Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6%
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 24 May 2010 12:10 On May 24, 4:46 am, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > Yo, Bob, > while others beat on you, I congratulate you for the > work you have done so far. > > I hope that one day you'll get all the numbers within > 99+ %, like others have done, decades before you, with > different model assumptions, but also based on nature's > self similarity which appears, empirically, to rule over > all scales and domains... as is illustrate by the simple > fact that in physics the most common word used to > explain insights... happen to be the words: "it's like..." --------------------------------------- Please tell me the names and references for the "others" who have achieved similar results "with different model assumptions". I am genuinely curious about who you mean. If you think the Quantum Cartoon Dynamics has done this legitimately and scientifically, you are mistaken. > I note that you equate your state "j" = kGM2/c, a GR > Kerr solution... But that pushes the problem merely > up an notch because of your "k" in there.... ahahaha.. > and what physical event is your "a" factor denoting? ------------------------------------------------- If you read http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf you will see that the "k" (which I and others call "a") is not mine it comes from the Kerr metric. "a" is a dimensionless spin parameter (see McClintok et al referenced in the above link). > Carry on, good luck and take, Old Timer... > hanson ------------------------------ You too, young whippersnapper... RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: hanson on 24 May 2010 14:47 "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rloldershaw(a)amherst.edu> wrote: "hanson" <hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: Yo, Bob, while others beat on you, I congratulate you for the work you have done so far. I hope that one day you'll get all the numbers within 99+ %, like others have done, decades before you, with different model assumptions, but also based on nature's self similarity which appears, empirically, to rule over all scales and domains... as is illustrate by the simple fact that in physics the most common word used to explain insights... happen to be the words: "it's like..." > Old Timer wrote: Please tell me the names and references for the "others" who have achieved similar results "with different model assumptions". I am genuinely curious about who you mean. If you think the Quantum Cartoon Dynamics has done this legitimately and scientifically, you are mistaken. > hanson wrote: I note that you equate your state "j" = kGM2/c, a GR Kerr solution... But that pushes the problem merely up an notch because of your "k" in there.... ahahaha.. and what physical event is your "a" factor denoting? > Old Timer wrote: If you read http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf you will see that the "k" (which I and others call "a") is not mine it comes from the Kerr metric. "a" is a dimensionless spin parameter (see McClintok et al referenced in the above link). > hanson wrote: Carry on, good luck and take care, Old Timer... hanson > Old Timer wrote: You too, young whippersnapper... RLO --- www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw> > hanson wrote: .... ahahahaha... thanks for the comments, especially for the "young whippersnapper".... ahahahaha... ahahanson
From: eric gisse on 24 May 2010 19:05 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > 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! Yes, but the standard model doesn't make the claim that it is predicting particle masses. > > 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. 'general form', 'most'...nice and vague. > The (a) values are sometimes a bit more heuristic, > but are within the range predicted for Kerr black holes and are all > rational fractions. Kerr holes have nothing to do with particle physics. Try again. > > This is a work in progress. Duh! Progress implies improvement, not a shinier turd. > > As to whether or not I am doing science, how would you know? I paid attention in grade school when the scientific method was taught, as I remember there's a step that requires explaining the observed data, and a step that involves making new predictions. You do neither. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 24 May 2010 19:30 On May 24, 7:05 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, but the standard model doesn't make the claim that it is predicting > particle masses. -------------------------------------------- It appears to me that the Substandard paradigm, and especially Quantum Cartoon Dynamics, cannot retrodict anything without putting in "quark" masses by hand, along with numerous other "parameters" (read: fudge factors). Predictions!??? Fageddaboudit! It's all ad hoc model-building. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 24 May 2010 23:33 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On May 24, 7:05 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, but the standard model doesn't make the claim that it is predicting >> particle masses. > -------------------------------------------- > > It appears to me that the Substandard paradigm, and especially Quantum > Cartoon Dynamics, cannot retrodict anything without putting in "quark" > masses by hand, along with numerous other "parameters" (read: fudge > factors). Nothing says 'take me seriously' like being unable to discuss modern physics in an adult manner. > > Predictions!??? Fageddaboudit! It's all ad hoc model-building. Name the symmetry groups used in the standard model. > > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
|
Pages: 1 Prev: Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum Retrodicted at 99.6% Next: LAPTOP RECOVERY |