 2012, 11:47:40 AM1/27/12
to
On Jan 27, 3:57 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
1. If the work represented "nothing new or exciting", as you opine,
would Physical Review Letters publish it? I don't think so.
2. Your 'life on the Sun' argument is perhaps the worst piece of logic
I have heard in 6 months. Moreover, that paragraph ends with a
completely unsupported assertion that you state as if it is received
wisdom. Please do not try to pass off your opinions as verified
science. You cannot justifiably say you absolutely know "how the
world works". Thanks.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>
> Actually, an old paradigm, citing work by Niels Bohr. With all
> admiration for the technical expertise, nothing new or exciting.
>
> To a good approximation, the Sun is a sphere and the Earth is a sphere.
> But that doesn't mean that because there is life on Earth there must be
> life on the Sun. The "as above, so below" philosophy of the Great Chain
> of Being is just not how the world works.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Actually, an old paradigm, citing work by Niels Bohr. With all
> admiration for the technical expertise, nothing new or exciting.
>
> To a good approximation, the Sun is a sphere and the Earth is a sphere.
> But that doesn't mean that because there is life on Earth there must be
> life on the Sun. The "as above, so below" philosophy of the Great Chain
> of Being is just not how the world works.
1. If the work represented "nothing new or exciting", as you opine,
would Physical Review Letters publish it? I don't think so.
2. Your 'life on the Sun' argument is perhaps the worst piece of logic
I have heard in 6 months. Moreover, that paragraph ends with a
completely unsupported assertion that you state as if it is received
wisdom. Please do not try to pass off your opinions as verified
science. You cannot justifiably say you absolutely know "how the
world works". Thanks.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Fractal Cosmology
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Thomas Smid
Feb 16, 2012, 1:56:43 PM2/16/12
to
On Jan 26, 8:13 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
wrote:
A certain similarity between gravitational and electrostatic 2-body
problems is not surprising, given the fact that Newton's law of
gravity is formally similar to Coulomb's law (for opposite charges).
But this is pretty much were the similarity ends. For more than 2
charged particles and/or smaller distances (so that quantum effects
become important), the dynamics of the system will have little if any
similarity any more with gravitational systems.
And the paper in question here makes indeed no claim of having
discovered any new theoretical insights, let alone a new paradigm. It
is merely about the technical achievement of preparing atoms into
certain quasi-classical states.
But whilst we are at it, I have actually suggested already some years
ago (based on some theoretical work about highly excited Rydberg
states) that the regularities of the planetary orbits (e.g Titius-Bode
law) could be due to a modulation of the collisional cooling rate
involving excited atomic states in the course of the solar system
formation (see http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/#A8 ). You
might want to think along these lines if you are looking for a
similarity between atomic systems and the solar system.
Thomas
wrote:
problems is not surprising, given the fact that Newton's law of
gravity is formally similar to Coulomb's law (for opposite charges).
But this is pretty much were the similarity ends. For more than 2
charged particles and/or smaller distances (so that quantum effects
become important), the dynamics of the system will have little if any
similarity any more with gravitational systems.
And the paper in question here makes indeed no claim of having
discovered any new theoretical insights, let alone a new paradigm. It
is merely about the technical achievement of preparing atoms into
certain quasi-classical states.
But whilst we are at it, I have actually suggested already some years
ago (based on some theoretical work about highly excited Rydberg
states) that the regularities of the planetary orbits (e.g Titius-Bode
law) could be due to a modulation of the collisional cooling rate
involving excited atomic states in the course of the solar system
formation (see http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/#A8 ). You
might want to think along these lines if you are looking for a
similarity between atomic systems and the solar system.
Thomas
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 17, 2012, 2:36:35 AM2/17/12
to
On Feb 16, 1:56 pm, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But this is pretty much were the similarity ends. For more than 2
> charged particles and/or smaller distances (so that quantum effects
> become important), the dynamics of the system will have little if any
> similarity any more with gravitational systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> But this is pretty much were the similarity ends. For more than 2
> charged particles and/or smaller distances (so that quantum effects
> become important), the dynamics of the system will have little if any
> similarity any more with gravitational systems.
(1) Your comment is valid only if the scaling for the interaction
between matter and space-time geometry, i.e., for General Relativity,
agrees with as yet untested, albeit conventional, assumptions. The
discrete self-similar scaling for the strength of gravitational
interactions predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity has most certainly
not been ruled out empirically. If this prediction by DSR is correct,
then your argument is not germane.
(2) Here is a quotation from a paper published in Physical Review A by
Kashlinski et al [67, 032503, 2003].
------------------------------------------------------------
"We predict the existence of a self-sustained one-electron wave packet
moving on a circular orbit in the helium atom. The wave packet is
localized in space, but does not spread in time. This is a realization
within quantum theory of a classical object that has been called a
"Rutherford atom," a localized planetary electron on an unquantized
circular orbit under the influence of a massive charged core."
"[W]e provide the first demonstration of the existence of what has
been called [14] a "Rutherford atom," i.e., the wave function for a
single electron moving on an unquantized stable and nonspreading
planetary orbit about a massive charged core."
--------------------------------------------------------
The more we empirically and observationally probe the actual workings
of atoms, as opposed to merely repeating theoretical conjectures from
our Platonic models of how atoms "should" work, the stronger the self-
similarity between the atomic and stellar cosmological Scales has
become over the last 30 years.
(3) At the website linked below, there are various papers showing
strong and quantitative self-similarity between all adequately tested
properties of atomic and stellar analogue systems.
