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: 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.
From: eric gisse on 3 Jun 2010 00:30 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > 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. At this point I think the only way to deal with your arrogant stupidity is to ignore you. [snip rest]
From: Jerry on 3 Jun 2010 02:42
On Jun 2, 11:06 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > 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. The graph explains WHY you are able to retrodict the masses at the 99%+ level. Jerry |