Black holes, dark matter

"Rob" writes:

(a) You have the nucleus/neutron star analogy correct, but if you want
to talk about using the Schroedinger equation for the wavefunction of a
bound electron you need to consider a Main Sequence star with a shell
of plasma that surrounds the nuclear object and plays the role of an
electron. A Red Dwarf star is the the best analogue of a low-mass atom
with one or two electrons.

Interesting. Has anyone actually carried out such an analysis of a Red Dwarf
star based on the Schroedinger equation?

(b) I believe our current models of "neutron stars" is seriously wrong
in important ways. Most important is that 99% of the mass is contained
within a central singularity (probably a ring singularity). The
Discrete Fractal paradigm suggests that a neutron star is one massive
Kerr-Newman black hole. Most are in excited states and are losing
excess energy through rotation, gamma ray emission, etc., just like
excited Atomic Scale nuclei.

I am not well informed about neutron stars. When you write:

in important ways. Most important is that 99% of the mass is contained
within a central singularity (probably a ring singularity).

is that your own view or is it the prevailing view, which you say is
seriously wrong?

Anyway, the idea that the neutron star is just an excited black hole
is interesting. Presumably, you hold a similar opinion about kaon
stars, quark stars, etc., assuming they exist?

Questions:
(i) How is this idea suggested by the Discrete Fractal paradigm?
(ii) Is it possible, from your point of view, to work out the spectrum
of a K-N black hole and have you carried out such computations?
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.

Allan Adler wrote:

Interesting. Has anyone actually carried out such an analysis of a Red Dwarf
star based on the Schroedinger equation?

There have been a number of attempts to adapt a Schroedinger wave
function model to the Solar System in an effort to explain things like
the Bode-Titus Law. Results are not great due to scaling errors,
usually associated with the assumption that the Newtonian G also
applies in the Atomic Scale context. The Discrete Fractal Paradigm
shows that a "strong gravity" G'-value (= 10^38 G) must be used.


I am not well informed about neutron stars. When you write:
in important ways. Most important is that 99% of the mass is contained
within a central singularity (probably a ring singularity).

is that your own view or is it the prevailing view, which you say is
seriously wrong?


Strictly my own view!


Anyway, the idea that the neutron star is just an excited black hole
is interesting. Presumably, you hold a similar opinion about kaon
stars, quark stars, etc., assuming they exist?

I strongly doubt that kaon stars or quark stars have any basis in
reality.


Questions:
(i) How is this idea suggested by the Discrete Fractal paradigm?
(ii) Is it possible, from your point of view, to work out the spectrum
of a K-N black hole and have you carried out such computations?


(i) If you are seriously interested in the Discrete Fractal Paradigm,
there is something that you must do. Go to the website
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and read Papers #1 and #2 in the "Selected
Papers" section. Print them out and read them slowly. If you have
questions, feel free to ask. Understanding anything of real value takes
some work, and reading these two papers is pretty much a prerequisite
to understanding what the Disctrete Fractal Paradigm is all about.
There is no difficult math or exotic abstruse concepts. It sticks very
close to actual observations of real objects in nature. If you will
excuse me for saying so, it is well worth the effort you will put into
it.

(ii) At some point we will be able to directly compare oscillation
spectra for excited nuclei and K-N black holes of the appropriate
masses. I have not done this yet, but I have just completed a series of
4 papers doing this for the spectra of atoms and their Stellar Scale
analogues: variable stars. You can find these results in the "New
Developments" section of the website. The demonstrated discrete
self-similarity between RR Lyrae stars and helium atoms undergoing
single-level transitions between n=7 and n=10 is very gratifying.

The Discrete Fractal Paradigm is in the early stages of development.
Basically I have outlined the conceptual/empirical natural philosophy
and derived the discrete self-similar scaling equations. There is a
huge amount of work yet to be done. Even if the whole
physics/astrophysics community were to adopt this paradigm, it would
still take decades to fully explore the details of this paradigm. If
the critical Dark Matter Test comes out the way that is predicted by
the DF paradigm, then I hope that will convince people that it
represents a major advance from which there is no turning back.

Robert L. Oldershaw

"Rob" writes:

(i) If you are seriously interested in the Discrete Fractal Paradigm,

"seriously interested" is a term I use sparingly. However, I'm willing to
download the two papers you recommended and see whether I can easily make
sense of them, or at least enough sense to decide if I want to invest more
effort.

there is something that you must do. Go to the website
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and read Papers #1 and #2 in the "Selected
Papers" section. Print them out and read them slowly.

