Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6% level
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 26 May 2010 12:48 On May 26, 12:25 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > How about pseudo-random distributions of 72 mass spectrum lines > between 627.972 and 1776.17 MeV? > > To repeat what I stated earlier: > > From what I can see, you are using the following selection rules: > > j = k/2 where k = 1,2,3,4 > a = m/n where n = 5,7,8 and m = 1..n --------------------------------------------- That's fairly close to the j and a values, but my mass equation is definitely different from yours. You really should take a look at the latest graph, mass equation, j and a values, and the theoretical + empirical data. My mass equation is derived from the Kerr metric, QM and Discrete Scale Relativity. Your efforts seem to be numerologically motivated. One can reproduce the Lyman alpha series of hydrogen, or the Bode-Titus law of planetary distances from the Sun, by many numerological schemes. What does that really prove? Virtually nothing, right? You need to think about that carefully and unemotionally. The basic constant of the correct mass equation is the revised Planck mass of 674.8 MeV. If you are using any other base mass, you are using the wrong value. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Jerry on 26 May 2010 13:01 On May 26, 11:48 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On May 26, 12:25 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > How about pseudo-random distributions of 72 mass spectrum lines > > between 627.972 and 1776.17 MeV? > > > To repeat what I stated earlier: > > > From what I can see, you are using the following selection rules: > > > j = k/2 where k = 1,2,3,4 > > a = m/n where n = 5,7,8 and m = 1..n > > --------------------------------------------- > > That's fairly close to the j and a values, but my mass equation is > definitely different from yours. You really should take a look at the > latest graph, mass equation, j and a values, and the theoretical + > empirical data. > > My mass equation is derived from the Kerr metric, QM and Discrete > Scale Relativity. > > Your efforts seem to be numerologically motivated. One can reproduce > the Lyman alpha series of hydrogen, or the Bode-Titus law of planetary > distances from the Sun, by many numerological schemes. What does that > really prove? Virtually nothing, right? That is PRECISELY the point!!! Your ability to match masses means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Your formula does no better than randomly generated sequences. Jerry
From: eric gisse on 26 May 2010 20:27 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On May 26, 12:25 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> How about pseudo-random distributions of 72 mass spectrum lines >> between 627.972 and 1776.17 MeV? >> >> To repeat what I stated earlier: >> >> From what I can see, you are using the following selection rules: >> >> j = k/2 where k = 1,2,3,4 >> a = m/n where n = 5,7,8 and m = 1..n > --------------------------------------------- > > That's fairly close to the j and a values, but my mass equation is > definitely different from yours. You really should take a look at the > latest graph, mass equation, j and a values, and the theoretical + > empirical data. > > My mass equation is derived from the Kerr metric, QM and Discrete > Scale Relativity. Where's the derivation? > > Your efforts seem to be numerologically motivated. One can reproduce > the Lyman alpha series of hydrogen, or the Bode-Titus law of planetary > distances from the Sun, by many numerological schemes. What does that > really prove? Virtually nothing, right? You need to think about that > carefully and unemotionally. > > The basic constant of the correct mass equation is the revised Planck > mass of 674.8 MeV. If you are using any other base mass, you are > using the wrong value. As opposed to the one you just pulled out of the air? > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 26 May 2010 20:31 Jerry wrote: > On May 26, 11:48 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > wrote: >> On May 26, 12:25 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > How about pseudo-random distributions of 72 mass spectrum lines >> > between 627.972 and 1776.17 MeV? >> >> > To repeat what I stated earlier: >> >> > From what I can see, you are using the following selection rules: >> >> > j = k/2 where k = 1,2,3,4 >> > a = m/n where n = 5,7,8 and m = 1..n >> >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> That's fairly close to the j and a values, but my mass equation is >> definitely different from yours. You really should take a look at the >> latest graph, mass equation, j and a values, and the theoretical + >> empirical data. >> >> My mass equation is derived from the Kerr metric, QM and Discrete >> Scale Relativity. >> >> Your efforts seem to be numerologically motivated. One can reproduce >> the Lyman alpha series of hydrogen, or the Bode-Titus law of planetary >> distances from the Sun, by many numerological schemes. What does that >> really prove? Virtually nothing, right? > > That is PRECISELY the point!!! Its' like George Hammond commenting about the mental illness of others. > > Your ability to match masses means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. > > Your formula does no better than randomly generated sequences. > > Jerry
From: hanson on 27 May 2010 01:54
Old Timer "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rloldershaw(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > How about pseudo-random distributions of 72 mass spectrum lines > between 627.972 and 1776.17 MeV? > To repeat what I stated earlier: > From what I can see, you are using the following selection rules: > j = k/2 where k = 1,2,3,4 > a = m/n where n = 5,7,8 and m = 1..n > Addressing Cephalus, The Old Timer wrote: That's fairly close to the j and a values, but my mass equation is definitely different from yours. You really should take a look at the latest graph, mass equation, j and a values, and the theoretical + empirical data. My mass equation is derived from the Kerr metric, QM and Discrete Scale Relativity. The basic constant of the correct mass equation is the revised Planck mass of 674.8 MeV. If you are using any other base mass, you are using the wrong value. > Young Whippersnapper wrote: ahahahaha... Rob, you've got a lot of "explaining" to do about your "revised Planck mass"... ahahaha... But, much easier, you can use the standard Planck Mass for your purposes, which is defined as me_pl=sort(hear*co/GO) ~ 2.176E^-5 go, which implicates the el. charge e^2 = a*hbar*c, and from the charge [e] you get the electron's mass, m_e, via and with the century old known e/m_e ratio. Using the m_e mass, which is the smallest manifest and stable particle mass, you will be able to produce a much cleaner mass spectrum, from the Muon to the Omega, then you can with your convoluted "j" & "a" scheme. > Addressing Cephalus, The Old Timer wrote: Jerry, Your efforts seem to be numerologically motivated. One can reproduce the Lyman alpha series of hydrogen, or the Bode-Titus law of planetary distances from the Sun, by many numerological schemes. What does that really prove? Virtually nothing, right? You need to think about that carefully and unemotionally. RLO -- www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw > Young Whippersnapper wrote: Old Timer, listen. Keep on celebrating your 15 minutes of fame. But like I told/posted for you before, youare only regurgitating the mass spectrum with a different flavor of the schemes that have been published in 1970... 40 years ago.... ahahaha... at which time it was noted that such mass multiple hypothesis have already been done 40 years prior to that even, to the extent that the particles were known..... So, you simply have reinvented the Wheel, Oldershaw, with new spokes, though.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.... Therefore keep celebrating until your beer gets stale. Cheers & thanks for the laughs, Old Timer... ahahaha... ahahahaha... ahahahahahanson, the Whippersnapper. > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |