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 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.
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. |