| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"RD O.Meara" |
| Date: |
15 Jul 2003 08:46:33 PM |
| Object: |
Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
Is this a new fundamental discovery?
----- The claim July 15, 2003
In my work with computers,
I believe that I have come across a new fundamental function
that relates basic math constants of nature and the lower integers.
----
Most remarkable is that the function is of the form
"Y = mX + b" or a straight line
that resulted from curve fitting eight points below,
where the point has significant integers or
important constants as its components.
---
Even more interesting is the slope 'm' is an important
constant from the area of Energy; the Ryberg Constant
This constant is related to radiated energy observations
and Planck's constant..
---------- points of Proof
Here are the eight points; try plotting therm yourself.
# X Y (to a resolution of four significant digits )
1 pi/2 pi/2
2 P^2 "e"
3 3 pi
4 4 P^3
5 5 16/3
6 8 69/8
7 -4/4 -5/4
8 -9 -10
Readers are reminded P is the golden mean,
and that "P^2 = P + 1" and "4 = P^3 - P^-3".
-------------------------------------------
I get the following curve from these 8 points:
" Y = Rbc * X - 0.153 " where Rbc is the Ryberg constant of 1.0973
It is as if, value 'X' has weight 'Y'
I imagine it as a plane with a Ryberg slope;
which I call it "Jod's Plane".
------------
I have never found any reference to the above
so I believe I can therefore claim to be its discoverer!
What do you think?
--
....Regards ; send email to "rd.o.meara@pobox.com" re: Jod's Plane
.
|
|
| User: "fishfry" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
15 Jul 2003 08:54:25 PM |
|
|
In article <tcb9hvkrbvkh78at2ic47bkgqu5a2j87q8@4ax.com>,
RD O.Meara <rd.o.meara@pob.com> wrote:
Is this a new fundamental discovery?
----- The claim July 15, 2003
In my work with computers,
I believe that I have come across a new fundamental function
that relates basic math constants of nature and the lower integers.
----
Most remarkable is that the function is of the form
"Y = mX + b" or a straight line
that resulted from curve fitting eight points below,
where the point has significant integers or
important constants as its components.
---
Even more interesting is the slope 'm' is an important
constant from the area of Energy; the Ryberg Constant
This constant is related to radiated energy observations
and Planck's constant..
---------- points of Proof
Here are the eight points; try plotting therm yourself.
# X Y (to a resolution of four significant digits )
1 pi/2 pi/2
2 P^2 "e"
3 3 pi
4 4 P^3
5 5 16/3
6 8 69/8
7 -4/4 -5/4
8 -9 -10
Readers are reminded P is the golden mean,
and that "P^2 = P + 1" and "4 = P^3 - P^-3".
-------------------------------------------
I get the following curve from these 8 points:
" Y = Rbc * X - 0.153 " where Rbc is the Ryberg constant of 1.0973
It is as if, value 'X' has weight 'Y'
I imagine it as a plane with a Ryberg slope;
which I call it "Jod's Plane".
------------
I have never found any reference to the above
so I believe I can therefore claim to be its discoverer!
What do you think?
You discovered the equation of a straight line? I don't get it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Israel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
15 Jul 2003 11:03:28 PM |
|
|
In article <tcb9hvkrbvkh78at2ic47bkgqu5a2j87q8@4ax.com>,
RD O.Meara <rd.o.meara@pob.com> wrote:
I believe that I have come across a new fundamental function
that relates basic math constants of nature and the lower integers.
Even more interesting is the slope 'm' is an important
constant from the area of Energy; the Ryberg Constant
" Y = Rbc * X - 0.153 " where Rbc is the Ryberg constant of 1.0973
The Rydberg constant is not a pure number. It has units of 1/length:
approximately 1.09737 * 10^7 m^(-1). If some other unit of length was
used, the number would be different. The fact that you get a number
approximately 1.0973 (without any units) is therefore just a coincidence.
Robert Israel
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
16 Jul 2003 01:08:55 AM |
|
|
"Gerry Myerson" <gerry@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote in message
news:gerry-52DB14.15470816072003@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au...
In article <bf2iqg$4ib$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>,
israel@math.ubc.ca (Robert Israel) wrote:
In article <tcb9hvkrbvkh78at2ic47bkgqu5a2j87q8@4ax.com>,
RD O.Meara <rd.o.meara@pob.com> wrote:
I believe that I have come across a new fundamental function
that relates basic math constants of nature and the lower integers.
Even more interesting is the slope 'm' is an important
constant from the area of Energy; the Ryberg Constant
" Y = Rbc * X - 0.153 " where Rbc is the Ryberg constant of 1.0973
The Rydberg constant is not a pure number. It has units of 1/length:
approximately 1.09737 * 10^7 m^(-1). If some other unit of length was
used, the number would be different. The fact that you get a number
approximately 1.0973 (without any units) is therefore just a
coincidence.
