Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6% level
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 1 Jun 2010 23:35 On Jun 1, 8:33 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > You first called the person who made the statement "the expert in > the field" and now you claim it was an anonymous peer reviewer??? > Shall I conclude that you are blatantly lying??? ---------------------------------------------- You blithering idiot the review paper was written by the 2 authors, and then it was reviewed by the peer-reviewers, and finally it was accepted and published by the editor. That's what happens in real science. Perhaps you should look into the matter, but first take your head out of the dark hole it is stuck in. What a poser you are!
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 1 Jun 2010 23:38 On Jun 1, 7:26 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > An opinion is not an explanation. To all > appearances, you're simply obfuscating. -------------------------------- Obviously an unemployed English major posing as a "scientist".
From: Jerry on 2 Jun 2010 00:39 On Jun 1, 10:35 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Jun 1, 8:33 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > You first called the person who made the statement "the expert in > > the field" and now you claim it was an anonymous peer reviewer??? > > Shall I conclude that you are blatantly lying??? > > ---------------------------------------------- > > You blithering idiot the review paper was written by the 2 authors, > and then it was reviewed by the peer-reviewers, and finally it was > accepted and published by the editor. Garbage gets published, sometimes. Doesn't alter the fact that you apparently can't answer the following questions. What are your selection rules? Why do 85%+ of your formula's mass predictions correspond to nothing? Lambda j = 3/2 a = 5/7 99.0% Sigma j = 3/2 a = 5/8 99.6% Xi(1320) j = 3/2 a = 1/2 99.2% Xi(1535) j = 3/2 a = 3/8 99.97% Omega(-) j = 4/2 a = 2/5 99.85% tau j = 1/2 a = 1/8 99.96% Why can a equal 1/8, 3/8, 4/8, 5/8 but not 2/8, 6/8, 7/8? Why can a equal 2/5 but not 1/5, 3/5, 4/5? Why can a equal 5/7 but not 1/7, 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 6/7? Why is 6 not an allowed denominator for a so that you don't have 1/6, 2/6, 4/6, 5/6? Why can j = 1/2, 3/2, 4/2 but not 2/2? Jerry
From: eric gisse on 2 Jun 2010 01:17 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 1, 8:33 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> You first called the person who made the statement "the expert in >> the field" and now you claim it was an anonymous peer reviewer??? >> Shall I conclude that you are blatantly lying??? > ---------------------------------------------- > > You blithering idiot the review paper was written by the 2 authors, > and then it was reviewed by the peer-reviewers, and finally it was > accepted and published by the editor. Please learn what peer review is and is not. > > That's what happens in real science. What would you know about 'real science' ? > Perhaps you should look into the > matter, but first take your head out of the dark hole it is stuck in. > What a poser you are!
From: J. Clarke on 2 Jun 2010 08:34
On 6/1/2010 3:27 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 1, 7:22 am, Jerry<Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> Who might this expert be, and what are his credentials? I somewhat suspect >>> the 'expert' is a guy with a web page who says something that makes sense to >>> you and nothing else. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > It was a thoughtful professional physicist writing a review of the > subject that was requested by the editor of the peer-reviewed physics > journal Contemporary Physics. Of course you have a name for this "thoughtful professional physicist". And when Dr. Gager was doing all those electron spin resonance experiments at my alma mater since he in your opinion wasn't measuring electron spin resonance, what exactly _was_ he measuring? It's not enough to assert "spin doesn't exist", you have to also be able to present something else that offers the same experimental results. |