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 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: Robert L. Oldershaw on 30 May 2010 17:24
On May 28, 5:31 pm, e. pisser and spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > wooph, wooph, wooph,... --------------------------------- You can tell a great deal about a poster from the tone and content of the writing. Indications of deep-seated anger usually indicate that the person is thinking emotionally, rather than rationally, and that there is a high probability of bias. A sense of humor is a good sign. Relentless negativity is a sign of insecurity. |