Re: Science and Equations

Greg Hennessy wrote:
Before you criticize something, it is a good idea to have an adequate
understanding of it.

We aren't criticizing the DFP, we don't know enough about it yet.


You can say that again! But you could if you go to
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .


We
are criticizing that in spite of being asked, you refuse to provide
provide quantative predictions for what the theory predicts in certain
aspects.

I've given up hope that you'll answer the questions put to you.


I have explained why I have rebuffed your unwanted and hostile
advances.

If you want to put your mind to something useful consider this.

Standard theoretical physics says the
Planck length = 10^-33 cm (out of the blooming ballpark!)
Planck mass = 2 x 10-5 g (what the hell has m = 10^-5 g, the mythical
Higgs bozo?)

The Discrete Fractal paradigm shows you how to do the calculation
correctly:
Revised Planck length = 3 x 10-14 cm (close to proton radius)
Revised Planck mass = 1.2 x 10-24 g (close to the proton mass)

Now you tell me which paradigm gives more sensible answers. And yes,
the Discrete Fractal paradigm does use equations (4 simple ones are
involved) to achieve the corrected Planck Scale, which is the scale at
which GR plays as important a role as EM and QM.

When you finally comprehend the beauty and power of this radically new
paradigm, I recommend that you be holding on to your socks.

Robert L. Oldershaw

.