Science > Physics > Andro's Number Pattern Regcognition --- for the Mass Spectrum
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"hanson" |
| Date: |
31 May 2007 01:17:59 PM |
| Object: |
Andro's Number Pattern Regcognition --- for the Mass Spectrum |
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:Y_J6i.62907$Ug.23900@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:ckF6i.2265$XC3.1870@trnddc04...
: "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
: news:T2D6i.75593$n_.32311@attbi_s21...
: Tom Potter wrote.....
[Andro]
I've just taught my buddy's 14-year-old grandson extended fractions.
sqrt(2) = 1.4142135623730950488016887242097 (given)
= 1 + 0.4142135623730950488016887242097
= 1 + 1/2.4142135623730950488016887242097
= 1 + 1/(2 + 0.4142135623730950488016887242097)
= 1 + 1/(2 + 0.4142135623730950488016887242097)
= 1 + 1/(2 + 1/2.4142135623730950488016887242097)
= 1 + 1/(2 + 1/(2+0.4142135623730950488016887242097))
= 1 + 1/(2 + 1/(2+ 1/2.4142135623730950488016887242097))
sqrt(2) = 1 + 1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+...))))
sqrt(3) = 1 + 1/(1+1/(2+1/(1+1/(2+...))))
Can you see the pattern?
[hanson]
sqrt(2) = 1 + 1/(*2*+1/(2+1/(*2*+1/(2+...))))
sqrt(3) = 1 + 1/(*1*+1/(2+1/(*1*+1/(2+...))))
:: sqrt(4) = 1 + 1/(*0*+1/(2+1/(*0*+1/(2+...)))) ... ... (?)
There you have a pattern in the affected *0*, *1* & the *2*,
if that is what you are after. ... I haven't checked it though.
[Andro]
It's amazing how quickly they catch on at that age.
If you can, set it up on a spreadsheet as I did and calculate pi
as a ratio of two integers.
42581509225984
pi ~= --------------------------
13554115355257
54608393
sqrt(2) ~= ---------------------
38613965
Check it with a calculator.
Now take the acid test, "turn the knob" and calculate sqrt(4).
[hanson]
2 = (54608393/38613965)^2... so, what are you trying to say?
That is all very interesting but I have some such number sequences
for you that have the meat of physics attached to them. I got them
published in some peer reviewed rag by Elsevier, about 30 years
ago when I was a young squirt... ahahaha... I thought that I had
posted it too but I couldn't locate it, except on the web, it being
cited in some article which said: hanson, "On the Mass Spectrum
of Nucleons" in Spec. Sci. Tech. ISSN 0155-7785, Vol 3, No 5.
The only thing that I still have are notes of the number sets below.
If you set the rest mass of the electron, e = 1, then the other
subnucleons appear as the following mass multiples of the e
mass: (° are the neutral particles) calcul. vs. measured
Muon/e = 3^3 * 6^(1/2) * pi = 207.773 vs. 206.771
Pion°/e = 4 * 3^(-1/2) * 9^(1/3) *pi^(7/2) = 264.001 vs. 264.204
Pion/e = 3^3 *3^(-1/2) * pi^(5/2) = 272.695 vs. 273.187
Kaon/e = 2 * 3^2 * 3^(1/2) * pi^3 = 966.680 vs. 966.525
Kaon°/e = 4 * 3^(-1/2) * 9^(2/3) * pi^4 = 973.333 vs. 974.154
Proton/e = 6 * pi^5 (Denke 1951) = 1836.118 vs.1836.096
Neutron = 2^5 * 3^(-1) * pi^(9/2) = 1841.633 vs.1839.421
& the list continues unabashed into the Hyperons after the neutron.
Note that the charged particles have a common factor of 3*pi,
whereas the neutral (°) ones have (4/3)*pi^(7/2) as a group factor.
So, can you find the one equation for uniting these number sets?
If you can and your result gives a hint as the physics of the processes
involved in it, indicating the cause for these steps, then that would be
no mean feat done by you, Andro.
Take care,
hanson
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Andro's Number Pattern Regcognition --- for the Mass Spectrum |
31 May 2007 07:05:01 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:rjE7i.24641$NM.7553@trnddc02...
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: news:Y_J6i.62907$Ug.23900@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
: > news:ckF6i.2265$XC3.1870@trnddc04...
: > : "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
: > : news:T2D6i.75593$n_.32311@attbi_s21...
: > : Tom Potter wrote.....
: >
: [Andro]
: > I've just taught my buddy's 14-year-old grandson extended fractions.
: > sqrt(2) = 1.4142135623730950488016887242097 (given)
: > = 1 + 0.4142135623730950488016887242097
: > = 1 + 1/2.4142135623730950488016887242097
: > = 1 + 1/(2 + 0.4142135623730950488016887242097)
: > = 1 + 1/(2 + 0.4142135623730950488016887242097)
: > = 1 + 1/(2 + 1/2.4142135623730950488016887242097)
: > = 1 + 1/(2 + 1/(2+0.4142135623730950488016887242097))
: > = 1 + 1/(2 + 1/(2+ 1/2.4142135623730950488016887242097))
: >
: > sqrt(2) = 1 + 1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+1/(2+...))))
: > sqrt(3) = 1 + 1/(1+1/(2+1/(1+1/(2+...))))
: > Can you see the pattern?
: >
: [hanson]
: > sqrt(2) = 1 + 1/(*2*+1/(2+1/(*2*+1/(2+...))))
: > sqrt(3) = 1 + 1/(*1*+1/(2+1/(*1*+1/(2+...))))
::: sqrt(4) = 1 + 1/(*0*+1/(2+1/(*0*+1/(2+...)))) ... ... (?)
: There you have a pattern in the affected *0*, *1* & the *2*,
: if that is what you are after. ... I haven't checked it though.
Oh dear, you fell for it.
sqrt(2) = 1.414... and requires calculation.
sqrt(3) = 1.732... and requires calculation.
sqrt(4) = 2, buddy. That was the acid test, you don't need to check it.
Now you can say "dang" instead of "hahaha"!
But the lesson is: That's pretty much what goes on in Dingleberry World,
set up a seemingly complicated slice of mathematics, wrap it up in jargon
and then claim it has special properties.
Blind Poe pointed to a web site that claimed the geometric mass of
the sun was 1.7(something) kilometers in his desperate attempt to
prove General Relativity. Fuckin' mass measured in distance?
Just how deranged are these people?
: >
: [Andro]
: > It's amazing how quickly they catch on at that age.
: > If you can, set it up on a spreadsheet as I did and calculate pi
: > as a ratio of two integers.
: >
: > 42581509225984
: > pi ~= --------------------------
: > 13554115355257
: >
: > 54608393
: > sqrt(2) ~= ---------------------
: > 38613965
: >
: > Check it with a calculator.
: > Now take the acid test, "turn the knob" and calculate sqrt(4).
: >
: [hanson]
: 2 = (54608393/38613965)^2... so, what are you trying to say?
Hmm...
I'm saying 54608393 divided by 38613965
= 1.414 213 562 373 094 8116827681384183
and sqrt(2) = 1.414 213 562 373 095 0488016887242097
---------------------------------------------^
(according to Windows calculator) so there is a slight difference.
The square root of 2 is irrational, meaning it is impossible
to express it as a ratio of two integers.
: That is all very interesting but I have some such number sequences
: for you that have the meat of physics attached to them. I got them
: published in some peer reviewed rag by Elsevier, about 30 years
: ago when I was a young squirt... ahahaha... I thought that I had
: posted it too but I couldn't locate it, except on the web, it being
: cited in some article which said: hanson, "On the Mass Spectrum
: of Nucleons" in Spec. Sci. Tech. ISSN 0155-7785, Vol 3, No 5.
: The only thing that I still have are notes of the number sets below.