I've tried twice to download the zipped PDF file. When I try to unzip it,
I get the following error message:

[allan@localhost OLDERSHAW]$ unzip OBSER.ZIP
Archive: OBSER.ZIP
error [OBSER.ZIP]: missing 3 bytes in zipfile
(attempting to process anyway)
error [OBSER.ZIP]: attempt to seek before beginning of zipfile
(please check that you have transferred or created the zipfile in the
appropriate BINARY mode and that you have compiled UnZip properly)
(attempting to re-compensate)
inflating: OBSER.pdf bad CRC 41c11a7d (should be eda1ee12)

I had similar problems with the second paper.

I'm using Netscape 4.76 on a laptop running RedHat 7.1 Linux.

I guess I can read the papers online and maybe if I use the computers at
the library I can print them out.

If you have questions, feel free to ask.

Thanks, I appreciate that.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.

Allan Adler wrote:

"seriously interested" is a term I use sparingly. However, I'm willing to
download the two papers you recommended and see whether I can easily make
sense of them, or at least enough sense to decide if I want to invest more
effort.

I've tried twice to download the zipped PDF file. When I try to unzip it,
I get the following error message:

I have no trouble downloading the papers. If nothing else one can
"select" (highlight) the text and print out the "selection".

You can also read the papers online. I like to print out things so I
can underline and make notes in the margin, but printing out is not
necessary.

If you send me an email, I will reply with a brief Word attachment that
goes through my answer to the question: What is the ultimate physical
meaning of discrete cosmological self-similarity?

Rob

"Rob" writes:

I have no trouble downloading the papers. If nothing else one can
"select" (highlight) the text and print out the "selection".

OK, I cut and pasted them into emacs buffers.

You can also read the papers online. I like to print out things so I
can underline and make notes in the margin, but printing out is not
necessary.

I like to print things out for the same reason.

If you send me an email, I will reply with a brief Word attachment that
goes through my answer to the question: What is the ultimate physical
meaning of discrete cosmological self-similarity?

I can't handle Word documents. I'm comfortable with Plain TeX, less so
with LaTeX, and I can read postscript and pdf files. But it doesn't matter:
I have the cut and pasted stuff and can read them online as well.

I've started reading your first paper online. When you state equations
(1)-(3), the subscripts show up on my browser as question marks and the
cosmological scales two lines below show up as ? and ?-1. I don't know if
that is your intention. At any rate, I like, say, k better than ? and my
question is whether you mean for k to be an integer running from minus
infinity to infinity?
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.

Allan Adler wrote:

Rob wrote:
If you send me an email, I will reply with a brief Word attachment that
goes through my answer to the question: What is the ultimate physical
meaning of discrete cosmological self-similarity?


I guess I did not make the above very clear. I have new material that
is not on the website, but you might find very interesting. It is
currently a Word file, but I could convert it into a pdf if that helps.
I am willing to send this to anyone who sends me an email and requests
the file. I do the email thing so I have a record of where I have sent
the information.


I've started reading your first paper online. When you state equations
(1)-(3), the subscripts show up on my browser as question marks and the
cosmological scales two lines below show up as ? and ?-1. I don't know if
that is your intention. At any rate, I like, say, k better than ? and my
question is whether you mean for k to be an integer running from minus
infinity to infinity?

The subscript symbols are Greek capital Psi symbols, and that's the way
they show up on my computer. Psi = ..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ... and is
used as an index for representing different cosmological Scales. The
Stellar Scale is usually assigned Psi = 0 as a convention.
For the purposes of Papers #1 and #2, we are almost always comparing a
system on a Scale "Psi" and the analogue system on the next lower Scale
"Psi - 1".

So k, or Psi, does run from negative to positive infinity in integers.

If anyone else out there knows a bit about General Relativity and wants
to see my prediction for where the whole concept of fractals in nature
and discrete cosmological self-similarity is heading, send me an email
and tell me whether you can handle Word documents or need a pdf.