(4) Your emphasis on Rydberg atoms is appropriate, since virtually
every stellar system we have observational access to corresponds to an
atomic analogue in a highly excited state.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
eric gisse
Feb 18, 2012, 5:58:35 AM2/18/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-
15559-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> On Feb 16, 1:56 pm, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But this is pretty much were the similarity ends. For more than 2
>> charged particles and/or smaller distances (so that quantum effects
>> become important), the dynamics of the system will have little if any
>> similarity any more with gravitational systems.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) Your comment is valid only if the scaling for the interaction
> between matter and space-time geometry, i.e., for General Relativity,
> agrees with as yet untested, albeit conventional, assumptions.
Local lorentz invariance and the equivalence principle are the
underpinnings of GR and are both quite well tested. So which
"conventional assumptions" of general relativity do you personally feel
are untested?
> The
> discrete self-similar scaling for the strength of gravitational
> interactions predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity has most certainly
> not been ruled out empirically.
That is an odd claim.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/browse_frm/thread/efe3c
eaafabd57d1
Your scaling does not exist in single stars, binary stars, or the
components of binary stars. You have no explanation for why the masses
and luminosities of objects is provably continuous other than a weak
claim that 'data is improving'.
Plus the sun's mass disproves your numerology by 50+ standard deviations
even with the masses of the planets included. Funny how the sun stopped
being brought up after that...
Next there are the microlensing surveys which vastly contradict your
claims in every possible way. No, nobody is impressed that you managed to
predict not a single quantitative thing about the unbound planet
population.
Finally, every actual prediction in your 1987 paper has been falsified.
Your claims about x-ray luminisoties? Wrong. Electron structure? Wrong.
Dark matter ultracompacts? Wrong. Dipole moment range of neutron stars?
Wrong.
This has been detailed here in case you forgot:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9a75f6f58828f15
d?dmode=source
Its' been six months and still no actual technical argument.
[...]
> --------------------------------------------------------
> The more we empirically and observationally probe the actual workings
> of atoms, as opposed to merely repeating theoretical conjectures from
> our Platonic models of how atoms "should" work, the stronger the self-
> similarity between the atomic and stellar cosmological Scales has
> become over the last 30 years.
As long as you deliberaly exclude data that doesn't agree with you, I
suppose.
What's the atomic scale analog of two neutron stars spiraling into
eachother due to quadrupole radiation emission?
What's the stellar scale analog of electron state that allows the
electron to have a finite probability of being within the nucleus of an
atom?
What's the atomic scale analog of a black hole?
What's the stellar scale analog of fission?
Methinks you have no thought this through over the last 30 years.
>
> (3) At the website linked below, there are various papers showing
> strong and quantitative self-similarity between all adequately tested
> properties of atomic and stellar analogue systems.
Robert, please don't make the argument that since certain bound systems
sometimes exhibit the same behaviors they are governed by the same laws.
That would just make people sad for you.
>
> (4) Your emphasis on Rydberg atoms is appropriate, since virtually
> every stellar system we have observational access to corresponds to an
> atomic analogue in a highly excited state.
Once you exclude the ones that do not at all correspond, then yes I agree
with you.
>
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>
Rules for thee, not for me.
"Ideally we want theories that make definitive predictions that
tell us whether the theory is fundamentally right, or fundamentally
wrong.
In the latter case, one does not "modify" the fundamentally wrong
theory. One seeks a new model based on a new theoretical
principle."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/4fc183ee333d5f13?
dmode=source
15559-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> On Feb 16, 1:56 pm, Thomas Smid <thomas.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But this is pretty much were the similarity ends. For more than 2
>> charged particles and/or smaller distances (so that quantum effects
>> become important), the dynamics of the system will have little if any
>> similarity any more with gravitational systems.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) Your comment is valid only if the scaling for the interaction
> between matter and space-time geometry, i.e., for General Relativity,
> agrees with as yet untested, albeit conventional, assumptions.
underpinnings of GR and are both quite well tested. So which
"conventional assumptions" of general relativity do you personally feel
are untested?
> The
> discrete self-similar scaling for the strength of gravitational
> interactions predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity has most certainly
> not been ruled out empirically.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/browse_frm/thread/efe3c
eaafabd57d1
Your scaling does not exist in single stars, binary stars, or the
components of binary stars. You have no explanation for why the masses
and luminosities of objects is provably continuous other than a weak
claim that 'data is improving'.
Plus the sun's mass disproves your numerology by 50+ standard deviations
even with the masses of the planets included. Funny how the sun stopped
being brought up after that...
Next there are the microlensing surveys which vastly contradict your
claims in every possible way. No, nobody is impressed that you managed to
predict not a single quantitative thing about the unbound planet
population.
Finally, every actual prediction in your 1987 paper has been falsified.
Your claims about x-ray luminisoties? Wrong. Electron structure? Wrong.
Dark matter ultracompacts? Wrong. Dipole moment range of neutron stars?
Wrong.
This has been detailed here in case you forgot:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9a75f6f58828f15
d?dmode=source
Its' been six months and still no actual technical argument.
[...]
> --------------------------------------------------------
> The more we empirically and observationally probe the actual workings
> of atoms, as opposed to merely repeating theoretical conjectures from
> our Platonic models of how atoms "should" work, the stronger the self-
> similarity between the atomic and stellar cosmological Scales has
> become over the last 30 years.
suppose.
What's the atomic scale analog of two neutron stars spiraling into
eachother due to quadrupole radiation emission?
What's the stellar scale analog of electron state that allows the
electron to have a finite probability of being within the nucleus of an
atom?
What's the atomic scale analog of a black hole?
What's the stellar scale analog of fission?
Methinks you have no thought this through over the last 30 years.
>
> (3) At the website linked below, there are various papers showing
> strong and quantitative self-similarity between all adequately tested
> properties of atomic and stellar analogue systems.
sometimes exhibit the same behaviors they are governed by the same laws.
That would just make people sad for you.
>
> (4) Your emphasis on Rydberg atoms is appropriate, since virtually
> every stellar system we have observational access to corresponds to an
> atomic analogue in a highly excited state.
with you.
>
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>
Rules for thee, not for me.
"Ideally we want theories that make definitive predictions that
tell us whether the theory is fundamentally right, or fundamentally
wrong.
In the latter case, one does not "modify" the fundamentally wrong
theory. One seeks a new model based on a new theoretical
principle."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/4fc183ee333d5f13?
dmode=source
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Feb 18, 2012, 5:59:20 AM2/18/12
to
In article <mt2.0-15559...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
EXPERIMENTALLY. The electron has no structure at the level of a
hundredth of a fermi. If so, then the hadron structure seen by HERA
(which collides electrons and protons) would not agree so well with
theory. There are also experiments measuring the g factor of the
electron which rule out this substructure. This was pointed out here
and/or in s.p.r. not long ago. Result? You didn't post anything for a
while, but now come back with the same old things.
You have repeatedly said yourself that a theory has to make definitive,
quantitative predictions which can be tested by experiment. We all
assumed that if the experiment disagrees with the prediction, then this
means that the theory is wrong. DSR is looking even worse than WIMPs
now.
Or did I miss an epicycle?
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> (1) Your comment is valid only if the scaling for the interaction
> between matter and space-time geometry, i.e., for General Relativity,
> agrees with as yet untested, albeit conventional, assumptions. The
> discrete self-similar scaling for the strength of gravitational
> interactions predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity has most certainly
> not been ruled out empirically. If this prediction by DSR is correct,
> then your argument is not germane.
However, a DEFINITIVE PREDICTION (your words) of DSR has been RULED OUT
> (1) Your comment is valid only if the scaling for the interaction
> between matter and space-time geometry, i.e., for General Relativity,
> agrees with as yet untested, albeit conventional, assumptions. The
> discrete self-similar scaling for the strength of gravitational
> interactions predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity has most certainly
> not been ruled out empirically. If this prediction by DSR is correct,
> then your argument is not germane.
EXPERIMENTALLY. The electron has no structure at the level of a
hundredth of a fermi. If so, then the hadron structure seen by HERA
(which collides electrons and protons) would not agree so well with
theory. There are also experiments measuring the g factor of the
electron which rule out this substructure. This was pointed out here
and/or in s.p.r. not long ago. Result? You didn't post anything for a
while, but now come back with the same old things.
You have repeatedly said yourself that a theory has to make definitive,
quantitative predictions which can be tested by experiment. We all
assumed that if the experiment disagrees with the prediction, then this
means that the theory is wrong. DSR is looking even worse than WIMPs
now.
Or did I miss an epicycle?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 18, 2012, 1:07:03 PM2/18/12
to
On Feb 18, 5:59�am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Since there is credible empirical evidence for Stellar Scale
ultracompacts, including the fundamental black holes predicted by
Discrete Scale Relativity, and since there has not been a single
empirical hint of a "WIMP" in 40 years, your comments are hard to
justify.
I think many people are oblivious to many epicycles. This may change.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>
> You have repeatedly said yourself that a theory has to make definitive,
> quantitative predictions which can be tested by experiment. �We all
> assumed that if the experiment disagrees with the prediction, then this
> means that the theory is wrong. �DSR is looking even worse than WIMPs
> now.
>
> Or did I miss an epicycle?
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> You have repeatedly said yourself that a theory has to make definitive,
> quantitative predictions which can be tested by experiment. �We all
> assumed that if the experiment disagrees with the prediction, then this
> means that the theory is wrong. �DSR is looking even worse than WIMPs
> now.
>
> Or did I miss an epicycle?
Since there is credible empirical evidence for Stellar Scale
ultracompacts, including the fundamental black holes predicted by
Discrete Scale Relativity, and since there has not been a single
empirical hint of a "WIMP" in 40 years, your comments are hard to
justify.
I think many people are oblivious to many epicycles. This may change.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Feb 19, 2012, 7:21:10 AM2/19/12
to
In article <mt2.0-3870...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
made another prediction which was falsified. (One could argue that
their predictions are not concrete enough, but that's another issue.)
With DSR, I am referring to the definitive prediction regarding electron
substructure on a scale which has already been proved by experiments,
and hence ruled out the theory since its definitive prediction was
falsified.
Is this prediction definitive? If so, then by definition observations
to the contrary rule out DSR. If not, then why did you call it a
definitive prediction?
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> On Feb 18, 5:59 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
> <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> >
> > You have repeatedly said yourself that a theory has to make definitive,
> > quantitative predictions which can be tested by experiment. We all
> > assumed that if the experiment disagrees with the prediction, then this
> > means that the theory is wrong. DSR is looking even worse than WIMPs
> > now.
> >
> > Or did I miss an epicycle?
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Since there is credible empirical evidence for Stellar Scale
> ultracompacts, including the fundamental black holes predicted by
> Discrete Scale Relativity, and since there has not been a single
> empirical hint of a "WIMP" in 40 years, your comments are hard to
> justify.
WIMPs are not definitively ruled out because the theory predicting them
> On Feb 18, 5:59 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
> <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> >
> > You have repeatedly said yourself that a theory has to make definitive,
> > quantitative predictions which can be tested by experiment. We all
> > assumed that if the experiment disagrees with the prediction, then this
> > means that the theory is wrong. DSR is looking even worse than WIMPs
> > now.
> >
> > Or did I miss an epicycle?
