Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6% level
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 27 May 2010 20:41 On May 27, 1:54 am, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: As I feared, barking dogs all the way down, and "down" is actually only a superficial scum on the surface of intelligent discourse.
From: eric gisse on 27 May 2010 22:04 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On May 27, 1:54 am, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > > As I feared, barking dogs all the way down, and "down" is actually > only a superficial scum on the surface of intelligent discourse. If you find responses on a public newsgroup tiring, perhaps you should make a blog and post all your 'science' there and only allow responses that you want? Unfortunately nobody would go to the effort to seek you out, you know this thus you continue to post here and fake indignation at the attention.
From: Jerry on 28 May 2010 07:13 On May 26, 11:48 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > > That's fairly close to the j and a values, You have used the following: Lambda j = 3/2 a = 5/7 k = 3, n = 7, m = 5 Sigma j = 3/2 a = 5/8 k = 3, n = 8 m = 5 Xi(1320) j = 3/2 a = 1/2 k = 3, n = 8, m = 4 Xi(1535) j = 3/2 a = 3/8 k = 3, n = 8, m = 3 Omega(-) j = 4/2 a = 2/5 k = 4, n = 5, m = 2 tau j = 1/2 a = 1/8 k = 1, n = 8, m = 1 In other words, you've used k = 1, 3, 4 n = 5, 7, 8 m = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 There is no obvious reason why k = 2 might be forbidden. I gave you a break and assumed n = 6 might be forbidden. The only limitation I saw on m was that m <= n From these, I deduced your selection rules: j = k/2 where k = 1,2,3,4 a = m/n where n = 5,7,8 and m = 1..n > but my mass equation is > definitely different from yours. That is the whole point of my demonstration. Pseudo-random and uniform mass series all work just as well as 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. And my mass equations include pseudo-random and uniform series. > 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? ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! Your ability to retrodict particle masses, given as many arbitrary assumptions as you use, means NOTHING. > You need to think about that > carefully and unemotionally. It is -YOU- who need to be doing that. > 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. Here is an expanded list of mass fittings, all just as good as yours. Using digits of pi as pseudo-random source particle mass n retrodict accuracy rho 770.00 08 775.40 99.30 omega 783.00 09 775.40 99.03 p+ 938.27 20 948.89 98.88 n 939.57 20 948.89 99.02 eta' 957.75 22 954.18 99.63 lambda0 1115.68 29 1111.48 99.62 Sigma1 1192.00 32 1190.01 99.83 Xi0 1320.00 42 1328.83 99.34 N 1440.00 50 1439.40 99.96 Omega- 1672.45 64 1702.69 98.22 Using digits of e as pseudo-random source particle mass n retrodict accuracy rho 770.00 08 760.82 98.81 omega 783.00 09 779.88 99.60 p+ 938.27 22 940.05 99.81 n 939.57 22 940.05 99.95 eta' 957.75 25 956.59 99.88 lambda0 1115.68 31 1114.12 99.86 Sigma1 1192.00 38 1191.39 99.95 Xi0 1320.00 47 1320.11 99.99 N 1440.00 55 1459.27 98.68 Omega- 1672.45 66 1666.52 99.65 Using digits of phi as pseudo-random source particle mass n retrodict accuracy rho 770.00 06 758.52 98.51 omega 783.00 06 758.52 96.87 p+ 938.27 16 935.46 99.70 n 939.57 16 935.46 99.56 eta' 957.75 17 951.53 99.35 lambda0 1115.68 27 1131.00 98.65 Sigma1 1192.00 30 1198.63 99.45 Xi0 1320.00 39 1322.17 99.84 N 1440.00 46 1437.68 99.84 Omega- 1672.45 63 1664.11 99.50 Using digits of sqrt(2) as pseudo-random source particle mass n retrodict accuracy rho 770.00 11 786.88 97.85 omega 783.00 11 786.88 99.51 p+ 938.27 24 945.33 99.25 n 939.57 24 945.33 99.39 eta' 957.75 24 945.33 98.70 lambda0 1115.68 31 1122.62 99.38 Sigma1 1192.00 33 1193.34 99.89 Xi0 1320.00 41 1308.51 99.13 N 1440.00 47 1432.86 99.50 Omega- 1672.45 61 1675.36 99.83 Using arithmetic series as source particle mass n retrodict accuracy rho 770.00 09 771.50 99.81 omega 783.00 10 787.44 99.44 p+ 938.27 19 930.97 99.22 n 939.57 20 946.92 99.22 eta' 957.75 21 962.86 99.47 lambda0 1115.68 31 1122.34 99.41 Sigma1 1192.00 35 1186.12 99.51 Xi0 1320.00 43 1313.70 99.52 N 1440.00 51 1441.28 99.91 Omega- 1672.45 65 1664.54 99.53 Using geometric series as source particle mass n retrodict accuracy rho 770.00 14 768.67 99.83 omega 783.00 15 779.85 99.60 p+ 938.27 28 940.89 99.72 n 939.57 28 940.89 99.86 eta' 957.75 29 954.58 99.67 lambda0 1115.68 40 1118.92 99.71 Sigma1 1192.00 44 1185.45 99.45 Xi0 1320.00 51 1311.55 99.36 N 1440.00 57 1430.25 99.32 Omega- 1672.45 68 1676.48 99.76 Jerry