Happy Holidays to all,

Rob

Nebular are seen because the great gas cloud of hydrogen and helium is
filled with heavy black dust(mostly carbon) Now great clouds of
nebular have no dust.completely transparent. No Horse Neck nebular for
the Hubble to take a picture of. My transparent theory of matter in
space answers a lot of questions Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Nebular are seen because the great gas cloud of hydrogen and helium is
filled with heavy black dust(mostly carbon) Now great clouds of
nebular have no dust.completely transparent. No Horse Neck nebular for
the Hubble to take a picture of. My transparent theory of matter in
space answers a lot of questions Bert

Clearly. Rob

"Rob" writes:

I guess I did not make the above very clear. I have new material that
is not on the website, but you might find very interesting. It is
currently a Word file, but I could convert it into a pdf if that helps.
I am willing to send this to anyone who sends me an email and requests
the file. I do the email thing so I have a record of where I have sent
the information.

OK, we tried that and it didn't work, for reasons that aren't clear to me.
I have to use metamail to extract enclosures and what got extracted was
a file in ms-tnef format and I have no idea how to extract the pdf files
from it. I'm on a system running Linux.

I've looked quickly through the two papers at your website. The first one
refers the reader to the second one for details so my questions and comments
will refer mostly to the second paper.
(1) At various places, you mention your critics and you answer them but you
don't explicitly cite them. I'm not saying that they don't appear in your
bibliography, but if they do, I don't know which ones they are. Can you
cite any published criticisms of your work?
(2) It seems to me that your use of fractals is largely qualitative. Their
role seems to be limited to supporting the notion of self-similarity,
i.e. to verify that there are such things as self-similar structures.
Mostly, the work seems goes into trying to identify the corresponding
objects at different levels. This is done in a way that makes certain
numerical relationships between entities continue to hold when one
changes level. Therefore, as nearly as I can tell, the fractals are
really not important in your system, only the idea of self-similarity.
Such self-similarity might imply the existence of fractals described by
the data, but the fractals themselves don't seem to have any direct role.
If you really want to emphasize the fractals themselves, then I think
you need to articulate what mathematical structures exist on these
fractals and to formulate your proposed laws of physics in terms of
those structures. Have you done that and, if so, where?
(3) Are you aware of work of mathematicians such as Stephen Semmes,
Jeff Cheeger and others who are trying to do analysis and geometry
on non-smooth spaces? There is also work of Gromov who gets some
very strange spaces as limits of manifolds. Maybe you can use their
stuff to articulate the structures I asked for in (2) that would need
to live on the fractals. They are all alive and active and you might
read their stuff or even contact them to see if they can help you.
(4) Apart from the inconvenience of reading the papers online and with the
format (spacing) of the lines, I'm somewhat put off by the expository
style. I like to see systematic development and I don't find it. I think
you're also impressed by certain mathematical terminology that doesn't
normally appear in astrophysics pages and you like to use it. I'm not
impressed by terms such as transfinite and countably infinite and I find
your use of them gratuitous, even if the usage is not entirely incorrect.
So much of your exposition is taken up with advertising results that you
say you will explain elsewhere that the dull work of really explaining
the basic concepts and constructions never gets done. Irving Segal,
a superb mathematician with his own cosomological theory, published a book
entitled, Mathematical Cosmology and Extra-Galactic Astronomy. His ideas
are regarded as just plain wrong but I've nevertheless made some attempts
to read it. It consists of a purely mathematical part which defines his
mathematical context precisely and a cosmological part which describes the
results of his model. I wish he had also written a part that showed how
precisely to prove all the assertions he made about cosmology, but what
he did put in the book is still much superior to the exposition you've
presented. I realize that an article, such as your parts #1 and #2,
doesn't provide the space for such a development. But without it, it
just comes across as hand waving and a radical new theory requires more
than that. So, I guess I'm saying that the expository style makes me
reluctant to read it, independently of whatever merits the work might
have. I do think I've gotten some idea of what your point of view is and
that's about as far as I want to go with it unless you have something
that meets the expectations I've articulated above.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.

Allan Adler wrote:

OK, we tried that and it didn't work, for reasons that aren't clear to me.
I have to use metamail to extract enclosures and what got extracted was
a file in ms-tnef format and I have no idea how to extract the pdf files
from it. I'm on a system running Linux.

1. Buy PC. 2. Hook it up to the internet. 3. Join the modern world.
Excuse the sarcasm, but good grief, getting a pdf attachment off an
email should be totally trivial.


(1) At various places, you mention your critics and you answer them but you
don't explicitly cite them. I'm not saying that they don't appear in your
bibliography, but if they do, I don't know which ones they are. Can you
cite any published criticisms of your work?