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Since there is credible empirical evidence for Stellar Scale
> ultracompacts, including the fundamental black holes predicted by
> Discrete Scale Relativity, and since there has not been a single
> empirical hint of a "WIMP" in 40 years, your comments are hard to
> justify.
made another prediction which was falsified. (One could argue that
their predictions are not concrete enough, but that's another issue.)
With DSR, I am referring to the definitive prediction regarding electron
substructure on a scale which has already been proved by experiments,
and hence ruled out the theory since its definitive prediction was
falsified.
Is this prediction definitive? If so, then by definition observations
to the contrary rule out DSR. If not, then why did you call it a
definitive prediction?
eric gisse
Feb 19, 2012, 7:22:03 AM2/19/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-3870-
13295...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> On Feb 18, 5:59 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
> <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>>
>> You have repeatedly said yourself that a theory has to make
definitive,
>> quantitative predictions which can be tested by experiment. We all
>> assumed that if the experiment disagrees with the prediction, then
this
>> means that the theory is wrong. DSR is looking even worse than WIMPs
>> now.
>>
>> Or did I miss an epicycle?
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Since there is credible empirical evidence for Stellar Scale
> ultracompacts,
s/for/against/
Every microlensing survey to date rules out your numerology. Compact
objects are, st most, only a small percentage of dark matter.
> including the fundamental black holes predicted by
> Discrete Scale Relativity,
Actually your mass range has been solidly excluded.
> and since there has not been a single
> empirical hint of a "WIMP" in 40 years, your comments are hard to
> justify.
>
> I think many people are oblivious to many epicycles. This may change.
>
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>
Robert, I think you forgot to reply to the original question about
electron substructure.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9a75f6f58828f15
d?dmode=source
You forgot to respond to it when I mentioned it, too. You also forgot to
respond to the other 'definitive predictions' that have been falsified.
13295...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> On Feb 18, 5:59 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
> <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>>
>> You have repeatedly said yourself that a theory has to make
definitive,
>> quantitative predictions which can be tested by experiment. We all
>> assumed that if the experiment disagrees with the prediction, then
this
>> means that the theory is wrong. DSR is looking even worse than WIMPs
>> now.
>>
>> Or did I miss an epicycle?
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Since there is credible empirical evidence for Stellar Scale
> ultracompacts,
Every microlensing survey to date rules out your numerology. Compact
objects are, st most, only a small percentage of dark matter.
> including the fundamental black holes predicted by
> Discrete Scale Relativity,
> and since there has not been a single
> empirical hint of a "WIMP" in 40 years, your comments are hard to
> justify.
>
> I think many people are oblivious to many epicycles. This may change.
>
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>
electron substructure.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9a75f6f58828f15
d?dmode=source
You forgot to respond to it when I mentioned it, too. You also forgot to
respond to the other 'definitive predictions' that have been falsified.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 19, 2012, 7:23:21 AM2/19/12
to
On Feb 18, 5:58 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Local lorentz invariance and the equivalence principle are the
> underpinnings of GR and are both quite well tested. So which
> "conventional assumptions" of general relativity do you personally feel
> are untested?
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Local lorentz invariance and the equivalence principle are the
> underpinnings of GR and are both quite well tested. So which
> "conventional assumptions" of general relativity do you personally feel
> are untested?
Let me walk you through it once again.
(1) The gravitational coupling constant G plays a crucial role in
determining the scale related "strength" of the coupling between
matter and S-T geometry.
(2) It was empirically determined that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs within
Stellar Scale systems and it was ASSUMED that G always has the exact
same value for all cosmological Scales: Stellar, Atomic,
Galactic, ... . This assumption has never been empirically tested.
Remember that it all depends on whether one talks about the INTERIOR
of a BOUND system, or the interaction between two UNBOUND systems. I
realize that this confuses most people.
(3) Discrete Scale Relativity proposes that G, as measured by any
fixed set of MLT units, varies by a discrete factor of about 2 x 10^38
when one goes from WITHIN a higher Scale system to WITHIN a next lower
Scale system.
(4) With this assumption, one can gain new understanding of the fine
structure constant, Planck's constant and the relationship between GR
and QM. And much more.
We have been through this before. Many times. What is the point of
going back to square 1 every time?
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Feb 19, 2012, 8:08:38 AM2/19/12
to
In article <mt2.0-4366...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
> (2) It was empirically determined that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs within
> Stellar Scale systems and it was ASSUMED that G always has the exact
> same value for all cosmological Scales: Stellar, Atomic,
> Galactic, ... . This assumption has never been empirically tested.
It has been tested down to masses of a kg or so. Yes, this is not proof
that it is different for smaller scales, but it seems to work over many
orders of magnitude, so without good reason there is no reason to expect
it not to work at smaller scales.
> Remember that it all depends on whether one talks about the INTERIOR
> of a BOUND system, or the interaction between two UNBOUND systems. I
> realize that this confuses most people.
Probably, since it is not clear what you mean.
> (3) Discrete Scale Relativity proposes that G, as measured by any
> fixed set of MLT units, varies by a discrete factor of about 2 x 10^38
> when one goes from WITHIN a higher Scale system to WITHIN a next lower
> Scale system.
>
> (4) With this assumption, one can gain new understanding of the fine
> structure constant, Planck's constant and the relationship between GR
> and QM. And much more.
But the definitive predictions this theory makes have been ruled out by
observation.
> We have been through this before. Many times. What is the point of
> going back to square 1 every time?
What about the definitive prediction of substructure of the electron?
If you don't think the experiments are valid, it is strange that you
haven't criticized them yet. If you think they are not valid, please
provide some reasons and suggest an experiment which could detect this
substructure.
