Proton Radius Cannot Be Derived From Standard Model
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jerry on 28 Apr 2010 19:22 On Apr 28, 11:16 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > 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. What heuristic patterns? Where are 7/4, 6/4, 4/4 (no particle there, only your "M"), and 1/4? You allow 1/36 and 1/25, but not 1/16 or 1/9. Basically, you allow yourself any ratio that seems to work, and explain away any ratio that doesn't work as being disallowed due to an unknown "forbidden state" rule. No wonder you can fit anything you want! > 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 that's your attitude, so be it. Go ahead and waste years of your life on these fantasies. Does anybody on these newsgroups really care? > If lurkers have sincere questions that are not motivated by > psychological pathology, feel free to ask away and I will respond. Jerry
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 29 Apr 2010 00:29 On Apr 28, 7:22 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Go ahead and waste years of your life on these fantasies. > Does anybody really care? > ----------------------------- That is essentially what Planck said to Einstein when the latter first talked to Planck about his ideas for a new relativistic theory of gravitation: 'You are almost certainly wrong and even if you are right, no one will believe you.' Usually only a rare minority of people have the vision to see where the path to progress lies. The overwhelming majority are lost in the cosmos without a reliable compass, and so they follow fashions and slicksters because it seems like the safer and more comfortable path. Pays alot better too. Good Luck, RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: eric gisse on 29 Apr 2010 04:32 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Apr 28, 7:22 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> Go ahead and waste years of your life on these fantasies. >> Does anybody really care? >> > ----------------------------- > > That is essentially what Planck said to Einstein when the latter first > talked to Planck about his ideas for a new relativistic theory of > gravitation: 'You are almost certainly wrong and even if you are > right, no one will believe you.' You are neither Planck or Einstein, so don't compare yourself. > > Usually only a rare minority of people have the vision to see where > the path to progress lies. The overwhelming majority are lost in the > cosmos without a reliable compass, and so they follow fashions and > slicksters because it seems like the safer and more comfortable path. > Pays alot better too. You've never studied physics past the college freshman level, have you? > > > Good Luck, > RLO > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 29 Apr 2010 05:57 Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:32:14 -0700: > 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. Bravo! You continue ignoring all criticism to your theory and snipping it from messages... > In case anybody actually cares: You care a lot of! > 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. Thanks by the laugh. Notice that snipping your comments, references, and equations from my messages do not hide your mistakes! :-D a == S/M == "angular momentum per unit mass" is EXACTLY equation (33-4) in MTV. It is trivial exercise for anyone living outside a DSSP universe [*] that if S/M is a specific angular momentum, then S is the angular momentum. "S" becomes from Spin not from Specific :-D Evidently if S/M is "angular momentum per unit mass", then S cannot be "angular momentum per unit mass" as you INCORRECTLY claim above. If still some genious living in a DSSP universe cannot grasp this elementary point, it can go backward in MTV, for example to box 33.1 where says, in point III, that "the mass M and the angular momentum S". As said to you too, other people denotes the angular momentum by the more standard symbol J, thus J = S = aM where J is angular momentum, a is the Kerr-Newmann parameter, and M mass. [*] This leaves out to you. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Jerry on 29 Apr 2010 06:22
On Apr 28, 11:29 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > Good Luck, > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Good luck to you, too. My hope is that with my intentionally rather harsh criticism, I have managed to plant a seed of doubt in you, so that maybe you can stand back and re-evaluate what you have been doing. What you do with the seeds that I have offered is up to you. You can let them germinate and flourish, or you can dump them in the trash. Have you noticed the rabid dog Androcles, who obsessively nips at my heels with incoherent, off-topic posts? On seven occasions, I brought this creature so close to the verge of understanding how great a fool he was, that he "plonked" me. I don't bother with Androcles anymore, deeming him hopeless, but Androcles obviously still burns with blind hatred. You are not an Androcles. Don't turn into one. Jerry |