Prev: Twin paradox if recorded with cameras
Next: Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6%
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 24 May 2010 11:57
On May 23, 11:04 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> But your numbers aren't 'spot-on' - they are
> merely 'close as long as you don't look
> to the right of the decimal'.

> You can't explain the parameters you use,
> and you can't make testable predictions.
> You are not doing science.
------------------------------

(1) You need to compare my retrodictions with the retrodictions of the
Substandard HEP paradigm, using the empirical masses as the goal to
shoot for. Duh!

I can explain general form of the discrete mass equation and the
values for G(-1) and the revised Planck mass and most j values from
first principles. The (a) values are sometimes a bit more heuristic,
but are within the range predicted for Kerr black holes and are all
rational fractions.

This is a work in progress. Duh!

As to whether or not I am doing science, how would you know?

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Twin paradox if recorded with cameras
Next: Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6%