: >
: If you set the rest mass of the electron, e = 1, then the other
: subnucleons appear as the following mass multiples of the e
: mass: (° are the neutral particles) calcul. vs. measured
: Muon/e = 3^3 * 6^(1/2) * pi = 207.773 vs. 206.771
: Pion°/e = 4 * 3^(-1/2) * 9^(1/3) *pi^(7/2) = 264.001 vs. 264.204
: Pion/e = 3^3 *3^(-1/2) * pi^(5/2) = 272.695 vs. 273.187
: Kaon/e = 2 * 3^2 * 3^(1/2) * pi^3 = 966.680 vs. 966.525
: Kaon°/e = 4 * 3^(-1/2) * 9^(2/3) * pi^4 = 973.333 vs. 974.154
: Proton/e = 6 * pi^5 (Denke 1951) = 1836.118 vs.1836.096
: Neutron = 2^5 * 3^(-1) * pi^(9/2) = 1841.633 vs.1839.421
:
: & the list continues unabashed into the Hyperons after the neutron.
: Note that the charged particles have a common factor of 3*pi,
: whereas the neutral (°) ones have (4/3)*pi^(7/2) as a group factor.
: >
: So, can you find the one equation for uniting these number sets?
: If you can and your result gives a hint as the physics of the processes
: involved in it, indicating the cause for these steps, then that would be
: no mean feat done by you, Andro.
: Take care,
: hanson
I don't intend to even search, for the very simple reason that nobody
has established that an electron has mass, it is merely assumed.
Electrons have charge. Mass is measured by force. When I see an
electron fall at 9.8 meters per second per second in the absence
of magnetic or electric fields then you can claim an electron has mass,
but you still won't know what mass (or matter) is.
Mass is a property of matter, the measure of it's amount.
The LHC has been designed and built horizontally at enormous
expense when it should have been built vertically. <shrug>
Let's put it another way.
Molecules are numbered in the millions with many properties.
Atoms, about a hundred different elements, not many different properties.
Neutrons, protons and electrons.... just three properties.
The electron has the property of charge. No mass.
The neutron has the property of mass. No charge.
The proton has both charge and mass. Or does it?
All those other weirdo particles still can only be detected with
the three basic forces; gravity, electrostatics and magnetics.
All of physics is assumption, and that includes the atom. A useful model for
technology, but still only a model. I prefer cathode rays to little balls
with
minus signs painted on them; physics needs to back up and explore
different blind alleys until we get closer to the truth, and there are many
blind alleys.
Let's try another one.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Andro's Number Pattern Regcognition --- for the Mass Spectrum |
01 Jun 2007 01:14:31 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:NoJ7i.52986$4a.4308@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk... or
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/91f780782232c835
wherein he went onto the fast track of "different ways to skin the cat"
and bypassing the mass spectrum in the post from
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> who asked in message
news:rjE7i.24641$NM.7553@trnddc02...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/efde9f2a69e4846a
: If you set the rest mass of the electron, e = 1, then the other
: subnucleons appear as the following mass multiples of the e
: mass: (° are the neutral particles) calcul. vs. measured
: Muon/e = 3^3 * 6^(1/2) * pi = 207.773 vs. 206.771
: Pion°/e = 4 * 3^(-1/2) * 9^(1/3) *pi^(7/2) = 264.001 vs. 264.204
: Pion/e = 3^3 *3^(-1/2) * pi^(5/2) = 272.695 vs. 273.187
: Kaon/e = 2 * 3^2 * 3^(1/2) * pi^3 = 966.680 vs. 966.525
: Kaon°/e = 4 * 3^(-1/2) * 9^(2/3) * pi^4 = 973.333 vs. 974.154
: Proton/e = 6 * pi^5 (Denke 1951) = 1836.118 vs.1836.096
: Neutron = 2^5 * 3^(-1) * pi^(9/2) = 1841.633 vs.1839.421
: ... so, can you find the one equation for uniting these number sets...
to which Andro responded:
[Andro]
I don't intend to even search, for the very simple reason that nobody
has established that an electron has mass, it is merely assumed.
Electrons have charge. Mass is measured by force. When I see an
electron fall at 9.8 meters per second per second in the absence
of magnetic or electric fields then you can claim an electron has ,
mass but you still won't know what mass (or matter) is.
