On Apr 18, 7:15*pm, DWIII wrote:

Firstly, it is clear that you are involved in a gladiatorial battle
and not in a search for a better understanding of nature. You have no
interest in finding anything of value in the Discrete Self-Similar
Paradigm. Instead you feel you must kill it because it is a threat to
your world view.

Knowing that, I will still continue to make my case for the benefit of
those readers who maintain an open mind and a keen interest in a
better understanding of nature.

The bulk of your paper claims to deal with hadron mass spectroscopy,
but brings in the muon and tau leptons, and also small nuclei such as
H3, He3, and He4 for no apparent reason.

No, no! That is a main point. Atomic Scale mass is discretized and
it does not matter whether the masses are called "leptons" or
"hadrons" or "nuclei". They are ALL Kerr-Newman ultracompact objects
(black holes and virtually naked singularities) and regardless of what
"family" of particles they belong to, they still obey the discrete
mass spectrum of the Atomic Scale. This is due to the fact that only
certain combinations of J, M and q are allowed as stable states or
excited states. Understand now?

that higher values of n (n10) seem to be preferentially even (by
way
of vague allusion to nuclear "magic numbers"), but brazenly announce
here that n=21 for the J/psi is somehow an additional confirmation.

I expect that each of the n values will have a particle or resonance,
unless the K-N model forbids it.

Also, the J/psi spin-1 meson (3097) is an excited state of the eta_c
spin-0 meson (2980) which you ignore, along with the previously
mentioned delta baryon (1232). *Why? *Because they don't "fit"?

The J/Psi "fits" at the 99.9% level
The n = 19 gives (sqrt 19)(674.8 MeV) = 2941 MeV ( agrees well w/2980,
98.7%)
The n = 3 gives (sqrt 3)(674.8 MeV) = 1168 MeV (off by ~5% from 1232)
But we will not really know how well this idea can do until the full K-
N solution is used. Get it - the Kerr solution is only a 1st
approximation?

The linked paper contains a major, multi-component, definitive
prediction. *Specifically it is that going from the Kerr solution to
the full Kerr-Newman solution with give one the fine structure of the
particle mass function, rather than just a rough 1st approximation
based on the Kerr solution. *I have not done this, and to my knowledge
no one else has either, so at this point no one can know whether this
works the way I predict it will or not. *Therefore it is a definitive
prediction.

Which is not what I asked for. *What particle is represented by n=9?
What properties (if it existed) would it have other than trivially
being within a small range of mass?

The Xi (2030 MeV) = (sqrt 9)(674.8 MeV) = 2024 MeV at the 99.7% level.
You can look up the properties on your own. Getting the picture yet?


I derive the
revised Planck mass from first principles, then use it and GR to
retrodict particle masses.

You have done nothing of the sort. *With suitable scaling, you might
as well be retrodicting _any_ given set of real-world or randomly-
generated data with similarly unimpressive results.

If you understood the Discrete Self-Similar Paradigm and its even more
restricted form of Discrete Scale Relativity, then you would know that
the scaling equations were published in 1985 and the new paradigm is
based on definite principles. It cannot be fudged or "adjusted", and
it makes definitive predictions.

But of course, "The Church of the Substandard Paradigm" does not want
competitors and its defenders/apologists work like the devil to stamp
out any "unorthodox" thought.

Theoretical physicists are often quoted in Nature and the NYTimes
saying: 'If there were good new ideas out there we would embrace them
and study them diligently'. I don't know if they realize their
disconnect with reality. Most humans fight against challenges to
their world views with a closed-minded tenacity. Alas.

Send more "criticism". Since nature seems to smile on the Discrete
Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm, I have full confidence that I can
defend it against you, or Lenny Susskind, or Stephen Weinberg, or
Frank Wlizcek, or Ed Witten, or T'Hooft, or Igor Khav..., or whoever.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw