From: Osher Doctorow on
From Osher Doctorow

Just as Relativity in Einstein's era (and largely afterward) appeared
to involve the implicit assumption that the Macroscopic (especially
Stellar system and larger) dominates the Microscopic systems, so
Quantum Theory tends to involve the implicit assumption that the
Micrsocopic dominates the Macroscopic.

Yet Elementary Particle Physics, which has been responsible for most
of the experimental results and tends to be looked upon as a guide by
both Relativity and Quantum Theory, and Astrophysics which is a guide
for most observational Macroscopic results, continue to reveal
commonalities between the Macroscopic and Microscopic domains in
Expansion and Contraction, including the Big Bang, Supernovae
formation, Expansion and Acceleration of the Universe, Beta Decay,
"Quantum Fluctuations," and so on.

It is of course possible that these are all "coincidences", but if one
side keeps regarding the results of the other side as "coincidences",
then in legal language it begins to look as though "conflict of
interest" may be involved. Theories tend to be supported by
Bureaucracies, including clusters of Research Universities, but the
latter also often have a "conflict of interest" in gaining Research
Grants for their members from Governments and sometimes private
industry and attract more researchers and even general students from
awards that they obtain.

An exception is Astrophysics, which tends to be so far from immediate
Economic Manipulation or Economic-Political Manipulation that
Bureaucrats tend to not be attracted to it. An example is:

1) Tsvi Piran, Racah Institute for Physics, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Israel, who has 185 papers in arXiv from 1992 (a year after
arXiv began collecting papers) through 2010.

Piran's papers tend to specialize in Astrophysics including
Supernovae. Similar extremely Inventive research occurs also from
the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study USA, some researchers in
Canada's Perimeter Institute, the U. K. Cambridge University DAMPT,
etc.

I have mentioned one of Piran's papers before, but look at it again:

2) "On gravitational repulsion", arXiv: gr-qc/9706049 v1 16 June 1997,
10 pages.

Also look at:

3) "Inhomogeneity in the supernova remnants as a natural explanation
of the Pamela/ATIC observation" by Tsvi Piran and Nir J. Shaviv and
Ehud Nakar, the first two at Rach Institute, the 3rd at Tel Aviv
University Israel (I omitted writing down their arXiv dates and
numbers).

Also look at Wikipedia's "Beta Decay" online, Wolfram's "Chandrasekhar
limit,", Wikipedia's "Semi-empirical mass formula," Wikipedia's
"Supernova," Wikipedia's "Dark Matter," Wikipedia's "Neutrino"
Wikipedia's "Radiation Pressure" (also automatically referenced by
"Radiation Pressure"), etc.

Crossing the Macroscopic-Microscopic "Divide", keep your eyes out also
for:

4) Neutrinos

as well as to some extent Neutralinos.

Osher Doctorow
From: Osher Doctorow on
From Osher Doctorow

I meant to say that "photon pressure" automatically references
"radiation pressure" in Wikipedia.

Also, a remarkable resulting relating to the 0.43 result and the
0.44-0.49 results of the recent posts here (regarding the Titius-Bode
Law, Dermott's Law, the ratio of total neural myelinated fiber length
of humans to the earth-moon and similar distances, is:

1) "Chandrasekhar limit," Wolfram (online) for a simple introduction.

The Chandrasekhar Limit relates to white dwarfs, but also via main
sequences stars between 3 and 8 solar masses in mass which under
specified conditions can collapse to white dwarfs, and the latest
results state:

2) mass of (relativistic) white dwarf = 1.44 times the mass of the Sun

What relates this to 0.43 and 0.44 is (unmentioned by Wolfram):

3) mass of (white dwarf - mass of sun)/mass of sun = 0.44

which of course relates to both (Gravitational) Collapse and
Supernovae which are respectively Contractive and Expansive.

Osher Doctorow