My critics are mostly editors, referees and scientists I have contacted
pesonally. You will see from the "Publications List" that I have
published 50-60 papers. Most of them have involved major peer review
battles, wherein referees initially try to summarily dismiss the paper
in question, I point out the referee's mistakes to the editor, and on
and on until the paper is finally accepted. The response to a new
paradigm is very curious. Most scientists who have been educated under
the old paradigm have a great deal of trouble objectively evaluating
out-of-paradigm ideas. So their response is to summarily dismiss, or
totally ignore, the new paradigm, and hope it goes away. For this
reason, there is very little published criticism of the Discrete
Fractal Paradigm. As the new paradigm begins to gain status this will
radically change. Proponents of the old paradigm will feel seriously
threatened in terms of intellectual security, and they will fight back
vehemently. Anyone familiar with the details of the responses of the
scholarly community to the new paradigms of Galileo or Einstein will
not be in the least bit surprised. Same as it ever was. However those
who adamantly reject the new paradigm will be fighting in vain and end
up looking foolish.


(2) It seems to me that your use of fractals is largely qualitative. Their
role seems to be limited to supporting the notion of self-similarity,
i.e. to verify that there are such things as self-similar structures.
Mostly, the work seems goes into trying to identify the corresponding
objects at different levels. This is done in a way that makes certain
numerical relationships between entities continue to hold when one
changes level. Therefore, as nearly as I can tell, the fractals are
really not important in your system, only the idea of self-similarity.
Such self-similarity might imply the existence of fractals described by
the data, but the fractals themselves don't seem to have any direct role.
If you really want to emphasize the fractals themselves, then I think
you need to articulate what mathematical structures exist on these
fractals and to formulate your proposed laws of physics in terms of
those structures. Have you done that and, if so, where?

Firstly, if you look up the fractal cosmology of Fournier d'Albe
discussed in The Fractal Geometry of Nature by Mandelbrot, you get a
child's-play version of the fractal paradigm I am proposing. The latter
is infinitely more complex and subtle than the former, but the former
has the advantage in that it represents the archetype of a discrete
fractal cosmology paradigm, and it is so simple that anyone can see
it's properties from the figures in the book and understand the essence
of discrete cosmological self-similarity.

I am not the person to develop the mathematical details of this
paradigm. I am a natural philsopher and my role is to recognize the
underlying pattern in nature, develop the qualitative paradigm,
empirically derive the crucial scaling equations, demonstrate that
everything we reliably know about nature fits the paradigm, and finally
to show that an extension of General Relativity to what might be called
Discrete Scale Relativity is the "final destination" of this new
paradigm. A discussion of Discrete Scale Relativity will appear at
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw in the "Technical Notes" section within a
few days, or a week at most.


(3) Are you aware of work of mathematicians such as Stephen Semmes,
Jeff Cheeger and others who are trying to do analysis and geometry
on non-smooth spaces? There is also work of Gromov who gets some
very strange spaces as limits of manifolds. Maybe you can use their
stuff to articulate the structures I asked for in (2) that would need
to live on the fractals. They are all alive and active and you might
read their stuff or even contact them to see if they can help you.

I am not aware of these scientists and I would probably not be able to
appreciate their work. But if you can give a reference, preferably an
arxiv preprint citation, I will take a look.


the basic concepts and constructions never gets done. Irving Segal,
a superb mathematician with his own cosomological theory, published a book
entitled, Mathematical Cosmology and Extra-Galactic Astronomy. His ideas
are regarded as just plain wrong but I've nevertheless made some attempts
to read it.
than that. So, I guess I'm saying that the expository style makes me
reluctant to read it, independently of whatever merits the work might
have. I do think I've gotten some idea of what your point of view is and
that's about as far as I want to go with it unless you have something
that meets the expectations I've articulated above.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler


I have looked at Segal's work. Very mathematical, and he crossed all
his t's and dotted all his i's. However, in terms of natural
philosophy, his work appears to have little or no value.

Would you rather hear Mozart played on four tin whistles, or schmaltz
played by the Boston Symphony Orchestra? That is a quite serious
question, given your comments above. The style of presentation surely
influences our responses to a work of art or science, but to judge its
intrinsic worth primarily on the style of presentation is truly
ignorant.

Robert L. Oldershaw