|
|
George Dishman wrote:
>
> Joseph was criticising your understanding of science,
> not your ideas. As a professional astronomer he has a
> vastly better understanding of that subject than you.
Sorry, but that is not acceptable reasoning. In 1905, Albert Einstein
was a patent clerk (2nd level), who had been spurned by academia. Many
"professional" professors regarded his ideas on relativity theory and
atomic physics as "nonsense", "wrong-headed", "insane", an
"embarrassment to science and German culture". Likewise Faraday's
ideas and non-academic status were sometimes ridiculed by
"professional" academics. Often a person with a bold new understanding
of nature develops his ideas outside of academia, or on its fringes.
More recently, people were initially highly resistant to Mandelbrot's
early work on fractals and Feigenbaum's work on period doubling in
nonlinear systems. The professional astronomers of his day told Galileo
that the moons of Jupiter must have been particles of dust on his
telescope lens. Same as it ever was.
> That's because there is little science behind it.
> Provide the equations and there will be something
> to consider. Until then, it is of less value than
> the Titius-Bode Law.
If the Discrete Fractal paradigm can be used to correct the Planck
Scale calculations so that they generate length, mass, charge and time
scales that are natural and self-consistent, instead of the
conventional rubbish values, would that be of interest to you?
Or are you absolutely certain that the Discrete Fractal paradigm is
wrong?
Robert L. Oldershaw
|
|