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 28 May 2010 15:00 On May 28, 7:13 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > 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? > > ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!! > > Your ability to retrodict particle masses, given as many arbitrary > assumptions as you use, means NOTHING. -------------------------------------------- I fully realize that Jerry is a lost cause, but perhaps there are a few intelligent lurkers out there who might profit from the following important point. Jerry is letting his emotions cloud his thinking. By the reasoning he has used, he would have rejected Bohr's early planetary model of the atom and its ability to retrodict the hydrogen spectrum. Both the EM spectrum of hydrogen and the Bode-Titus law have (or will eventually have) correct physical explanations. We do not want to throw out ALL retrodictions, ONLY those that do not work, or are Ptolemaic, or are numerologically fudged. My retrodiction of the particle mass/stability spectrum is a valid stepping stone to a real understanding because it is based on a solid foundation of physics, just as Bohr's old QM was. I will be happy to respond to thoughtful posts, but I am done with the barking dogs. I wish them psychological peace. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: spudnik on 28 May 2010 17:31
"retrodiction" of Bode's law for atoms? hey, Kepler was far more correct than is allowed, even though he only had teh seven planets of astrology -- and, he was Court Astrologer. there was an article in *Fusion*, that had a formularium that worked for all of the planets, and all of the moons of all of the plants, as I recall. thusNso: as Tim LocquaciousHand implies, "composition" of two rotations, one after the other, is not commutative, as the demonstration also can be modeled with quaternion multiplications; in any case, two roatations resolve into one, about a different axis. the question is, if you try to do them simultaneously, what happens? and, please, see if you can show it with quaternions, instead of this interminable blabfest; thank *you*. thusNso: Dear woould-be replacer of Jerry "no oil, except from Texas etc." Brown: no change from Jerry Brown's '69 "platform," eh? it is intolerably strange, insofar as we do need "fossilized fuels TM (sik)," to not get our share from our own "reserves." really, though, it is merely biomass, and the techniques have progressed since '69. Dubya's bro's ban offshore of Florida (and Louisiana) seemed like a tactical maneuver to support the oilcos' scarcity programme in our state. (why O why O why do folks believe, that the oilcos did not support the Kyoto Protoccol, which was just another cap'n'trade "free trade" nostrum, that Dubya'd have undoubtdely signed, if he had been told?) British Petroleum, the balls-out advocate of cap'n'trade, "Beyond Petroleum," is also the biggest company in the Alaska North Slope -- doesn't any body wonder, why no-one asked Palin about her BP-employed hubbie, and his Seccesionist ideals? one must take into consideration, with all of the hype about it, that oil comes out of the ground underwater in "seeps," under pressure. so, how much would come out, if BP et al ad vomitorium were not pumping like crazy? Waxman's current cap'n'trade bill just mandatorizes the huge, voluntary cap'n'trade since 2003 -- tens of billions in hedging per annum. what the Liberal Media (Ownwd by consWervative) don't talk about, is that he brought the first cap'n'trade bill in '91, under HW (who worked with Gore on the Kyoto cap'n'trade). what it amounts to, as Waxman basically admitted to, when he was at UCLA, is "let the arbitrageurs raise the price of energy, as much as they can in the 'free market' -- free beer, freedom!" a small, adjustable carbon tax would achieve the same ends -- as I even read "in passing" in a guest editorial in the WSUrinal, as well as from an "expert" in a UCLA seminar, but who said that it was (some how) "politically impossible" -- without being the Last Bailout of Wall Street (an the City of London). thusNso: I never read a word about Palin's hubbie's Seccesh "movement" in the Liberal Media (Owned by consWervatives) and that is sort-of the issue in AZ. I'm all for kids whose parents managed to sneak across the border & give birth, but I was taken aback by the "sense of entitlement" that the older kids have, about college (the DREAM Act; I stated to a group of them, that crossing the border is essentially a Mexican "rite of passage," and it is certainly not very dangerous as a proper hike, if you check the FAQs and maps & so forth from the Mexican goment (and those advocacy/ haven groups in the USA; it may be difficult in the summer, though). well, it's either that or college *in* Mexico, or you'll probably be made to join a gang. La Raza d'Atzlan are openly racist, not just by their title; at least, that's the impression that I got, attending one of their meetings at UCLA, two or three years ago -- it's in their God-am constitution. of course, teh real problem is "free trade," and this is already here to roost; the little spill in the Gulf is being used by British Petroleum -- which is also the #1 driller in the Alaska North Slope, that Ted Palin works for -- to create an "outsourcing" mandate to solve the problem, because we can't do it with our post-industrial cargo cult. well, iscrew that! read LaRouche, if you want to know the history with Lincoln and his "Spot Resolutions;" Cinco de Mayo should be a pan-american holiday! --Light: A History! http://wlym.com |