[Mod. note: replies to this request should try to keep the ratio of
unsupported speculation to actual physics as low as possible -- mjh]
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> > Local lorentz invariance and the equivalence principle are the
> > underpinnings of GR and are both quite well tested. So which
> > "conventional assumptions" of general relativity do you personally feel
> > are untested?
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Let me walk you through it once again.
>
> (1) The gravitational coupling constant G plays a crucial role in
> determining the scale related "strength" of the coupling between
> matter and S-T geometry.
OK.
> > Local lorentz invariance and the equivalence principle are the
> > underpinnings of GR and are both quite well tested. So which
> > "conventional assumptions" of general relativity do you personally feel
> > are untested?
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Let me walk you through it once again.
>
> (1) The gravitational coupling constant G plays a crucial role in
> determining the scale related "strength" of the coupling between
> matter and S-T geometry.
> (2) It was empirically determined that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs within
> Stellar Scale systems and it was ASSUMED that G always has the exact
> same value for all cosmological Scales: Stellar, Atomic,
> Galactic, ... . This assumption has never been empirically tested.
that it is different for smaller scales, but it seems to work over many
orders of magnitude, so without good reason there is no reason to expect
it not to work at smaller scales.
> Remember that it all depends on whether one talks about the INTERIOR
> of a BOUND system, or the interaction between two UNBOUND systems. I
> realize that this confuses most people.
> (3) Discrete Scale Relativity proposes that G, as measured by any
> fixed set of MLT units, varies by a discrete factor of about 2 x 10^38
> when one goes from WITHIN a higher Scale system to WITHIN a next lower
> Scale system.
>
> (4) With this assumption, one can gain new understanding of the fine
> structure constant, Planck's constant and the relationship between GR
> and QM. And much more.
observation.
> We have been through this before. Many times. What is the point of
> going back to square 1 every time?
If you don't think the experiments are valid, it is strange that you
haven't criticized them yet. If you think they are not valid, please
provide some reasons and suggest an experiment which could detect this
substructure.
[Mod. note: replies to this request should try to keep the ratio of
unsupported speculation to actual physics as low as possible -- mjh]
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 19, 2012, 1:23:22 PM2/19/12
to
On Feb 19, 7:21 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
> definitive prediction?- Hide quoted text -
------------------------------------------------------------------
I have already gone through the whole discussion of the electron's
structure with you.
Most recently at "Cosmic Variance".
You mislead people by offering a partial quote from my ApJ paper that
omits the crucial piece alerting the reader to the fact that a naked
singularity is a second viable solution in DSR.
You steadfastly ignore my more recent and refined prediction, clearly
stated in papers and my website, that DSR definitively predicts a
virtually singular electron with a low-mass envelope of particles from
the next lower Scale in the cosmological hierarchy. The radius of the
envelope is predicted to be the same 4 x 10^-17 cm.
Please do not mislead people further by claiming this is a "changed"
prediction. My ApJ paper stated 2 possibilites and in the following
decades DSR has settled on something of a hybrid of the two possible
structures for the electron.
I have no further inclination to discuss these matters with those
whose comments clearly indicate that their positions are fixed and
permanent.
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
------------------------------------------------------------------
I have already gone through the whole discussion of the electron's
structure with you.
Most recently at "Cosmic Variance".
You mislead people by offering a partial quote from my ApJ paper that
omits the crucial piece alerting the reader to the fact that a naked
singularity is a second viable solution in DSR.
You steadfastly ignore my more recent and refined prediction, clearly
stated in papers and my website, that DSR definitively predicts a
virtually singular electron with a low-mass envelope of particles from
the next lower Scale in the cosmological hierarchy. The radius of the
envelope is predicted to be the same 4 x 10^-17 cm.
Please do not mislead people further by claiming this is a "changed"
prediction. My ApJ paper stated 2 possibilites and in the following
decades DSR has settled on something of a hybrid of the two possible
structures for the electron.
I have no further inclination to discuss these matters with those
whose comments clearly indicate that their positions are fixed and
permanent.
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Feb 19, 2012, 3:16:03 PM2/19/12
to
In article <mt2.0-15123...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
of "definitive". Note that the abstract mentions the substructure as a
definitive prediction.
> You steadfastly ignore my more recent and refined prediction, clearly
> stated in papers and my website, that DSR definitively predicts a
> virtually singular electron with a low-mass envelope of particles from
> the next lower Scale in the cosmological hierarchy. The radius of the
> envelope is predicted to be the same 4 x 10^-17 cm.
Can you describe an experiment which could detect the low-mass envelope
of particles from the next lower Scale?
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> > With DSR, I am referring to the definitive prediction regarding electron
> > substructure on a scale which has already been proved by experiments,
> > and hence ruled out the theory since its definitive prediction was
> > falsified.
> >
> > Is this prediction definitive? If so, then by definition observations
> > to the contrary rule out DSR. If not, then why did you call it a
> > definitive prediction?- Hide quoted text -
> > With DSR, I am referring to the definitive prediction regarding electron
> > substructure on a scale which has already been proved by experiments,
> > and hence ruled out the theory since its definitive prediction was
> > falsified.
> >
> > Is this prediction definitive? If so, then by definition observations
> > to the contrary rule out DSR. If not, then why did you call it a
> > definitive prediction?- Hide quoted text -
> You mislead people by offering a partial quote from my ApJ paper that
> omits the crucial piece alerting the reader to the fact that a naked
> singularity is a second viable solution in DSR.
In that case, it is not a definitive prediction by any useful definition
> omits the crucial piece alerting the reader to the fact that a naked
> singularity is a second viable solution in DSR.
of "definitive". Note that the abstract mentions the substructure as a
definitive prediction.
> You steadfastly ignore my more recent and refined prediction, clearly
> stated in papers and my website, that DSR definitively predicts a
> virtually singular electron with a low-mass envelope of particles from
> the next lower Scale in the cosmological hierarchy. The radius of the
> envelope is predicted to be the same 4 x 10^-17 cm.
of particles from the next lower Scale?
eric gisse
Feb 20, 2012, 5:00:50 AM2/20/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-4366-
13296...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> On Feb 18, 5:58 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Local lorentz invariance and the equivalence principle are the
>> underpinnings of GR and are both quite well tested. So which
>> "conventional assumptions" of general relativity do you personally
feel
>> are untested?
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Let me walk you through it once again.
>
> (1) The gravitational coupling constant G plays a crucial role in
> determining the scale related "strength" of the coupling between
> matter and S-T geometry.
>
> (2) It was empirically determined that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs within
> Stellar Scale systems and it was ASSUMED that G always has the exact
> same value for all cosmological Scales: Stellar, Atomic,
> Galactic, ... . This assumption has never been empirically tested.
Robert, serious question. Do you actually do research before saying
things like this? It reads rather much like you are just making stuff up
and throwing it out there.
Here's a rather decent summary on how both the absolute value and time
derivatives of G have been tested that you apparently have never read:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2011-2
&page=articlese4.html
> Remember that it all depends on whether one talks about the INTERIOR
> of a BOUND system, or the interaction between two UNBOUND systems. I
> realize that this confuses most people.
>
> (3) Discrete Scale Relativity proposes that G, as measured by any
> fixed set of MLT units, varies by a discrete factor of about 2 x 10^38
> when one goes from WITHIN a higher Scale system to WITHIN a next lower
> Scale system.
I'm sure you have a really good explanation as to why yet another one of
your definitive predictions isn't anywhere close to what we observe.
>
> (4) With this assumption, one can gain new understanding of the fine
> structure constant, Planck's constant and the relationship between GR
> and QM. And much more.
>
> We have been through this before. Many times. What is the point of
> going back to square 1 every time?
The point is that your numerology is wrong every time. Here is just
another example of where you made the claim and a prediction without
doing any of the basic research required.
You once asked me whether I had any "original" ideas. The point I always
tried to make to you is that even though I did have a lot of them, pretty
much all of them died on the crucial step in which you go to the library
and check things out. You have failed the "go to the library" step rather
badly, which is why you are sitting here saying how G has never realy
been tested at different scales along with the claim it'll vary by 38
orders of magnitude (!) at different scales.
>
> RLO
> Discrete Scale Relativity
13296...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> On Feb 18, 5:58 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Local lorentz invariance and the equivalence principle are the
>> underpinnings of GR and are both quite well tested. So which
>> "conventional assumptions" of general relativity do you personally
feel
>> are untested?
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Let me walk you through it once again.
>
> (1) The gravitational coupling constant G plays a crucial role in
> determining the scale related "strength" of the coupling between
> matter and S-T geometry.
>
> (2) It was empirically determined that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs within
> Stellar Scale systems and it was ASSUMED that G always has the exact
> same value for all cosmological Scales: Stellar, Atomic,
> Galactic, ... . This assumption has never been empirically tested.
things like this? It reads rather much like you are just making stuff up
and throwing it out there.
Here's a rather decent summary on how both the absolute value and time
derivatives of G have been tested that you apparently have never read:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2011-2
&page=articlese4.html
> Remember that it all depends on whether one talks about the INTERIOR
> of a BOUND system, or the interaction between two UNBOUND systems. I
> realize that this confuses most people.
>
> (3) Discrete Scale Relativity proposes that G, as measured by any
> fixed set of MLT units, varies by a discrete factor of about 2 x 10^38
> when one goes from WITHIN a higher Scale system to WITHIN a next lower
> Scale system.
your definitive predictions isn't anywhere close to what we observe.
>
> (4) With this assumption, one can gain new understanding of the fine
> structure constant, Planck's constant and the relationship between GR
> and QM. And much more.
>
> We have been through this before. Many times. What is the point of
> going back to square 1 every time?
another example of where you made the claim and a prediction without
doing any of the basic research required.
You once asked me whether I had any "original" ideas. The point I always
tried to make to you is that even though I did have a lot of them, pretty
much all of them died on the crucial step in which you go to the library
and check things out. You have failed the "go to the library" step rather
badly, which is why you are sitting here saying how G has never realy
been tested at different scales along with the claim it'll vary by 38
orders of magnitude (!) at different scales.
>
> RLO
> Discrete Scale Relativity
eric gisse
Feb 20, 2012, 5:02:36 AM2/20/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-
15123-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> On Feb 19, 7:21 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
> <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>>
>> WIMPs are not definitively ruled out because the theory predicting
them
>> made another prediction which was falsified. (One could argue that
>> their predictions are not concrete enough, but that's another issue.)
>> With DSR, I am referring to the definitive prediction regarding
electron
>> substructure on a scale which has already been proved by experiments,
>> and hence ruled out the theory since its definitive prediction was
>> falsified.
>>
>> Is this prediction definitive? If so, then by definition observations
>> to the contrary rule out DSR. If not, then why did you call it a
>> definitive prediction?- Hide quoted text -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have already gone through the whole discussion of the electron's
> structure with you.
>
> Most recently at "Cosmic Variance".
>
> You mislead people by offering a partial quote from my ApJ paper that
> omits the crucial piece alerting the reader to the fact that a naked
> singularity is a second viable solution in DSR.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987ApJ...322...34O
From the abstract:
"Two definitive predictions are also pointed out: (1) the model
predicts that the electron will be found to have structure with
radius ~4x10^-17 cm, at just below the current empirical resolution
capability [...]"
