Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6% level
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Light is the unified form of the universe
Next: More problems for Cold Dark Matter theory, Milky Way doesn't fit model
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
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 |