Self Similarity --- was -- Re: Arrow of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 11 Jul 2010 13:30 On Jul 11, 1:17 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> > > Then why don't you use correct chemistry in your arguments? BTW, the > branch of chemistry called "physical chemistry" is very heavily > physics-based. (Curiously, there is also a field called "chemical > physics", which is even more physics-based). You never answered > my questions as to "self-similarity". -------------------------------------------- Why not learn the basics of Discrete Scale Relativity, and then apply some physical chemistry yourself. Or at least see if your field of inquiry might have something to add to the new paradigm. Perhaps you can do much better than I can. After all, I am just one person with a finite set of skills. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Thomas Heger on 14 Jul 2010 04:30 Robert Higgins schrieb: > On Jul 9, 1:04 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > wrote: >> On Jul 9, 2:00 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> >>> I remember being not really happy with the explanations provided, >>> because e.g. I could not understand why some materials have a specific >>> color. >>> So I think, chemists would be natural 'allies' for developing some new >>> kind of model for the microcosm, because they could use it in they daily >>> work. >> ----------------------------------------------- >> >> I basically agree. I think biologists and chemists are more more in >> contact with the real world of nature than are the Platonic >> theoretical physicists. > > Then why don't you use correct chemistry in your arguments? BTW, the > branch of chemistry called "physical chemistry" is very heavily > physics-based. (Curiously, there is also a field called "chemical > physics", which is even more physics-based). You never answered my > questions as to "self-similarity". Chemistry belongs to natural sciences as physics does. The distinction is kind of artificial and could be explained with a cannon: the cannonball belongs to physics and the gun-powder to chemistry. Chemistry gets easier, if we ignore mechanics and other stuff like electrodynamics. But that isn't, what chemists really want. They want good working models, that fit to the real world, what they could test in e.g. pharmacy with the healing potential of a substance. So these left out influences should be reintroduced to chemistry, what makes chemistry more 'physical'. Substances have now structure in space and structure in time, where the first could be called form and the latter means resonances and how these distribute. And we have good reason to assume, that both are important, especially in pharmacy. TH
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 14 Jul 2010 22:21 20th Century Platonic math: manifolds are continuous and differentiable 21st Century Realistic math: manifolds are continuous, but NOT differentiable. Like all great paradigm shifts, the shift from the Substandard Paradigm to Discrete Scale Relativity will require a fundamental revision in our assumptions about the geometry of spacetime, which is rigorously equivalent to the geometry of the physical objects comprising nature's infinite discrete fractal hierarchy. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Sam Wormley on 15 Jul 2010 07:44 On 7/14/10 9:21 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > Like all great paradigm shifts, the shift from the Substandard > Paradigm to Discrete Scale Relativity will require a fundamental > revision in our assumptions about the geometry of spacetime, which is > rigorously equivalent to the geometry of the physical objects > comprising nature's infinite discrete fractal hierarchy. Who's going to promote the idea if you don't, Oldershaw?
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 15 Jul 2010 12:39
On Jul 15, 7:44 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/14/10 9:21 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > > Like all great paradigm shifts, the shift from the Substandard > > Paradigm to Discrete Scale Relativity will require a fundamental > > revision in our assumptions about the geometry of spacetime, which is > > rigorously equivalent to the geometry of the physical objects > > comprising nature's infinite discrete fractal hierarchy. > > Who's going to promote the idea if you don't, Oldershaw? -------------------------------------------------- The paradigm will promote itself, but it may take 1 year, or 10 years, or 100 years, or... before it is "discovered" and becomes "fashionable". This is a peculiarity of the collective behavior of humans. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |