Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6% level
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 3 Jun 2010 00:30 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 2, 11:17 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> Compare the theoretical mass spectrum of your formula against actual >> particle masses within your formula's (ahem) "range of validity". >> >> http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/Oldershaw.PNG > ------------------------------------ > > Thanks for the cartoon, Woofy. At this point I think the only way to deal with your arrogant stupidity is to ignore you. [snip rest]
From: Jerry on 3 Jun 2010 02:42 On Jun 2, 11:06 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jun 2, 11:17 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Compare the theoretical mass spectrum of your formula against actual > > particle masses within your formula's (ahem) "range of validity". > > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/Oldershaw.PNG > > ------------------------------------ > > Thanks for the cartoon, Woofy. > > But since my mass formula can retrodict he masses of all those > particles at the > 99% level, your cartoon has to be incompetently > conceived and/or executed. The graph explains WHY you are able to retrodict the masses at the 99%+ level. Jerry
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Jun 2010 11:30 On Jun 3, 2:42 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > The graph explains WHY you are able to retrodict the masses > at the 99%+ level. ------------------------------- Then why don't the empirical and theoretical lines match up better? Riddle me that one, Woofy
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Jun 2010 11:35 On Jun 3, 12:30 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > At this point I think the only way to deal > with your arrogant stupidity is to ignore you. ---------------------------------------- BET YOU CAN'T, WOOFY2
From: Jerry on 4 Jun 2010 01:15
On Jun 3, 10:30 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jun 3, 2:42 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > The graph explains WHY you are able to retrodict the masses > > at the 99%+ level. > > ------------------------------- > > Then why don't the empirical and theoretical lines match up better? > > Riddle me that one, Woofy I accidentally switched j and a in my computer program. Sorry. I uploaded a corrected version. It's even WORSE for you. http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/Oldershaw.PNG You will notice 1% error bars along the bottom. Given the laxity of your selection rules for what constitutes valid values of j and a, it should be evident that the large majority of random particle masses will lie within 1% of a retrodicted mass that satisfies your selection rules, and almost all should lie within 2% of a retrodicted mass. In other words, if you scatter a lot of buckshot, you will hit your targets, but that doesn't make you a marksman. Your formulas are nonsense. Period. Jerry |