Your own paper disagrees with you. There is no mention of such hedging
with naked singularities, the logical arguments against *those*
notwithstanding.
>
> You steadfastly ignore my more recent and refined prediction, clearly
> stated in papers and my website, that DSR definitively predicts a
> virtually singular electron with a low-mass envelope of particles from
> the next lower Scale in the cosmological hierarchy. The radius of the
> envelope is predicted to be the same 4 x 10^-17 cm.
evidence whifh falsifies this.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9a75f6f58828f15
d?dmode=source
In which I reference the following:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/1988/T22/016/
Perhaps you would like to formulate an argument this time?
>
> Please do not mislead people further by claiming this is a "changed"
> prediction. My ApJ paper stated 2 possibilites and in the following
> decades DSR has settled on something of a hybrid of the two possible
> structures for the electron.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987ApJ...322...34O/0000034.000.
html
This paper, by the way, was not my choice. It was yours, which you used
to defend yourself with on multiple occasions.
Why is it that you only bring up these side possibilities once the
original "definitive prediction" has been falsified? How do you even
define "definitive prediction" at this point?
I seem to recall you saying something about saving bad theories with
epicycles...
>
> I have no further inclination to discuss these matters with those
> whose comments clearly indicate that their positions are fixed and
> permanent.
post in public forums (moderated or otherwise) about subjects that are so
easy to poke holes in.
You have been told repeatedly that USENET is not an appropriate medium
for trying to communicate new ideas, yet you insist upon it anyway.
Perhaps you should look inward rather than blaming everyone around you
for when your numerology fails and it is inexplicably pointed out as such
in public mediums.
>
> RLO
> Discrete Scale Relativity
jacob navia
Feb 20, 2012, 2:27:14 PM2/20/12
to
Le 20/02/12 11:00, eric gisse a écrit :
A variation of the gravitational constant, being a pure gravitational
phenomenon, does not affect the local physics, such as, e.g., the atomic
transitions or the nuclear physics. In particular, it is equivalent at
stating that the masses of all particles are varying in the same way to
that their ratios remain constant. Similarly all absorption lines will
be shifted in the same way.
OK, but now it comes:
It follows that most constraints are obtained from systems in which
gravity is non-negligible, such as the motion of the bodies of the Solar
system, astrophysical and cosmological systems. They are mostly related
in the comparison of a gravitational time scale, e.g., period of orbits,
to a non-gravitational time scale. It follows that in general the
constraints assume that the values of the other constants are fixed.
Taking their variation into account would add degeneracies and make the
constraints cited below less stringent.
--------------------------------------------------------end quote
This means that testing if gravity is constant at small scales is not
done yet.
Why?
The answer is not in "the library" but surely in MY library:
"Warped passages: Unraveling the mysteries of the Universe's hidden
dimensions" by Lisa Randall.
I remembered her book because at page 374 she writes that for finding
out if those "hidden dimensions" are real we must measure the gravity
constant at the scales that those "curled up" dimensions require, i.e.
very small scales.
Then she writes, (page 374 in the middle)
"... experiments that are sensitive to gravity at very short distances
are formidably difficult to build. "
Then she goes on to say that gravity seems constant at least to
distances of about a millimeter. She doesn't cite any experimental
results but anyway, a millimeter is really not THAT small.
PLEASE NOTE:
This doesn't mean that I accept Mr Oldershaw's theory. I find that kind
of interesting but I do not see any experimental or observational
results that would confirm it, more or less like you but without the
animosity you display against Mr Oldershaw.
The objective of this post is to show you that actually gravity is not
tested at microscopic scales (smaller than a millimetre). Since the
existence of hidden dimensions depends on that, maybe a clever
experimenter will build a setup that allow us to test gravity at scales
of 0.1 mm or less.
jacob
>
> Robert, serious question. Do you actually do research before saying
> things like this? It reads rather much like you are just making stuff up
> and throwing it out there.
>
> Here's a rather decent summary on how both the absolute value and time
> derivatives of G have been tested that you apparently have never read:
>
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2011-2
> &page=articlese4.html
>
Well, I went to that URL, and there, I can read:
> Robert, serious question. Do you actually do research before saying
> things like this? It reads rather much like you are just making stuff up
> and throwing it out there.
>
> Here's a rather decent summary on how both the absolute value and time
> derivatives of G have been tested that you apparently have never read:
>
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2011-2
> &page=articlese4.html
>
A variation of the gravitational constant, being a pure gravitational
phenomenon, does not affect the local physics, such as, e.g., the atomic
transitions or the nuclear physics. In particular, it is equivalent at
stating that the masses of all particles are varying in the same way to
that their ratios remain constant. Similarly all absorption lines will
be shifted in the same way.
OK, but now it comes:
It follows that most constraints are obtained from systems in which
gravity is non-negligible, such as the motion of the bodies of the Solar
system, astrophysical and cosmological systems. They are mostly related
in the comparison of a gravitational time scale, e.g., period of orbits,
to a non-gravitational time scale. It follows that in general the
constraints assume that the values of the other constants are fixed.
Taking their variation into account would add degeneracies and make the
constraints cited below less stringent.
--------------------------------------------------------end quote
This means that testing if gravity is constant at small scales is not
done yet.
Why?
The answer is not in "the library" but surely in MY library:
"Warped passages: Unraveling the mysteries of the Universe's hidden
dimensions" by Lisa Randall.
I remembered her book because at page 374 she writes that for finding
out if those "hidden dimensions" are real we must measure the gravity
constant at the scales that those "curled up" dimensions require, i.e.
very small scales.
