Prev: Simple hack to get $600 to your home.
Next: Time shares the geometry of space's aether
From: eric gisse on 18 Jun 2010 19:20
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

> On Jun 18, 3:55 pm, eric out-of-gas wrote:
>
>> woof, woof, woof,...
> -----------------------
>
> Sigh, just as I thought.
>
> If Mr. Out-of-Gas was challenged to back up his closed-minded barking
> at Discrete Scale Relativity with some scientific arguments and data,
> then he would beat a hasty retreat.

pdg.lbl.gov

>
> Probably a wise choice on his part.
>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

From: Brad Guth on 18 Jun 2010 19:36
On Jun 14, 11:01 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear Robert L. Oldershaw:
>
> On Jun 14, 9:58 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Just when you thought your cosmological
> > assumptions were rock solid...
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm
>
> >http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0524v2.pdf
>
> > All cosmologists on deck!
> > Limber up your arms.
> > Heat up lots of fudge.
> > Paradigm on fire!
>
> Well, some "Dark Energy" will still exist, it is the value of the
> cosmological constant that might change.  After all, we went form
> "inflation" to "stagnation" to "accelerated expansion"... that this
> observation does not change.
>
> But good riddance to Dark Matter.
>
> David A. Smith

Good riddance to carbon? (are we sure about this?)

~ BG
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 19 Jun 2010 00:20
On Jun 18, 7:20 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> pdg.lbl.gov
-------------------------

Why thank you eric, but I have already used the particle data to test
my retrodiction of the particle mass/stability spectrum [100-1860 MeV]
at the 99.6% level for 9 of 11 major peaks, which is considerably
better than Quantum Colorized Dynamics can do.

Anyone who would like to read a 17-page preprint giving the details of
this research can send me an email and I will attach it to the reply.

So Eric, were you going to identify a problem with Discrete Scale
Relativity, or have you converted?

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw


From: eric gisse on 19 Jun 2010 01:54
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

> On Jun 18, 7:20 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> pdg.lbl.gov
> -------------------------
>
> Why thank you eric, but I have already used the particle data to test
> my retrodiction of the particle mass/stability spectrum [100-1860 MeV]
> at the 99.6% level for 9 of 11 major peaks, which is considerably
> better than Quantum Colorized Dynamics can do.

Why no, Robert, your RETRODICTION is wrong by anywhere from 50 to 400
standard deviatiosn.

By the way, QCD actually predicts the particles. All you can do is see what
QCD predicts and guess at the parameters needed to fit it.

>
> Anyone who would like to read a 17-page preprint giving the details of
> this research can send me an email and I will attach it to the reply.
>
> So Eric, were you going to identify a problem with Discrete Scale
> Relativity, or have you converted?

We've been over this before, Robert. You do not predict particle masses
correctly.

>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Simple hack to get $600 to your home.
Next: Time shares the geometry of space's aether