Prev: Free Download Of Canonical Science Reports And Executive Summaries
Next: Photon Detector Paradox
From: eric gisse on 27 Jul 2010 08:13
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

Guess the sending to SPR delayed it awhile. I'll send it here now...

> On Jul 26, 11:39 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu>
> wrote:
>>>
>> No time to read your barkings right now, but I'll be sure to
>> carefully
>> examine what you have dug up later tonight.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well Woofy, I have now had time to read your analysis - shocking.
>
> I have no idea where you are getting the 0.0069 and 0.00067 terms you
> use.

Really, no idea at all?

Even though I JUST explained it to you, and even though the numbers were
repeated to you several times along with the literature citation that
produces them?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/abs/nature09250.html

What do you think those (67) and (69) numbers in the measurements mean,
Robert?


> Note that precision has little to do with what we are really
> interested in, which is the accuracy of the predictions.

Which is handily represented by the standard deviation of the measurement.

>
> Here is what I do to compare empirical and theoretical results.
>
> l r_theor - r_emp l / r_emp = relative error

That's not how it is done, Robert. I showed you not only how I was taught
but how it is _actually done_ in scientific publications.

You'll note that I get the same answer as in the actual publication. Not
that this is a difficult thing to do, mind you.

>
> Using this method, which is advocated by a physicist who is also a
> moderator at sci.physics.research, gives me a much more accurate
> comparison of the recent proton radius results.

Uh, what? Relative percentage differences do not give a more accurate
picture of the accuracy of an experiment when compared to the standard
deviation.

This is as literally textbook as you can get, Robert. Modern physics has
been doing it this way for at least a half century. Have you EVER read a
publication that discusses observation?

Students in a freshman physics lab are explicitly taught not to do this,
because the results are misleading. You are picking a favorable
interpretation of the error that only works when you disregard the actual
error in the measurement. This is dishonest, and the editor of literally
any
journal worth a damn would catch this and rip you apart for doing it.

>
> Watch again, Woofy.
>
> 0.88 - 0.84 / 0.84 = 0.0476 [Substandard Model --> 4.8% relative
> error]

I see you can't resist acting childish towards a _scientific theory_.

>
> 0.81 - 0.84 / 0.84 = 0.0357 [Discrete Scale Relativity --> 3.6%
> relative error]

And if you tried to publish this result, your manuscript would be rejected
immediately. You do not take into account the errors in the measurement.

>
> DSR is slightly more accurate than the Substandard Model, given
> present assumptions.
>
> You may not like the way I compare the data because it makes your
> barkings look ill-advised, but you will have to admit that my method
> it simple and more accurate.

It is not 'more accurate'. I don't like it because you are disregarding
basic error analysis. You wouldn't pass a freshman laboratory course if
you pulled this there.

> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> PS: To answer your persistent barkings about the H atom spectrum.
> There is the standard Rydberg formula for this.

The standard Rydberg formula does not take into account spin-orbit
coupling,
spin-spin coupling, Lamb shift, or relativistic effects.

This should have been explained in your quantum theory coursework. Even if
it was 30+ years ago.

> Discrete Scale
> Relativity says that all you need to do for this formula is to replace
> the ad hoc and enigmatic Planck's constant h with G'M^2/c and you will
> retrodict the hydrogen spectrum as well as conventional theory can.

Well, it seems you were never taught the meaning of Planck's constant. It
is
an empirical proportionality constant that relates the frequency of a
photon
and the energy released in the photoelectric effect. It shows up almost
every place else in quantum theory, and as such the value is not arbitrary
as you claim.

The value you want to put in is not even close to being correct.

> If you want to get fancy you can repeat this modification with the
> full solution of the Schrodinger equation.

There is no G in the Schroedinger equation, Robert. Nor is there a sane
reason to put it in there.

>
> You will need to understand Discrete Scale Relativity to get the
> correct values for G' and M, which is the revised Planck mass. The
> advantage of the DSR modeling is that you avoid the ad hoc h-fix and
> finally get a realistic, visualizable and comprehensible dynamics for
> the atom based on General Relativity and classical Electrodynamics
> [Kerr-Newman metric]. A big step forward!

h is not ad-hoc. Please stop making things up and lying about how your
theory is better.

>
> Keep demonstrating that World Class Show Dog pedigree and demeanor,
> even if you are a common pit bull of unknown provenance.
>
> RLO
> www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Marginalizing me like that won't make you less wrong. It will, however,
emphasize how dishonest you are.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Free Download Of Canonical Science Reports And Executive Summaries
Next: Photon Detector Paradox