Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 27 Apr 2010 23:52 On Apr 27, 4:41 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > *You ignored all* including the above one. You sistematically censor > any criticism to your 'theory'. Pick out ONE thing that you think falsifies Discrete Scale Relativity, and let's discuss that ONE thing scientifically. We can move on to other things, but ONE at a time, please > > Your goal is that physicists abandon a theory tested in hundred of > experiments (QCD) by a 'theory' (yours) which predicts none of them, and > that 'promises' us to predict readius of protons... except that you > are comparing apples and oranges, or R and r (as remarked in one of > the points that you sniped). The above is an idiotic statement and further convinces me that you are a poser who cannot even tell the difference between specific angular momentum and angular momentum, which is why your J = aM equation for a black hole is pathetically wrong. The fact is that QCD cannot even retrodict anything without lots of mathematical smoke and mirrors. As for definitive predictions, QCD fails miserably in this category. QCD "predictions" for the "Higgs bozo" range from 150-10^18 GeV. Safe range, huh? WHERE IS YOUR QCD-BASED RETRODICTION OF THE PROTON RADIUS? I DO NOT SEE IT. HAVING A BIT OF TROUBLE ARE WE, GONZO? RLO
From: Jerry on 28 Apr 2010 03:49 On Apr 27, 10:41 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > On Apr 27, 1:07 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > Unfortunately, you do not provide ANY sort of explanation why > > certain specific values of n are to be chosen in preference to > > other values. Hence your procedure counts as pure numerology. > > I did not think n=1, n=2, n=3, ... needed much explaining. OH, COME ON!!! You have a whole slew of COMPLETELY ARBITRARY CHOICES to explain! n = 1/36, you explain this as (1/9)/4. Whence this numerology? n = 1/25, you explain this as (1/6)/4. Whence this numerology? n <> 1/12, so where is (1/3)/4 ??? n <> 1/16, why not an inverse square series? n <> 1/9, why not an inverse square series? n <> 1/4, why not an inverse square series? n = 1/2, is this natural because it is a simple ratio? n <> 1/3, so where is this missing simple ratio? n <> 2/3, so where is this missing simple ratio? n = 3/4, n = 5/4, n <> 6/4, so where is this missing simple ratio? n <> 7/4, so where is this missing simple ratio? n = 2, n = 2, n = 2, why the triplicate? n = 3, n = 3, why the duplicate? n = 4, n = 5, n = 6, n = 7, n = 8, n = 8, n = 8, why the triplicate? n <> 9, where did this disappear off to? n = 10, n <> 11, where did this go? You have OTHER odd numbers... n = 12, n <> 13, how about this??? You have other PRIMES, as well... n = 14, n <> 15, nothing here??? n = 16, n <> 17, nothing here??? n = 18, n = 18, suddenly a duplicate??? n <> 19, gone n <> 20, gone n <> 21, gone, a vast wasteland follows .... n <> 29, gone n = 30, FALSE!!! 31 would be a closer fit n <> 31, another wasteland n <> 32, .... n <> 63, n = 64, FALSE!!! 62 would be closer fit n <> 65, .... n <> 89, n = 90, n <> 91 Your choices are MAGIC, ARBITRARY, and occasionally FALSE. > > The point is, the ability to retrodict a spectrum of particle > > masses using as many adjustable parameters that you allow > > yourself is totally meaningless. > > But I only use two parameters which are empirically derived from > nature, and are good to 3%, or better. If you think there is more > room in the theory to subjectively "adjust" things, it just proves > that you have not taken enough time to learn the Discrete Self-Similar > Paradigm. Oh, come on. For n above 5, you can fit ANYTHING to within 5% or better!!! For n above 10, you can fit ANYTHING to within 2.5% or better!!! > You would be surprised at how well your time would be spent if you > developed a good working understanding of the DSSP BEFORE you took out > the sledge hammer. You might be quite surprised. DSSP is nothing but numerology and self-deception. Jerry
