Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6% level
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 2 Jun 2010 12:49 On Jun 2, 8:34 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > 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. -------------------------------- Sigh! I did not say spin does not exist. If I am modeling subatomic particles as Kerr ultracompacts, I obviously believe that spin/ rotation is real. Elmentary logic, Woofums! WHAT I DID SAY: The spins of FREE particles have NOT been DIRECTLY MEASURED. Look it up in the reference I posted already. They have been assigned on theoretical grounds, based on theoretical assumptions. Therefore the conventional spin assignments should not be accepted as absolute truth. Are we clear on that now, pilgrim? RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: J. Clarke on 2 Jun 2010 17:39 On 6/2/2010 12:49 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 2, 8:34 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> 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. > -------------------------------- > > Sigh! I did not say spin does not exist. If I am modeling subatomic > particles as Kerr ultracompacts, I obviously believe that spin/ > rotation is real. Elmentary logic, Woofums! > > WHAT I DID SAY: The spins of FREE particles have NOT been DIRECTLY > MEASURED. Look it up in the reference I posted already. They have > been assigned on theoretical grounds, based on theoretical > assumptions. Therefore the conventional spin assignments should not > be accepted as absolute truth. Are we clear on that now, pilgrim? I note that instead of presenting something else that offers the same experimental results you choose to hurl insults.
From: eric gisse on 2 Jun 2010 20:01 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jun 2, 8:34 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> 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. > -------------------------------- > > Sigh! I did not say spin does not exist. If I am modeling subatomic > particles as Kerr ultracompacts, I obviously believe that spin/ > rotation is real. Elmentary logic, Woofums! > > WHAT I DID SAY: The spins of FREE particles have NOT been DIRECTLY > MEASURED. Look it up in the reference I posted already. They have > been assigned on theoretical grounds, based on theoretical > assumptions. Therefore the conventional spin assignments should not > be accepted as absolute truth. Are we clear on that now, pilgrim? ....and do you have a reason to believe the spin of a free particle is different than a bound particle when there is zero evidence for your assertion other than 'well nobody's measured it that way yet...' ? > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Jerry on 2 Jun 2010 23:17 On Jun 1, 10:35 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > 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! Who is the poser? 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 Jerry
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 3 Jun 2010 00:06
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. Good boy, and keep trying to find the light at the end of that tunnel. But beware of anal-cerebral inversion. |