Arrow of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Huang on 8 Jul 2010 21:33 In fairness the idea of self similarity on all scales is very intriguing, but I'm just not seeing the evidence. I do have my biases, and I admit it. But lets say you have this self similarity, does it answer any questions from QM or relativity ? Does it address any paradoxes or even paradox itself ? Causality ? I think it's a beautiful vision of the universe but I dont see the evidence. If you find something I would remain open to it, but I dont see evidence yet.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 8 Jul 2010 23:42 On Jul 8, 9:33 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > self-similarity, does it answer any questions from QM or > relativity ? ------------------------- It is the correct path to unification of GR, QM and HEP. Details at website. RLO www.amherst,.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 8 Jul 2010 23:57 On Jul 8, 3:50 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > But there are clearly NOT - several examples of which Eric has already > listed. What is the Stellar analogue of spin-orbit coupling? Nuclear > spin statistics? ---------------------------------------- ONE ISSUE AT A TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (1) Eric is a quack. He thinks galactic halos are more flat than spherical. Perhaps he also believes in a flat Earth? (2) Spin-orbit coupling is common in Stellar Scale systems. (3) Discrete Scale Relativity predicts the same nuclear spin statistics no matter if your nuclei are atomic or stellar. The problem is how to determine Stellar Scale spin statistics for the stellar ultracompacts. But note carefully that pulsars ("nulling" pulsars) can "turn off and on". Could this be due to mode switching between quantized orientations? Discrete Scale Relativity cannot be ruled out on the basis of tests that cannot be done. Though people like Eric often resort to this unscientific emoting. He could try reasoning, but his emotions prevent this. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Y.Porat on 9 Jul 2010 00:05 On Jul 8, 9:50 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 10:41 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 6, 4:51 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > There are two things which I don't follow: > > > 1) Why are some variable stars "similar" to > > > singly excited helium and others to doubly > > > excited carbon? > > > 2) How your examples, even if they were more > > > compelling, constitute "self-similarity". This > > > somewhat connects to point (1). Are there any > > > stars which are primarily singly excited Rydberg > > > state helium? doubly excited Rydberg state carbon? > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > Discrete Scale Relativity predicts that for every type of Atomic Scale > > phenomena there are exact self-similar analogues on the Stellar Scale. > > But there are clearly NOT - several examples of which Eric has already > listed. What is the Stellar analogue of spin-orbit coupling? Nuclear > spin statistics? > > > Since there are helium atoms undergoing single-level transitions in > > nature, AND since there are doubly excited carbon atoms undergoing 2- > > photon transitions in nature, then we should observe Stellar Scale > > systems doing the same thing. Right? > > First of all, your connection between atomic "transitions" and the > oscillatory periods of variable stars is very tenuous - and I am not > even an astronomer. No matter what transition you need, if you look > long enough, you'll find it. BTW, you never clearly explain the "self" > part of "self-similarity". > > > > > I think the above answer should your question #2. To put it even more > > baldly: Everything we observe on the Atomic Scale will be exactly > > repeated on the Stellar Scale, and the Galactic Scale, and the > > Subquantum Scale, > > Since electrons are elementary point particles with no substructure, > your theory is clearly in error. Just because something has a > periodicity that is some factor of some other periodicity is only > coincidence. Even if it weren't, it still does not prove your point. > Your self-similarity needs to be STRUCTURAL - but it isn't. > > > and for every cosmological Scale of the infinite > > self-similar hierarchy of conformally invariant Scales constituting > > nature. > > What exactly are you mapping conformally? Please state the function > that maps conformally between the atomic and stellar domains. > > > > > It is an idea that goes back to Democritus, Kant, Spinoza, Hermann > > Weyl, G. de Vaucouleurs, etc., etc., ... Finally we may have enough > > observational evidence to make this worlds-within-worlds paradigm a > > serious contender. It certainly makes more sense than the hackneyed > > postmodern pseudoscience that theoretical physicists keep trying to > > force-feed us. > > I am a chemist, so I don't have an axe to grind either way. > > > > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ---------------- you brain and*** personality** = is a point particle Y.Porat ------------------------ ---------------------
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 00:09
On 7/8/10 10:57 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > Spin-orbit coupling is common in Stellar Scale systems. > Examples please, Oldershaw! |