Then she writes, (page 374 in the middle)
"... experiments that are sensitive to gravity at very short distances
are formidably difficult to build. "
Then she goes on to say that gravity seems constant at least to
distances of about a millimeter. She doesn't cite any experimental
results but anyway, a millimeter is really not THAT small.
PLEASE NOTE:
This doesn't mean that I accept Mr Oldershaw's theory. I find that kind
of interesting but I do not see any experimental or observational
results that would confirm it, more or less like you but without the
animosity you display against Mr Oldershaw.
The objective of this post is to show you that actually gravity is not
tested at microscopic scales (smaller than a millimetre). Since the
existence of hidden dimensions depends on that, maybe a clever
experimenter will build a setup that allow us to test gravity at scales
of 0.1 mm or less.
jacob
eric gisse
Feb 21, 2012, 5:00:09 AM2/21/12
to
jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote in news:mt2.0-5448-1329766034
@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
[...]
> Then she goes on to say that gravity seems constant at least to
> distances of about a millimeter. She doesn't cite any experimental
> results but anyway, a millimeter is really not THAT small.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/experiments/shortRange/sr.html
A milimeter for testing gravitation is pretty small especially considering
the fact that sets its' lower bound of influence on a range that spans 30
orders of magnitude.
[...]
@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
[...]
> Then she goes on to say that gravity seems constant at least to
> distances of about a millimeter. She doesn't cite any experimental
> results but anyway, a millimeter is really not THAT small.
A milimeter for testing gravitation is pretty small especially considering
the fact that sets its' lower bound of influence on a range that spans 30
orders of magnitude.
[...]
Robert L. Oldershaw
Feb 21, 2012, 2:19:34 PM2/21/12
to
On Feb 20, 2:27 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>
> The objective of this post is to show you that actually gravity is not
> tested at microscopic scales (smaller than a millimetre). Since the
> existence of hidden dimensions depends on that, maybe a clever
> experimenter will build a setup that allow us to test gravity at scales
> of 0.1 mm or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The objective of this post is to show you that actually gravity is not
> tested at microscopic scales (smaller than a millimetre). Since the
> existence of hidden dimensions depends on that, maybe a clever
> experimenter will build a setup that allow us to test gravity at scales
> of 0.1 mm or less.
The scale relevant to this discussion is =/< than the Bohr radius,
since we want to know the strength of the gravitational interaction
WITHIN atoms/particles.
So we would have to determine G on scales of =/< 0.5 x 10^-7 mm, and
do so WITHIN the relevant objects.
Quite obviously this has never been done. Maybe someday it will be
possible.
Is all lost if this cannot be empirically tested? No! We can
postulate the discrete fractal scaling for gravitation and ask: "What
benefits might come from this axiom/principle?" Can you explain the
fine structure constant? Can you definitively predict the nature of
the dark matter? Can you produce a more natural Planck mass? Can you
give a physical explanation for Planck's constant? Can you identify a
new path toward a reconciliation of GR and QM? Can you resolve the
vacuum energy density crisis? ...
I am happy to report that by tentatively adopting the discrete self-
similar scaling for gravitation, you get possible progress on all
these issues, and a great deal more.
And there are at least 12 definitive predictions of the DSR theory
that can be tested now or in the foreseeable future.
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
eric gisse
Feb 22, 2012, 2:54:20 AM2/22/12
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in
news:mt2.0-17109...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> On Feb 20, 2:27 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>>
>> The objective of this post is to show you that actually gravity is
>> not tested at microscopic scales (smaller than a millimetre). Since
>> the existence of hidden dimensions depends on that, maybe a clever
>> experimenter will build a setup that allow us to test gravity at
>> scales of 0.1 mm or less.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
> The scale relevant to this discussion is =/< than the Bohr radius,
> since we want to know the strength of the gravitational interaction
> WITHIN atoms/particles.
>
> So we would have to determine G on scales of =/< 0.5 x 10^-7 mm, and
> do so WITHIN the relevant objects.
>
> Quite obviously this has never been done. Maybe someday it will be
> possible.
You would be correct had you said it is impossible for us to measure the
actual value of G at that scale, but how about your nonsensical G that is
in the ~10^30+ magnitude range?
Have you even considered the effects that would have on, say, the binding
energy of nucleons? Or to put it in observational terms, the fact that
gravitation has no observable effect at this level is a hint that G doesn't
get 40 orders of magnitude stronger in the small scale.
>
> Is all lost if this cannot be empirically tested? No! We can
> postulate the discrete fractal scaling for gravitation and ask: "What
> benefits might come from this axiom/principle?" Can you explain the
> fine structure constant? Can you definitively predict the nature of
> the dark matter? Can you produce a more natural Planck mass? Can you
> give a physical explanation for Planck's constant? Can you identify a
> new path toward a reconciliation of GR and QM? Can you resolve the
> vacuum energy density crisis? ...
physics student assignment. Feel free to just predict the gross structure
then we'll worry about fine and hyperfine structure....
>
> I am happy to report that by tentatively adopting the discrete self-
> similar scaling for gravitation, you get possible progress on all
> these issues, and a great deal more.
numerology's manifold failings.
>
> And there are at least 12 definitive predictions of the DSR theory
> that can be tested now or in the foreseeable future.
* Discretization of stellar masses: Failed.
* Electron substructure: Failed.
* Nature and distribution of dark matter: Failed.
* Distribution of neutron star dipole moments: Failed.
* Prediction of proton mass: Failed.
I am sure, of course, that you have a nice little explanation for why each
abject failure of your numerology is not as such. Perhaps you should write
them up and actually see if you can get them published in a peer reviewed
journal rather than posting it on USENET or your personal home page?
0 new messages