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 28 Apr 2010 05:37 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Tue, 27 Apr 2010 20:52:12 -0700: > On Apr 27, 4:41 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > >> *You ignored all* including the above one. You sistematically censor >> any criticism to your 'theory'. > > Pick out ONE thing that you think falsifies Discrete Scale Relativity, > and let's discuss that ONE thing scientifically. We can move on to other > things, but ONE at a time, please I have given you six basic points. You ignored all of them... and continue doing it. In three different threads now... >> Your goal is that physicists abandon a theory tested in hundred of >> experiments (QCD) by a 'theory' (yours) which predicts none of them, >> and that 'promises' us to predict readius of protons... except that you >> are comparing apples and oranges, or R and r (as remarked in one of the >> points that you sniped). > > The above is an idiotic statement and further convinces me that you are > a poser who cannot even tell the difference between specific angular > momentum and angular momentum, which is why your J = aM equation for a > black hole is pathetically wrong. Yes it is an idiotic statement, because your assertion that your 'theory' is better than QCD was idiotic, and because your direct comparison of the *numerical* value of a curved spacetime radius R with a flat spacetime radius r is so *ridiculous* as comparing temperatures T = 200 K and t = 200 ºC But ignore units! Both numbers are 200, is not this a fascinating prediction from DDSSSSCCPP :-D Regarding J = aM, where a is the Kerr-Newmann parameter and M mass, well, I already said to you BEFORE that equation can be easily found in textbooks. Take a look to set (33.2-33-4) in MTV. Note: they use symbol S instead J to denote angular momentum. J = S = aM is their (33-4), but they write it as a=S/M and this may confound you a lot of :-D Not just you do not understand the difference between a and a^*, but you do not even recognize standard textbook formulae, doing idiotic comments as your above: "J = aM equation for a black hole is pathetically wrong." Bravo! -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 28 Apr 2010 12:16 On Apr 28, 3:49 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > DSSP is nothing but numerology and self-deception. > --------------------------- A couple of quick items. For masses below the proton mass the n values form heuristic patterns, such as 5/4, 4/4, 3/4, 2/4. In the linked paper I discussed this topic and concluded that rather than indulge in numerology for m < m(proton), it would be better to wait and see the results of repeating everything with the more sophisticated Kerr-Newman solution to GR. For masses above m(proton) where n values are integers, nothing physically requires all potential n values to be paired with particles. Atoms, for example, have allowed states, forbidden states and somewhat-less-than-forbidden states. Again, the prediction, and this is a definitive prediction, is that when you go to the Kerr-Newman solution, then the fine structure will be reproduced and explained. This was discuseed thoroughly in the paper. But I think that for you it is mandatory that I am totally wrong, since you look at everything in the worst possible light. This is not the way to make scientific progress. A closed mind never learns anything new. I am tired of wasting time with barking dogs. If lurkers have sincere questions that are not motivated by psychological pathology, feel free to ask away and I will respond. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 28 Apr 2010 12:32
On Apr 28, 5:37 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: I notice that YOU FAILED TO DO TWO THINGS. (1) YOU FAILED TO INDENTIFY ONE ESPECIALLY GOOD "FALSIFICATION" OF THE DSSP. (2) YOU FAILED TO SHOW US THE QCD-BASED RETRODICTION OF THE R(PROTON). I WILL IGNORE YOUR FURTHER POSTS UNTIL YOU PUT UP OR SHUT UP ON THESE TWO ISSUES. In case anybody actually cares: Angular Momentum is usually designated by J. Specific Angular Momentum (S) is defined as the angular momentum per unit mass, and therefore: S = J/M When the poser recites J = aM he does not realize that the author of the equation uses J when he means S. Therefore, for complete clarity, we can write S = aM, or J/M = aM, or J = aM^2. I hope the poser is straightened out on this issue. |