Subatomic Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum
in [Physics]
|
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 19 May 2010 00:19 On May 18, 1:45 pm, "Al.Riv...(a)gmail.com" <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > D particles are in the n = 8 range [~97 to 98% agreement] > > > B{+/-} correspond to n = 61 [99%] > > > B(s) corresponds to n = 63 [99%] > > > B(c) corresponds to n = 87 [99.8%] > > See my question now? I wonder what is the rule to forbid ranges > (9..60) and (87....) ------------------------------- If you find it worthwhile to study nature in addition to postmodern Platonic fantasies, then you might consider the 1000s of subatomic nuclei and isotopes. Get the picture: 1 AMU, 2 AMU, 3 AMU, ... 41 AMU, ... 67 AMU, ...138 AMU, ...239 AMU, ... Nothing forbids masses corresponding to n =9, 10, 11, 12, ... If you look hard enough you will find these particles everywhere. ALL SUBATOMIC NUCLEI ARE PART OF THE SUBATOMIC PARTICLE MASS SPECTRUM. Can you hear me now? Do you now see why the 100-1800 MeV mass range is the key to the riddle. Here there are preferred and allowed and "forbidden" mass values. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Al.Rivero on 19 May 2010 18:38 On 19 mayo, 06:19, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > Can you hear me now? > > Do you now see why the 100-1800 MeV mass range is the key to the > riddle. Here there are preferred and allowed and "forbidden" mass > values. Ok, come back when you have a rule to explain which values are allowed and which ones are forbidden, that is all I am asking.
From: Androcles on 19 May 2010 18:51 "Al.Rivero(a)gmail.com" <al.rivero(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:18bd18d2-2b92-494f-b2cc-43d4ffbd1aca(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com... On 19 mayo, 06:19, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > Can you hear me now? > > Do you now see why the 100-1800 MeV mass range is the key to the > riddle. Here there are preferred and allowed and "forbidden" mass > values. Ok, come back when you have a rule to explain which values are allowed and which ones are forbidden, that is all I am asking. ====================================== Way to go!
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 19 May 2010 23:22 On May 19, 6:38 pm, "Al.Riv...(a)gmail.com" <al.riv...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Do you now see why the 100-1800 MeV mass range is the key to the > > riddle. Here there are preferred and allowed and "forbidden" mass > > values. ----------------------------------------- > > Ok, come back when you have a rule to explain which values are allowed > and which ones are forbidden, that is all I am asking. ------------------------------------ A reasonable request. I am hoping for the full Kerr-Newman analysis before the end of the year. That should verify or falsify the specificity that you and others understandably require before they consider the new paradigm. But I would not completely neglect the new paradigm while you wait. Your call. RLO www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 20 May 2010 13:25
On May 20, 12:39 am, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote: > > Baez urges that: "we fiddle around" & "forget that darn "2" "... > > Thanks for the laughs guys, hahahaha.. ahahahaha... > hanson in Nara getting Nuru..... massages, that is... > ahahahaha... ----------------------------------------- Take your meds |