Prev: Free Download Of Canonical Science Reports And Executive Summaries
Next: Photon Detector Paradox
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 25 Jul 2010 11:22
On Jul 25, 1:38 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Then you can't use GR in your derivations.
>
> Fix your inconsistent mix-and-matching.
------------------------------------------

Discrete Scale Relativity can and does use General Relativity and
Classical Electrodynamics as a starting point. DSR proposes that these
theories need to be modified so that they are compatible with the
discrete self-similarity of nature.

Technically you revise GR and EM so that they have a new symmetry
property: discrete scale invariance, aka discrete dilation invariance
(with matter definitely included, i.e., not just the "vacuum
solutions"). So GR+EM (Kerr-Newman metric)constitutes the fundamental
dynamics at all Scales, e.g., for the dynamics of particles, for the
dynamics of atoms, for the dynamics of stars, or for the dynamics of
galaxies.

This is all discussed slowly and clearly at my website, wherein you
will also find definitive predictions and a large number of successful
retrodictions.

Understanding Discrete Scale Relativity does not require genius and/or
mathematical sophistication. All it takes is sufficient motivation
and a mind that is open to new ideas.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 25 Jul 2010 14:31
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

> On Jul 25, 1:38 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Then you can't use GR in your derivations.
>>
>> Fix your inconsistent mix-and-matching.
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity can and does use General Relativity and
> Classical Electrodynamics as a starting point. DSR proposes that these
> theories need to be modified so that they are compatible with the
> discrete self-similarity of nature.
>
> Technically you revise GR and EM so that they have a new symmetry
> property: discrete scale invariance, aka discrete dilation invariance
> (with matter definitely included, i.e., not just the "vacuum
> solutions"). So GR+EM (Kerr-Newman metric)constitutes the fundamental
> dynamics at all Scales, e.g., for the dynamics of particles, for the
> dynamics of atoms, for the dynamics of stars, or for the dynamics of
> galaxies.
>
> This is all discussed slowly and clearly at my website, wherein you
> will also find definitive predictions and a large number of successful
> retrodictions.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of your predictions are worthless. The few
that are actually meaningful, eg radius & mass of the proton, are wrong by
many standard deviations.

You are also yet to tackle the simplest, most straight forward, prediction
any quantum theory supplicant has to handle: the spectrum of the hydrogen
atom.

There's a reason you are posting here instead of publishing in non-fringe
journals.

>
> Understanding Discrete Scale Relativity does not require genius and/or
> mathematical sophistication. All it takes is sufficient motivation
> and a mind that is open to new ideas.
>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 25 Jul 2010 19:36
On Jul 25, 2:31 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The overwhelmingly vast majority of your predictions are worthless. The few
> that are actually meaningful, eg radius & mass of the proton, are wrong by
> many standard deviations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The prediction of the proton's radius is as basic and fundamental as
it gets in physics.

Discrete Scale Relativity predicts a radius of approximately 0.814
fermi, based on a Kerr-Newman metric and the DSR value of G for the
Atomic Scale.

The Substandard Model has generated several predictions that cluster
around approximately 0.88 fermi.

Since it appears that the proton radius is not as well-known as
previously thought, we can call these estimates predictions rather
than retrodictions.

The latest high precision measurement of the proton radius gives a
value of approximately 0.842 fermi.

By any SCIENTIFIC method you wish to use to compare the predictions of
DSR and the SM, DSR comes slightly closer to the best currently
available empirical measurement.

So at present, and discounting canine methods of analysis, Discrete
Scale Relativity does better than the Substandard Model on this test.
It will be interesting to see what future empirical measurements have
to tell those of us with open minds.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 25 Jul 2010 23:05
On Jul 25, 10:31 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You predict 0.814 fm. This differs from the observed value of 0.84184(67)?fm
> by 41 standard deviations.
-------------------------------------

Lest we think you have truly gone rabid on us,
please show us mathematically, and in a step-by-step manner, how the
above two numbers can differ by "41 standard deviations", while 0.842
fm and 0.88 fm are reported to differ by about 5 standard deviations.

Do you realize that rounding off 0.84184 fm to 0.842 fm is relatively
insignificant to the entire discussion?

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 26 Jul 2010 17:40
On Jul 26, 11:39 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu>
wrote:
>>
> No time to read your barkings right now, but I'll be sure to
> carefully
> examine what you have dug up later tonight.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Well Woofy, I have now had time to read your analysis - shocking.

I have no idea where you are getting the 0.0069 and 0.00067 terms you
use.
Note that precision has little to do with what we are really
interested in, which is the accuracy of the predictions.

Here is what I do to compare empirical and theoretical results.

l r_theor - r_emp l / r_emp = relative error

Using this method, which is advocated by a physicist who is also a
moderator at sci.physics.research, gives me a much more accurate
comparison of the recent proton radius results.

Watch again, Woofy.

0.88 - 0.84 / 0.84 = 0.0476 [Substandard Model --> 4.8% relative
error]

0.81 - 0.84 / 0.84 = 0.0357 [Discrete Scale Relativity --> 3.6%
relative error]

DSR is slightly more accurate than the Substandard Model, given
present assumptions.

You may not like the way I compare the data because it makes your
barkings look ill-advised, but you will have to admit that my method
it simple and more accurate.
-----------------------------------------------------------

PS: To answer your persistent barkings about the H atom spectrum.
There is the standard Rydberg formula for this. Discrete Scale
Relativity says that all you need to do for this formula is to replace
the ad hoc and enigmatic Planck's constant h with G'M^2/c and you will
retrodict the hydrogen spectrum as well as conventional theory can.
If you want to get fancy you can repeat this modification with the
full solution of the Schrodinger equation.

You will need to understand Discrete Scale Relativity to get the
correct values for G' and M, which is the revised Planck mass. The
advantage of the DSR modeling is that you avoid the ad hoc h-fix and
finally get a realistic, visualizable and comprehensible dynamics for
the atom based on General Relativity and classical Electrodynamics
[Kerr-Newman metric]. A big step forward!

Keep demonstrating that World Class Show Dog pedigree and demeanor,
even if you are a common pit bull of unknown provenance.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Free Download Of Canonical Science Reports And Executive Summaries
Next: Photon Detector Paradox