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: 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.
From: J. Clarke on 5 Jun 2010 14:43 On 6/5/2010 1:20 PM, Robert Higgins wrote: > 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. His web page says that he's "loosely affiliated", which could be taken to mean that he's screwing someone who works in the data center. >
From: Jerry on 5 Jun 2010 18:39
On Jun 5, 11:26 am, "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, weaknesses and overall potential > of this research. > Everybody here recognizes that your paper is utter nonsense. If you wish to refute the results that I present in the following http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/images/Oldershaw.PNG then you need to explain what is wrong with the following code from my computer program, whose purpose is to generate all of the mass retrodictions predicted by your formula for j=1/2,2/2,3/2,4/2 and a = m/n where n=5,6,7,8 and m <=n for (int i = 1; i <= 4; ++i) { double j = (double)i / 2.0; for (int n = 5; n <= 8; ++n) { for (int m = 1; m <= n; ++m) { double a = (double)m/(double)n; double x = Math.Sqrt(Math.Sqrt(j*(j+1)/(a*a)))*674.8; Mark(e.Graphics, x, 30, "", Color.Black); } } } Jerry |