Well, either that, or proof positive that the metric system is
the right way to go.
I wonder how that formula would work
in furlong, fortnight, stone units?
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZZBunker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
16 Jul 2003 05:06:48 AM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:<bf2pu9$aidu8$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Gerry Myerson" <gerry@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote in message
news:gerry-52DB14.15470816072003@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au...
In article <bf2iqg$4ib$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>,
israel@math.ubc.ca (Robert Israel) wrote:
In article <tcb9hvkrbvkh78at2ic47bkgqu5a2j87q8@4ax.com>,
RD O.Meara <rd.o.meara@pob.com> wrote:
I believe that I have come across a new fundamental function
that relates basic math constants of nature and the lower integers.
Even more interesting is the slope 'm' is an important
constant from the area of Energy; the Ryberg Constant
" Y = Rbc * X - 0.153 " where Rbc is the Ryberg constant of 1.0973
The Rydberg constant is not a pure number. It has units of 1/length:
approximately 1.09737 * 10^7 m^(-1). If some other unit of length was
used, the number would be different. The fact that you get a number
approximately 1.0973 (without any units) is therefore just a
coincidence.
Well, either that, or proof positive that the metric system is
the right way to go.
I wonder how that formula would work
in furlong, fortnight, stone units?
It would work just like Relativity works, it wouldn't.
The correct formula is
Gravity = 0.43*ARCTAN(PI) + SQRT(FORTRAN) + MOSES*JESUS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
16 Jul 2003 06:20:50 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (16 Jul 2003 03:06:48 -0700) it happened
(ZZBunker) wrote in <e4a0829b.0307160206.2d2a5db@posting.google.com>:
I wonder how that formula would work
in furlong, fortnight, stone units?
It would work just like Relativity works, it wouldn't.
The correct formula is
Gravity = 0.43*ARCTAN(PI) + SQRT(FORTRAN) + MOSES*JESUS.
WHOTS PI GOT TO DO WIS IT?
I thought that is only used in circular reasoning?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Israel" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
16 Jul 2003 02:24:47 PM |
|
|
In article <33oahvou9epi4s06g3b14o3jb5vm9p55i6@4ax.com>,
RD O.Meara <rd.o.meara@pob.com> wrote:
Just a coincidence ; give me a break and think about it ?
that's like saying if the Proton-electron ratio was my slope ,
it would be one too.
I just gave a precise relationships between all of these numbers
:1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10,'e',pi,P^3,P^2 and Zeta.
[ to 3 to 4 significant digit width minimum; ]
3 to 4 significant digits is not "precise". It's very easy to
get approximate relations between numbers, with a lot better precision
than that. For example,
2 pi^2 - e + 4 e^2 + ln(250/3) = 51
(approximately)
Robert Israel
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shaun Webb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
17 Jul 2003 10:16:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:25:54 -0700, RD O.Meara wrote:
Just a coincidence ; give me a break and think about it ?
that's like saying if the Proton-electron ratio was my slope , it would
be one too.
No. You misunderstand. THe Proton-electron ratio is dimensionless. If
you picked numbers and came up with that slope, it would probably also
just be a coincidence, but it would be more interesting and we would pay
more attention.
The Rydberg constant has a dimension. So its numerical value depends on
what our definition of 1m is. That definition is completely arbitrary
-if we had chosen 1m to be shorter or longer, the Rydberg constant would
be different. It stands to reason that there is absolutely nothing
special about the number 1.09737.
Go for the fine structure and report back.
Shaun
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD O.Meara" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
18 Jul 2003 09:21:30 AM |
|
|
All my discovery says is that there is
a very significant geometrical interpretation
to the ryberg constant's magnitude
and that a deeper meaning MIGHT be involved.
All from my discoverey of three very fundamental points.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 03:16:36 GMT, Shaun Webb <shaunwebbnospam@shaw.ca>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:25:54 -0700, RD O.Meara wrote:
Just a coincidence ; give me a break and think about it ?
that's like saying if the Proton-electron ratio was my slope , it would
be one too.
No. You misunderstand. THe Proton-electron ratio is dimensionless. If
you picked numbers and came up with that slope, it would probably also
just be a coincidence, but it would be more interesting and we would pay
more attention.
The Rydberg constant has a dimension. So its numerical value depends on
what our definition of 1m is. That definition is completely arbitrary
-if we had chosen 1m to be shorter or longer, the Rydberg constant would
be different. It stands to reason that there is absolutely nothing
special about the number 1.09737.
Go for the fine structure and report back.