Mass is a property of matter, the measure of it's amount.
The LHC has been designed and built horizontally at enormous
expense when it should have been built vertically. <shrug>
Let's put it another way.
Molecules are numbered in the millions with many properties.
Atoms, about a hundred different elements, not many different
properties. Neutrons, protons and electrons.... just 3 properties.
The electron has the property of charge. No mass.
The neutron has the property of mass. No charge.
The proton has both charge and mass. Or does it?
All those other weirdo particles still can only be detected with
the three basic forces; gravity, electrostatics and magnetics.
All of physics is assumption, and that includes the atom. A useful
model for technology, but still only a model. I prefer cathode rays
to little balls with minus signs painted on them; physics needs to
back up and explore different blind alleys until we get closer to
the truth, and there are many blind alleys.
Let's try another one.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
[hanson]
ahahahaha... Not so fast, not so fast, Andro... You are racing from
digging another shovel full of dirt out of the hole for the Einstein
Dingleberries' grave-site with....
=A= What goes on "in the Einstein Dingleberry World" is that,
=A= obvious, intuitive and empirically correct and "simple events
=A= are set up as seemingly complicated slices of mathematics,
=A= wrapped up in jargon & then claimed to have special properties"
.... ahahaha...
.... and then you quickly run and show another way to skin the
cat with your "mass-freeelectron " physics, which will give Yehiel
Porat a whole new set of hemmies since according to his method
of skinning the cat, there is no physics if there is no mass, IHOW:
"No mass - No physics."... ahahaha... and then you, Andro, go into
high gear... onto a Grand tour, out to far away Algol. ... ahahaha...
I says let's savor the smell of the roses along the way as we skin
the cats, one by one, in the many different ways.
Let us stay with the mass and reflect in the issue for the moment.
[Andro]
nobody has established that an electron has mass, it is merely
assumed.
Electrons have charge. Mass is measured by force. When I see an
electron fall at 9.8 meters per second per second in the absence
of magnetic or electric fields then you can claim an electron has
mass, but you still won't know what mass (or matter) is.
[hanson]
True, all experiments, from Thomson/Pais/Millikan and others
who did establish experimentally the e/m value and then the
e-value from which via e/(e/m) = m, they "inferred" the mass
associated with the electron, did so by measuring the electron's
fall in the 9.8 "g"-field **with/in** the presence of EM fields.
So, your assertion that he electron has no mass (as an object)
is a valid point for modeling nature, which is corroborated
by very many other observations or notions like
== m = E/c^2, with mass being a manifestation of energy at rest,
== or more specifically that on the microscopic level a system
can be observed that exhibits the manifest characteristics of the
electric charge and emits a specitific wave length [1/(f_L*F)]
but has the mysterious behavior of an invisible mini Kerr-black hole
[c^2/G] of a Plank length [sqrt(hG/(2*pi*c^3)] diameter that conducts
some gyrations like [a*pi*sqrt(3)/3] in 3D space, ... 3 facets which
when combined will produce a single property with the dimension of
mass that matches in size exactly what is attributed to the electron.
== On the broadest scale.. the hunt for mass in the micro world has
be devastatingly disappointing. Whenever we probe, and the deeper
we probe, the more energy we need, ... yet the more empty space
we find instead of the elusive thing called "mass".... ahahaha...
So, it appears that under most circumstances "mass" is an illusion.
Mass may be indeed, just like you have noted, only a be measure
for matter like all the other properties which are attributed to matter.
Mass as a ponderable lump pf matter is only manifest in our daily
affairs like when heaving a massive sack of cement, or getting a fat
*****.... but the moment the mass gets away from the size and place
of our own immediate human realm, like in the atomic domain or
OUTWARDS in space (Algol), mass becomes something that can't
be touched but can only be in inferred by its "action at a distance"
..... ahahaha...
Now, the real fun begins... So, there are credible notions that mass
as a real object does not exist... and from Louis Savain's point of
(particle) view neither do time nor space exist but they too are also
just mere illusions, which to be fair, leads us to the inescapable
conclusion that we have now, long last, arrived at the UNIFIED, new
frontiers of physics:
**** a physics without Mass, without Time, and without Space ***
ahahahaha....
Well, actually, that is not laughing matter.... But why in the *****
does this make me laugh and causes me to ROTFLMAO?
Thanks for all the laughs, Andro and all you other splendid guys.
Mind you, I am not laughing at you. Not at all! Because YOU guys
didn't make this world!. You are like me, clean, honest & pristine
like the driven snow... wondering too: "What the ***** is going on"
..... ahahaha... ahahaha...
Finally, let's crank the crank to see all the Einstein Dingleberries
and the QMassters look up from their sacred scripts, celebrate
and hear them parrot, repeating from their books:
"See, cranks!.. We told you so"...
But... & however... there is that "thing about things" ...If these poor
parrots only knew... if they only knew what is buried behind and
underneath their book pages & in between the lines which they read,
learn by heart and then parrot them as their acquired belief system.
Listen: "See, parrots!.. We just told you so"...
ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Andro's Number Pattern Regcognition --- for the Mass Spectrum |
01 Jun 2007 03:54:56 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:bmZ7i.29$V01.13@trnddc02...
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: news:NoJ7i.52986$4a.4308@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk... or
: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/91f780782232c835
: wherein he went onto the fast track of "different ways to skin the cat"
: and bypassing the mass spectrum in the post from
: > "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> who asked in message
: > news:rjE7i.24641$NM.7553@trnddc02...
: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/efde9f2a69e4846a
:: If you set the rest mass of the electron, e = 1, then the other
:: subnucleons appear as the following mass multiples of the e
:: mass: (° are the neutral particles) calcul. vs. measured
:: Muon/e = 3^3 * 6^(1/2) * pi = 207.773 vs. 206.771
:: Pion°/e = 4 * 3^(-1/2) * 9^(1/3) *pi^(7/2) = 264.001 vs. 264.204
:: Pion/e = 3^3 *3^(-1/2) * pi^(5/2) = 272.695 vs. 273.187
:: Kaon/e = 2 * 3^2 * 3^(1/2) * pi^3 = 966.680 vs. 966.525
:: Kaon°/e = 4 * 3^(-1/2) * 9^(2/3) * pi^4 = 973.333 vs. 974.154
:: Proton/e = 6 * pi^5 (Denke 1951) = 1836.118 vs.1836.096
:: Neutron = 2^5 * 3^(-1) * pi^(9/2) = 1841.633 vs.1839.421
:: ... so, can you find the one equation for uniting these number sets...
: to which Andro responded:
: >
: [Andro]
: > I don't intend to even search, for the very simple reason that nobody
: > has established that an electron has mass, it is merely assumed.
: > Electrons have charge. Mass is measured by force. When I see an
: > electron fall at 9.8 meters per second per second in the absence
: > of magnetic or electric fields then you can claim an electron has
: > mass but you still won't know what mass (or matter) is.
: >
: > Mass is a property of matter, the measure of it's amount.
: >
: > The LHC has been designed and built horizontally at enormous
: > expense when it should have been built vertically. <shrug>
: >
: > Let's put it another way.
: > Molecules are numbered in the millions with many properties.
: > Atoms, about a hundred different elements, not many different
: > properties. Neutrons, protons and electrons.... just 3 properties.
: > The electron has the property of charge. No mass.
: > The neutron has the property of mass. No charge.
: > The proton has both charge and mass. Or does it?
: > All those other weirdo particles still can only be detected with
: > the three basic forces; gravity, electrostatics and magnetics.
: >
: > All of physics is assumption, and that includes the atom. A useful
: > model for technology, but still only a model. I prefer cathode rays
: > to little balls with minus signs painted on them; physics needs to
: > back up and explore different blind alleys until we get closer to
: > the truth, and there are many blind alleys.
: > Let's try another one.
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
: >
: [hanson]
: ahahahaha... Not so fast, not so fast, Andro... You are racing from
: digging another shovel full of dirt out of the hole for the Einstein
: Dingleberries' grave-site with....
