Hi, the new guy is here

[GeomAsp]

Hi,

i am new in this forum. While i am enrolled in a Phd program, i try to take some time to convince people about the self similarity of the universe. So far i haven't convinced anyone, but i hope that as my research goes on, i will have more data and people will realize what i mean.

[cKleinhuis]

hello and welcome to the forum ....

self similarity is an ongoing process in nature, like trees or plants many of them resemble the same structure in smaller sizes
i believe that the same could be showed for the whole universe ...

for me it is quite self similar the movement of atoms around their core and the movement of planets around the sun and the movement
of solar systems around a galactical centre .... but it is not gravity that drives the atoms as far as i know

greets
ck
 

[Nahee_Enterprises]

i am new in this forum.  .... i try to take some time to convince people about the
self similarity of the universe.  So far i haven't convinced anyone....

Greetings, and Welcome to this particular Forum!!     

You forgot to mention which universe.     

[rloldershaw]

Hello GeomAsp,

We appear to share an interest in self-similar paradigms for nature's underlying organiztion. If you have not had a chance to take a look at my website at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw , you might give it a try. I would welcome feedback.


Note to Trifox:

If you go to "The Hidden Meaning of Planck's Constant" in the New Developments section of www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw , you will find an empirically-based argument for my contention that the dynamics of atoms and stellar systems [like the Solar System] are fully equivalent, but that one needs to make discrete scale transformations between all parameters relating to the analogues on the different cosmological Scales [here we are using a fixed set of mass, length + time units for measurements on both Scales].

For bound systems on any discrete Scale of nature, gravitation [i.e., spacetime curvature dynamics] is 137.036 times stronger than internal electromagnetic interactions.

For interactions between unbound systems, their EM interactions are 10^38 times stronger than their "external" gravitational interactions.

It's all in the discrete fractal [i.e., discrete scale invariant] scaling. The theory is formally called Discrete Scale Relativity: http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/Papers#d80420

I am getting fairly close to demonstrating that the data for newly discovered exoplanet systems supports the contention that Stellar Scale systems are quantized in the same manner, and to the same degree, as Atomic Scale systems.

Yours in science,
Robert L. Oldershaw

[cKleinhuis]

@rloldershar
thank you for that clarification
what you are telling me is that the gravity formulas as stated by newton ( gravity amount decreases by squared distance ) is also working at the atoms level, but you need to apply a "magical" number ? hmm, interesting, if i find some time i will step through your papers!

thx

[rloldershaw]

20th century physicists tell us that the electron is bound to the proton in the hydrogen atom exlusively by electrostatic attraction.

Sometime in the 21st century, physicists will change their "tune", as follows.

Binding Energy = -[2GMm/r + (alpha)^1/2 (2GMm/r)] = -13.6 ev

G = G for Atomic Scale = 2.18 x 10^38 cgs (not Newtonian 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs)
M = proton mass
m = electron mass
r = Bohr radius
alpha = fine structure constant

2nd term for B.E. equation is the correction for the electrostatic interaction, which is definitely present, but is smaller than the gravitational [geometric] interaction by a factor of 137.036.

The Atomic Scale value of G also gives a much-improved Planck scale, solves the vacuum energy density crisis, explains the fine structure constant, is consistent with atomic spectra, explains why leptons and hadrons are different, allows one to model protons and electrons as Kerr-Newman solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations [i.e., "black holes" and singularities], etc.

No charge,
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

[bib]

It's all in the discrete fractal [i.e., discrete scale invariant] scaling. The theory is formally called Discrete Scale Relativity: http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw/Papers#d80420

Fascinating

How are going to prove the existence and calculate the exact value of the Lambda constant ? Maybe Lambda is hidden in the Mandelbrot set ?

[rloldershaw]

In Paper #2 in the "Selected Papers" section of www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw the scaling constant Lambda, and the self-similarity constant D, are derived using the physical parameters of the Solar System, the physical parameters of atoms, and knowledge atomic and stellar mass distributions.

The initial values are accurate at the 95% level, which has been sufficient to subject the discrete self-similar paradigm to a large battery of retrodictive tests.
The website section "Successful Retrodictions + Predictions" currently lists 33 examples of reasonably unique agreement with the observed properties of nature. Four more will be added to the list soon. You cannot get this level of agreement by chance or any amount of fudging [without many ad hoc "fixes"]. Discrete Scale Realtivity has never required ad hoc "fixes", mythological particles, colors, strings, "asymptotic freedom", etc., etc., etc.

In principle, one can derive more accurate values of Lambda and D if one can identify any pair of analogues on two neighboring Scales and take ratios of their radii and masses. Stellar masses still have a problematic amount of uncertainty, but observational techniques keep improving. But I'm not a perfectionist; the 95% level is fine for my purposes.

One should look to nature for guidance. The abstract mathematical approach has generated far more smoke and Ptolemaic junk, like "string theory", than light.

The Mandelbrot Set is a truly exquisite entity, but it is a child's toy compared to the infinitely infinite self-similarity of nature. Luckily for us, the principles underlying the whole thing are remarkably few and simple, as is the case with the M-Set. Discrete Scale Invariance is the one principle that is currently most under-appreciated.

RLO