Shaun
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
18 Jul 2003 10:24:07 AM |
|
|
"RD O.Meara" wrote:
All my discovery says is that there is
a very significant geometrical interpretation
to the ryberg constant's magnitude
and that a deeper meaning MIGHT be involved.
1) Your "fit" is dimensioned. It is meaningless - trivally
invalidated by a change of units.
2) Your fit is ***** vs. accuracy and precision of the empirical
measurement
3) Given "n" variables you only need "n-1" parameters for a perfect
fit.
4) Given any two irrational numbers 'x' and 'y' it is always
possible to find integers j, k, m, n such that |(j)(x^m) - (k)(y^n)| <
epsilon, where "epsilon" is arbitrarily small. One should not be
impressed by such a relationship since one could find an arbitrarily
large number of relationships as good or better by picking any other
irrational number, like the Napierian base 'e', Euler's constant
gamma, the Golden Ratio, any irrational square root, etc.
5) http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
18 Jul 2003 10:05:44 AM |
|
|
"RD O.Meara" wrote:
All my discovery says is that there is
a very significant geometrical interpretation
to the ryberg(sic) constant's magnitude
and that a deeper meaning MIGHT be involved.
Rydberg Constant
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RydbergConstant.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD O.Meara" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
16 Jul 2003 09:27:05 AM |
|
|
No , I said
Here are 8 mathematic points; fit a curve to them
and see that approximates quite highly,
a straight line or 'pi' as we mathematicians like to say.
and its slope has a physical constant of nature
--
Regards from RD send email to "rd.o.meara@pobox.com"
..
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:01:05 -0400, A N Niel <54gs2k302@sneakemail.com>
wrote:
Here are the eight points; try plotting therm yourself.
# X Y (to a resolution of four significant digits )
1 pi/2 pi/2
2 P^2 "e"
3 3 pi
4 4 P^3
5 5 16/3
6 8 69/8
7 -4/4 -5/4
8 -9 -10
Readers are reminded P is the golden mean,
and that "P^2 = P + 1" and "4 = P^3 - P^-3".
-------------------------------------------
I get the following curve from these 8 points:
" Y = Rbc * X - 0.153 " where Rbc is the Ryberg constant of 1.0973
It is as if, value 'X' has weight 'Y'
I imagine it as a plane with a Ryberg slope;
which I call it "Jod's Plane".
You claim all 8 points are on a straight line? Using any two of
the points, we may compute the slope of the line...
Using P1=(pi/2, pi/2) and P2=(P^2,e) we get slope
e - 1/2 Pi
--------------- = 1.095725967
2
P - 1/2 Pi
but with some of the other pairs we get slope
3
P - Pi = 1.094475325
79
-- = 1.097222222
72
9/8 = 1.125000000
So in fact, these points are not all on a single line.
....
The line given is a least-squared fit to the points?
Give me any line at all, I will find some points with nice-looking
descriptions having that line (approximately) as least-squares fit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
16 Jul 2003 10:12:48 AM |
|
|
In message <a5oahv0o6eu69r9hqn2n81r3msibihf8qj@4ax.com>, RD O. Meara
<rd.o.meara@pob.com> writes
No , I said
Then you were wrong on every count:
Here are 8 mathematic points; fit a curve to them
and see that approximates quite highly,
a straight line
It doesn't.
or 'pi' as we mathematicians like to say.
They don't.
You aren't.
and its slope has a physical constant of nature
It isn't.
Moreover it can't (dimensions).
PS Don't top-post.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Spragg" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
16 Jul 2003 01:14:20 PM |
|
|
RD O.Meara <rd.o.meara@pob.com> pushed briefly to the front of the
queue on Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:46:33 -0500, and nailed this to the shed
door:
^ > Is this a new fundamental discovery?
Hehe, I'm always a sucker for new fundamental discoveries.
^ Here are the eight points; try plotting therm yourself.
^
^ # X Y (to a resolution of four significant digits )
^
^ 1 pi/2 pi/2
^ 2 P^2 "e"
^ 3 3 pi
^ 4 4 P^3
^ 5 5 16/3
^ 6 8 69/8
^ 7 -4/4 -5/4
^ 8 -9 -10
Is "e" different to e? Is -4/4 different to 1?
^ Readers are reminded P is the golden mean,
^ and that "P^2 = P + 1" and "4 = P^3 - P^-3".
Good job you reminded me, or I would have used 0.618... rather than
1.618 ..., but I'm never sure which is which.
^ I get the following curve from these 8 points:
^
^ " Y = Rbc * X - 0.153 " where Rbc is the Ryberg constant of 1.0973
That's strange, I get Rbc = 1.0956 and an intercept of -0.1462, to 4
significant figures. I also got a residual plot that looked decidedly
iffy (try plotting it yourself; you /did/ do that, didn't you?). I
decided CBA to calculate the confidence limits for the fitted straight
line, but you certainly should - it's your breakthrough, after all.
Perhaps if you gave some inkling of how you had come by these eight
data points, and what your fundamental discovery was meant to relate
/to/ ...?
Andy
--
"No, you claim the magpie is to blame for all the
worlds ills, based on your ignorance of magpies."
(4a7391c12e538ef306d33d71c9482221@TeraNews)
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD O.Meara" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
17 Jul 2003 09:06:09 AM |
|
|
Hi Andy
sorry about the mixup
Delete the -9,-10 point which I did not use
in the original curve fit; I added it later when
I saw how very close it was.
if you just use the other seven to fit;
you then get "Y = 1.0972 * X - 0.1526 "
at six nines fit and a covar of 8.68
I then made the slope equal to 1.09737 and b = 0.153
for general prediction purposes
I thought it was more important to show that the official Ryberg value
is still a very good straight line fit to the data.
Actually there are several more points on the line
but I did not want to overburden the plot requirements
In summary then,
there many significant mathematical points
on or very near a line that has a ryberg slope.
The most significant aspect is the simple relationship
between pure mathematical numbers and the
physically observable Ryberg constant.
I still believe I am the first to publish this relationship
which I call "Jod's Plane"
--
Regards from RD send email to "rd.o.meara@pobox.com"
..
^ " Y = Rbc * X - 0.153 " where Rbc is the Ryberg constant of 1.0973
That's strange, I get Rbc = 1.0956 and an intercept of -0.1462, to 4
significant figures. I also got a residual plot that looked decidedly
iffy (try plotting it yourself; you /did/ do that, didn't you?). I
decided CBA to calculate the confidence limits for the fitted straight
line, but you certainly should - it's your breakthrough, after all.
Perhaps if you gave some inkling of how you had come by these eight
data points, and what your fundamental discovery was meant to relate
/to/ ...?
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
17 Jul 2003 09:22:56 AM |
|
|
In message <q8adhvssomaio0011m3tt3akisd39o44v0@4ax.com>, RD O. Meara
<rd.o.meara@pob.com> writes
The most significant aspect is the simple relationship
between pure mathematical numbers
which are dimensionless
and the
physically observable Ryberg constant.
which is not.
So where's the significance?
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Spragg" |
|
| Title: Re: Is this a new fundamental discovery? |
17 Jul 2003 04:04:38 PM |
|
|
RD O.Meara <rd.o.meara@pob.com> pushed briefly to the front of the
queue on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:06:09 -0500, and nailed this to the shed
door:
^ Hi Andy
^
^ sorry about the mixup
^
^ Delete the -9,-10 point which I did not use
^ in the original curve fit; I added it later when
^ I saw how very close it was.
^
^ if you just use the other seven to fit;
^ you then get "Y = 1.0972 * X - 0.1526 "
^ at six nines fit and a covar of 8.68
OK, now I agree with your fitted parameters to 4 d.p., and I agree
with your "six nines fit", assuming you are quoting a value of R^2. I
don't get the same covariance as you, but since I don't know how to
interpret a covariance value in isolation, I'm not going to worry
about that.
^ I then made the slope equal to 1.09737 and b = 0.153
!
^ for general prediction purposes
Of what?
^ I thought it was more important to show that the official Ryberg value
^ is still a very good straight line fit to the data.
Since you don't seem too worried about decimal places after the third,
perhaps you should have massaged the official values of pi, e and P,
until you came up with a fit where you didn't have to massage the
official Ryberg value.
^ Actually there are several more points on the line
^ but I did not want to overburden the plot requirements
^
^ In summary then,
^ there many significant mathematical points
^ on or very near a line that has a ryberg slope.
What exactly is significant about (8, 69/8)? Or for that matter, any
of them?
^ The most significant aspect is the simple relationship
^ between pure mathematical numbers and the
^ physically observable Ryberg constant.
Others have pointed out the dimensional nonsense implicit in this.
^ I still believe I am the first to publish this relationship
^ which I call "Jod's Plane"
You probably are. OTOH, I believe I am the first to lay claim to this
infinite set of relationships:
"Y = 1.0972 * X + (c - 0.1526) "
based on these seven data points:
1 pi/2 pi/2+c
2 P^2 e+c
3 3 pi+c
4 4 P^3+c
5 5 16/3+c
6 8 69/8+c
7 -4/4 -5/4+pi/2
where c is any significant mathematical value you like. But you paved
the way for my discovery. I give the whole lot to you, free of charge.
You could call them "Jod's squadron".
Andy
--
"No, you claim the magpie is to blame for all the
worlds ills, based on your ignorance of magpies."
(4a7391c12e538ef306d33d71c9482221@TeraNews)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|