: =A= What goes on "in the Einstein Dingleberry World" is that,
: =A= obvious, intuitive and empirically correct and "simple events
: =A= are set up as seemingly complicated slices of mathematics,
: =A= wrapped up in jargon & then claimed to have special properties"
: ... ahahaha...
: >
: ... and then you quickly run and show another way to skin the
: cat with your "mass-freeelectron " physics, which will give Yehiel
: Porat a whole new set of hemmies since according to his method
: of skinning the cat, there is no physics if there is no mass, IHOW:
: "No mass - No physics."... ahahaha... and then you, Andro, go into
: high gear... onto a Grand tour, out to far away Algol. ... ahahaha...
: >
: I says let's savor the smell of the roses along the way as we skin
: the cats, one by one, in the many different ways.
You leave my familiar alone for your own sake, he's got industrial
grade 4 lasers on the ends of his paws and he pisses on the rose
bush next door. I don't mind the smell of ***** but I draw the line
at ***** *****. If you like the stink you are welcome to it.
: >
: Let us stay with the mass and reflect in the issue for the moment.
: >
: [Andro]
: > nobody has established that an electron has mass, it is merely
: > assumed.
: > Electrons have charge. Mass is measured by force. When I see an
: > electron fall at 9.8 meters per second per second in the absence
: > of magnetic or electric fields then you can claim an electron has
: > mass, but you still won't know what mass (or matter) is.
: >
: [hanson]
: True, all experiments, from Thomson/Pais/Millikan and others
: who did establish experimentally the e/m value and then the
: e-value from which via e/(e/m) = m, they "inferred" the mass
: associated with the electron, did so by measuring the electron's
: fall in the 9.8 "g"-field **with/in** the presence of EM fields.
: >
: So, your assertion that he electron has no mass (as an object)
: is a valid point for modeling nature, which is corroborated
: by very many other observations or notions like
: == m = E/c^2, with mass being a manifestation of energy at rest,
: == or more specifically that on the microscopic level a system
: can be observed that exhibits the manifest characteristics of the
: electric charge and emits a specitific wave length [1/(f_L*F)]
: but has the mysterious behavior of an invisible mini Kerr-black hole
: [c^2/G] of a Plank length [sqrt(hG/(2*pi*c^3)] diameter that conducts
: some gyrations like [a*pi*sqrt(3)/3] in 3D space, ... 3 facets which
: when combined will produce a single property with the dimension of
: mass that matches in size exactly what is attributed to the electron.
:
: == On the broadest scale.. the hunt for mass in the micro world has
: be devastatingly disappointing. Whenever we probe, and the deeper
: we probe, the more energy we need, ... yet the more empty space
: we find instead of the elusive thing called "mass".... ahahaha...
:
: So, it appears that under most circumstances "mass" is an illusion.
: Mass may be indeed, just like you have noted, only a be measure
: for matter like all the other properties which are attributed to matter.
:
: Mass as a ponderable lump pf matter is only manifest in our daily
: affairs like when heaving a massive sack of cement, or getting a fat
: *****.... but the moment the mass gets away from the size and place
: of our own immediate human realm, like in the atomic domain or
: OUTWARDS in space (Algol), mass becomes something that can't
: be touched but can only be in inferred by its "action at a distance"
: .... ahahaha...
Absolutely correct. We perceive what we expect to see according to
the model we employ. No matter how much it puzzles, action-at-a-distance
is fact of the Universe and mass is the end points it connects.
: >
: Now, the real fun begins... So, there are credible notions that mass
: as a real object does not exist... and from Louis Savain's point of
: (particle) view neither do time nor space exist but they too are also
: just mere illusions, which to be fair, leads us to the inescapable
: conclusion that we have now, long last, arrived at the UNIFIED, new
: frontiers of physics:
: **** a physics without Mass, without Time, and without Space ***
: ahahahaha....
: Well, actually, that is not laughing matter.... But why in the *****
: does this make me laugh and causes me to ROTFLMAO?
I can answer that.
You are laughing for the same reason we laugh at some poor guy
who steps on a banana skin, spins arse over tit and winds up in traction,
and even then that's funny.
But... the bloke that went arse over tit isn't laughing.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/t/traction.asp (scroll down)
'I'm saying I want to share your pain you selfish *****.'
: >
: Thanks for all the laughs, Andro and all you other splendid guys.
: Mind you, I am not laughing at you. Not at all! Because YOU guys
: didn't make this world!. You are like me, clean, honest & pristine
: like the driven snow... wondering too: "What the ***** is going on"
: .... ahahaha... ahahaha...
: >
: Finally, let's crank the crank to see all the Einstein Dingleberries
: and the QMassters look up from their sacred scripts, celebrate
: and hear them parrot, repeating from their books:
: "See, cranks!.. We told you so"...
: >
: But... & however... there is that "thing about things" ...If these poor
: parrots only knew... if they only knew what is buried behind and
: underneath their book pages & in between the lines which they read,
: learn by heart and then parrot them as their acquired belief system.
: Listen: "See, parrots!.. We just told you so"...
: ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
:
Keep away from roses, *****-***** is going on and this could be worse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1909229.stm
"It was quite frightening," he said. "Two of the cats next door were
actually watching me putting the dung down. You could feel that they were
thinking 'what is he getting up to? It won't work'. And it hasn't.
"They sniffed. They were suspicious, and eventually they thought 'it doesn't
bother us' and they moved on. But they're around, they're wandering."
Very philosophical, cats are. And they like parrot, no need to skin it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "H. Wabnig .... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -" |
|
| Title: Re: Andro's Number Pattern Regcognition --- for the Mass Spectrum |
01 Jun 2007 08:49:25 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:17:59 GMT, "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote:
............
That is all very interesting but I have some such number sequences
for you that have the meat of physics attached to them. I got them
published in some peer reviewed rag by Elsevier, about 30 years
ago when I was a young squirt... ahahaha... I thought that I had
posted it too but I couldn't locate it, except on the web, it being
cited in some article which said: hanson, "On the Mass Spectrum
of Nucleons" in Spec. Sci. Tech. ISSN 0155-7785, Vol 3, No 5.
The only thing that I still have are notes of the number sets below.
If you set the rest mass of the electron, e = 1, then the other
subnucleons appear as the following mass multiples of the e
mass: (° are the neutral particles) calcul. vs. measured
Muon/e = 3^3 * 6^(1/2) * pi = 207.773 vs. 206.771
Pion°/e = 4 * 3^(-1/2) * 9^(1/3) *pi^(7/2) = 264.001 vs. 264.204
Pion/e = 3^3 *3^(-1/2) * pi^(5/2) = 272.695 vs. 273.187
Kaon/e = 2 * 3^2 * 3^(1/2) * pi^3 = 966.680 vs. 966.525
Kaon°/e = 4 * 3^(-1/2) * 9^(2/3) * pi^4 = 973.333 vs. 974.154
Proton/e = 6 * pi^5 (Denke 1951) = 1836.118 vs.1836.096
Neutron = 2^5 * 3^(-1) * pi^(9/2) = 1841.633 vs.1839.421
The deviations are there,
because you missed the relativistic corrections...
(hehe, just joking),
w.
--
soc.culture.austria answering service
proposals and complaints to:
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Comment for James Harris regarding prime number counting
UPPER-BOUND FOR THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN CHESS!!!!!
Number Crunchers Wanted for SETI
A new dimensional number for Dirac; Computing whether Earth life is unique or whether there are aliens out there
material coherence: approximation for large n where n is the number of atoms
Minimum number of dimensions for physical space.
closed form for instanton number of quintic threefold
UPPER-BOUND FOR THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN CHESS!!!!!
| Incredible find for Life based on Carbon (atomic number 6)
Physics News Update -- Number 655, September 26, 2003
Physics News Update -- Number 666, December 18, 2003
Physics News Update -- Number 671, January 30, 2004
Physics News Update - Number 672, February 2, 2004
Physics News Update -- Number 673, February 18, 2004
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 686 May 28, 2004 by Phillip F. Scheweand Ben Stein
|
|
|
