Discrete Scale Relativity Beats QED on New Proton Radius Test
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Eureka! Why time travel is possible
Next: (rev 1.5) First Correct Human Rights Declaration - ARTICLE TWO and Preamble - {HRD-02 20100102-V1.5}
From: eric gisse on 9 Jul 2010 02:02 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 8, 6:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/7/10 11:50 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: >> >> > A new very high precision measurement of the proton radius is 5-sigma >> > lower than QED-based expectations. >> >> Did you mean to say the the measurement is lower than QED-based >> expectations. AND that the new measurements have a 5-sigma confidence >> level? >> >> Or what? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > If you read the paper in Nature you will understand that the newly > measured proton radius estimate and the value based on QED differ by 5 > standard deviations. Yet you insist on using percent difference when comparing what you predict to what is observed, rather than standard deviations which provide a clearer picture of the precision. Is it because you are dishonest, or simply don't understand simple error analysis? I'm going to go with "a lot of column a, and a lot more of column b". > > This is what the authors of the paper published in Nature say. So much for the claim that nothing interesting or controversial ever gets published. > > If verified, it is a serious problem for QED. Yep. But notice how you are the only one hooting and screaming about it. > > Get your information from the source. Put in some friggin effort! > > Not from imbeciles like EG. Of course your entire point of view is formed off the fact that I've repeatedly made fun of your ideas and shoved your arrogant stupidity back in your face. I'm sure it is merely a /coincidence/ that you are unable to discuss my technical points, and instead snip everything wholesale then repeat the claim I had just discredited. If you don't like it, stop talking like you know better than the rest of modern science. You aren't. 30 years of fringe publications are evidence enough of that. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Painius on 9 Jul 2010 04:23 "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rloldershaw(a)amherst.edu> wrote in message... news:1ba0199f-86cc-43cb-bf5f-6aa44f8302f7(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Jul 8, 6:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/7/10 11:50 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > > > A new very high precision measurement of the proton radius is 5-sigma > > lower than QED-based expectations. > > Did you mean to say the the measurement is lower than QED-based > expectations. AND that the new measurements have a 5-sigma confidence > level? > > Or what? ------------------------------------------------------ If you read the paper in Nature you will understand that the newly measured proton radius estimate and the value based on QED differ by 5 standard deviations. This is what the authors of the paper published in Nature say. If verified, it is a serious problem for QED. Get your information from the source. Put in some friggin effort! Not from imbeciles like EG. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A Name calling subtracts from one's credibility. There are many here who esteem the thoughts of "EG". If you would like to earn a similar level of regard, then please stick to the facts and to your interpretations of those facts. Credibility is very tough to gain and extremely easy to lose in an eyeblink ! happy new days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth Lurker extraordinaire P.S.: "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." > Mark Twain P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 9 Jul 2010 13:21 On Jul 9, 4:23 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > Sigh! It's like trying to teach chess to a troop of chimpanzees. They just jump up and down and screech at each other and eat the pieces, not to mention the less modest activities. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Painius on 10 Jul 2010 04:01 "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rloldershaw(a)amherst.edu> wrote... in message news:d01374be-be61-46cb-a8d3-4f8cbc7ac754(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... On Jul 9, 4:23 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > Sigh! It's like trying to teach chess to a troop of chimpanzees. They just jump up and down and screech at each other and eat the pieces, not to mention the less modest activities. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A Very sad, because i was following what you were writing. No more. Bye now. happy new days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." > Mark Twain P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 10 Jul 2010 13:17
On Jul 10, 4:01 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > > Very sad, because i was following what you were writing. > No more. Bye now. Only the full-brained need apply |