Is Scale Absolute?

Preamble: When absolute space and absolute time were falsified in the
early 20th century, the concept of absolute spacetime scale became
very suspect. Note that the source-free equations of general
relativity (Einstein's equations) and electromagnetism (Maxwell's
equations) are both scale invariant. On the other hand, absolute size
scale seemed to be required empirically. After all, galaxies are very
big, neutron stars are middle-sized and atomic nuclei are very small.
Are they not? Here I will propose a possible resolution to this
paradox.

Context: If our global spacetime has a new symmetry principle called
discrete scale invariance (synonymous with discrete dilation
invariance or discrete self-similarity), then the group structure of
this global spacetime is the Relativistic Similarity Group (aka the
Weyl Group: = Poincare Group + dilation invariance), but it is
globally symmetric under *discrete* transformations of scale, as
opposed to the more familiar and scale-restricted examples of
continuous scale invariance.

The physical embodiment of the new discrete symmetry principle would
be an infinite hierarchical universe of physical systems manifesting
discrete self-similarity. When one observes nature objectively,
emphasizing empirical knowledge and treating most theoretical
assumptions as open to question, then that is precisely what we appear
to have: a discrete hierarchy of self-similar systems
(i.e., ...galactic systems, composed of stellar systems, composed of
atomic systems, ...). There is considerable evidence for discrete self-
similarity among analogues on the different cosmological scales. A
veritable cornucopia of observational and theoretical support for this
paradigm can be found at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

In such a universe, a galaxy could be viewed as a galaxy, a neutron
star, or an atomic nucleus depending on the cosmological reference
scale chosen by the observer.

An empirically-based scientific idea this radical has not come along
in a very long time. Absolute scale, beyond the restricted "absolute"
scale that applies only *within* individual cosmological scales would
be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Knecht

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

"Knecht" wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Preamble: When absolute space and absolute time were falsified...

Postamble: When Oldershaw's claim was falsified ...

On Oct 20, 2:49 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Knecht" wrote in message

oups.com...
:
: Preamble: When absolute space and absolute time were falsified...

Postamble: When Oldershaw's claim was falsified ...



Feel free to ignore any ideas that might upset you.

Knecht

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

"Knecht" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Oct 20, 2:49 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
: "Knecht" wrote in message
:
: oups.com...
: :
: : Preamble: When absolute space and absolute time were falsified...
:
: Postamble: When Oldershaw's claim was falsified ...
:
:
:
: Feel free to ignore any ideas that might upset you.

Feel free to make any stupidly false claims you wish, I'll ignore them.


'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein



http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif


"I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to
claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel
times in the frame in which the clocks at A and B are
moving)." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img21.gif


"Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind
"I'm not a troll" Poe.
Ref: ups.com



'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: ups.com


"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.

The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.


"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).

According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying *******s will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.

On Oct 20, 2:45 pm, Knecht wrote:
Preamble: When absolute space and absolute time were falsified in the
early 20th century, the concept of absolute spacetime scale became
very suspect. Note that the source-free equations of general
relativity (Einstein's equations) and electromagnetism (Maxwell's
equations) are both scale invariant. On the other hand, absolute size
scale seemed to be required empirically. After all, galaxies are very
big, neutron stars are middle-sized and atomic nuclei are very small.
Are they not? Here I will propose a possible resolution to this
paradox.

Context: If our global spacetime has a new symmetry principle called
discrete scale invariance (synonymous with discrete dilation
invariance or discrete self-similarity), then the group structure of
this global spacetime is the Relativistic Similarity Group (aka the
Weyl Group: = Poincare Group + dilation invariance), but it is
globally symmetric under *discrete* transformations of scale, as
opposed to the more familiar and scale-restricted examples of
continuous scale invariance.

The physical embodiment of the new discrete symmetry principle would
be an infinite hierarchical universe of physical systems manifesting
discrete self-similarity. When one observes nature objectively,
emphasizing empirical knowledge and treating most theoretical
assumptions as open to question, then that is precisely what we appear
to have: a discrete hierarchy of self-similar systems
(i.e., ...galactic systems, composed of stellar systems, composed of
atomic systems, ...). There is considerable evidence for discrete self-
similarity among analogues on the different cosmological scales. A
veritable cornucopia of observational and theoretical support for this
paradigm can be found atwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw.

In such a universe, a galaxy could be viewed as a galaxy, a neutron
star, or an atomic nucleus depending on the cosmological reference
scale chosen by the observer.

An empirically-based scientific idea this radical has not come along
in a very long time. Absolute scale, beyond the restricted "absolute"
scale that applies only *within* individual cosmological scales would
be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Knecht

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw


Lao-tse wrote:

"...the wise man looks into space
and does not regard the small as too little,
nor the great as too big,
for he knows that there is no limit to dimensions."

Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

"Knecht" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Oct 20, 2:45 pm, Knecht wrote:
: Preamble: When absolute space and absolute time were falsified

Postamble: Why do you still beat your mother?

On Oct 22, 1:00 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

Postamble: Why do you still beat your mother?


Because I am, and was, a better tennis player?

Want to have an intelligent discussion of scientific topics?

Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

"Knecht" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Oct 22, 1:00 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
:
: Postamble: Why do you still beat your mother?
:
:
: Because I am, and was, a better tennis player?
:
: Want to have an intelligent discussion of scientific topics?

It would help if you were intelligent, but we can give it a try:


'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

Now you can begin your hand-waving.

On Oct 23, 4:26 am, "Androcles" wrote:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

Now you can begin your hand-waving.


So your clock graphic falsifies Special Relativity? Brilliant!
Effortless!! Ferpect!!!

In awe,
Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw