Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6% level
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 4 Jun 2010 13:11 On Jun 4, 1:15 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > Your formulas are nonsense. Period. ---------------------------- Well, that is what people of your caliber said about Bohr's early work explaining the hydrogen spectrum. In fact evn those of much higher caliber like Ostwald and Mach both said that the whole concept of atoms was bunk. Same as it ever was. Knowing a bit of statistics does not, by itself, confer wisdom or a good understanding of nature.
From: Jerry on 5 Jun 2010 03:00 On Jun 4, 12:11 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jun 4, 1:15 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Your formulas are nonsense. Period. > > ---------------------------- > > Well, that is what people of your caliber said about Bohr's early work > explaining the hydrogen spectrum. You have a completely incorrect sense of history. Bohr's model of the atom was widely recognized as a major breakthrough, even though it was also recognized that there was a definite and unsatisfactory arbitrariness about it. It was impossible to deny its success at explaining the wavelengths present in the hydrogen spectrum. At the same time, it was impossible to deny its lack of success at explaining the relative intensity of the lines. Do not try to equate yourself with Bohr. > In fact evn those of much higher caliber like Ostwald and Mach both > said that the whole concept of atoms was bunk. Again, your sense of history is completely distorted. Ostwald and Mach had a strong philosophical motivation to disbelieve in the existence of hypothetical particles that had never been directly observed and for which, so far as they knew, no means of direct observation would ever be possible. Einstein's explanation of Brownian motion was the breakthrough that bulldozed through practically all holdouts' objections against atomism and atomic theory. Do not try to equate yourself with Einstein. > Same as it ever was. > > Knowing a bit of statistics does not, by itself, confer wisdom or a > good understanding of nature. Meanwhile, I've improved my graph with an additional row that demonstrates how almost any random particle mass can be fit by an appropriate selection of j and a that meets your loose criteria for what constitutes acceptable versus non-acceptable values of these parameters. http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/Oldershaw.PNG You're a stubborn crackpot with an inflated ego and a totally worthless theory. Jerry
From: Jerry on 5 Jun 2010 09:53 On Jun 5, 2:00 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 4, 12:11 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> > wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 1:15 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Your formulas are nonsense. Period. > > > ---------------------------- > > > Well, that is what people of your caliber said about Bohr's early work > > explaining the hydrogen spectrum. > > You have a completely incorrect sense of history. Bohr's model > of the atom was widely recognized as a major breakthrough, even > though it was also recognized that there was a definite and > unsatisfactory arbitrariness about it. It was impossible to deny > its success at explaining the wavelengths present in the hydrogen > spectrum. At the same time, it was impossible to deny its lack of > success at explaining the relative intensity of the lines. > > Do not try to equate yourself with Bohr. > > > In fact evn those of much higher caliber like Ostwald and Mach both > > said that the whole concept of atoms was bunk. > > Again, your sense of history is completely distorted. Ostwald and > Mach had a strong philosophical motivation to disbelieve in the > existence of hypothetical particles that had never been directly > observed and for which, so far as they knew, no means of direct > observation would ever be possible. > > Einstein's explanation of Brownian motion was the breakthrough > that bulldozed through practically all holdouts' objections > against atomism and atomic theory. > > Do not try to equate yourself with Einstein. > > > Same as it ever was. > > > Knowing a bit of statistics does not, by itself, confer wisdom or a > > good understanding of nature. > > Meanwhile, I've improved my graph with an additional row that > demonstrates how almost any random particle mass can be fit by > an appropriate selection of j and a that meets your loose > criteria for what constitutes acceptable versus non-acceptable > values of these parameters. > http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/Oldershaw.PNG > > You're a stubborn crackpot with an inflated ego and a totally > worthless theory. > I added another section to the figure. What happens if we allow j = 1/2, 2/2, 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, 6/2, 7/2... (unlimited)? http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/Oldershaw.PNG The results may please you, for all I know... :-) Jerry
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 5 Jun 2010 12:26 On Jun 5, 9:53 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > <D:-) ------------------------------------- If there is any intelligent life lisening out there somewhere, I am just about done with a complete write-up of my research on retrodicting the Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum using the Kerr metric and Discrete Scale Relativity. It is about 16 pages long with 4 tables and 3 figures. It candidly discusses the strengths, weaknesses and overall potential of this research. It is available free to anyone who emails me and requests it as either a Word file or a pdf. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert Higgins on 5 Jun 2010 13:20
On Jun 5, 12:26 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jun 5, 9:53 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > <D:-) > > ------------------------------------- > > If there is any intelligent life lisening out there somewhere, I am > just about done with a complete write-up of my research on > retrodicting the Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum using the Kerr > metric and Discrete Scale Relativity. > > It is about 16 pages long with 4 tables and 3 figures. > > It candidly discusses the strengths, very few >weaknesses very many > and overall potential > of this research. None. > > It is available free to anyone who emails me and requests it as either > a Word file or a pdf. Even for free, nobody wants it. If it had any value, you would submit it to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. If you do, please be kind enough to post the referee reports - I need a good laugh. > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Are you an undergraduate, or just staff? You aren't listed as faculty. |