What I will repeat again, is the fact that these PPT slides were for a
"simplistic" level of sophistication has no effect at all on the observed
value presented in them. Data is data,

"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message

news:cm7914hbjvre2ht0dd3kg70e30sfmauran@4ax.com...



On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:44:40 -0600, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net
wrote:

"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:3e0914lgtmmc5gogdelvcc041h56200qs0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net
wrote:

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for
Hydrogen."

I found a link in your post to PPT slides.
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/spc/teaching/py301/phys301.htm

But the slides may provide a SIMPLIFIED account for students.

To prove that QM EXPERTs have made an inaccurate prediction I think
you really need to provide links to QM physics papers that have made
an inaccurate prediction.

I have. In the pasts discussions, I provided a link to a "modern" (1994) QED
prediction. Please see the past posts. And if you don't want to take the
time to read them, I don't want to take the time to say it again.

http://alpha.chem.umb.edu/chemistry/ch379/documents/exp2_Hatom_000.pdf

It clearly explains how to derive an empirical Rydberg constant based on
unbiased spectroscopic data. It even shows how to correct for the fact that
the data are taken in air. All you have to do is a linear regression and
estimate the slope. The experimental error (standard error of the estimate),
even going back a long while ago, was about +/- 1-2^m-1. This is plenty good
enough to show the significant difference between the observed and the
predicted.

Steve Bell

"Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote in message

news:5d196$4814973e$943f641c$27291@STARBAND.NET...

"Smooth John" <yoshio...@umpire.com> wrote in message
news:cde54d5e-b2ae-4ad1-8e69-703ed721529f@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 3:44 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message

news:3e0914lgtmmc5gogdelvcc041h56200qs0@4ax.com...

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell"

sb...@starband.net



wrote:

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for
Hydrogen."

Steve Bell

so one must read one hundred carp posts in that thread in order to get
your crap link to your crap whatever you said you did

you are crap by definition, buy a brain fool

If you think I'm crap, I would think you would not want to smell my crap.
I
suggest you do not participate in any of the threads I participate in. Why
would you want to?

Steve Bell

I should have said you should not participate in any of the threads I have
initiated. If you think I spew only crap, like I said, why would you want to
hear anything I have to say?

Steve Bell

"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message

news:3e0914lgtmmc5gogdelvcc041h56200qs0@4ax.com...

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net
wrote:

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for Hydrogen."

Steve Bell

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell" <sb635@starband.net
wrote:

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" for each journey is the same ?

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

For someone who is making such bold statements, one would think they
would do a little resreach, but I guess that would be asking too much,
to disprove your own claims. The theoretical prediction for the
ioninzation of hydrgoen can be found here

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v72/i2/p351_1

This is nothing but the CODATA report for 1998. Any good library
should have this. They use this value in an indirect way and not to
compare with the experimental value. Again, for many reasons, I would
think the experimental value isn't as well know as other quantities.

Come to think of it, maybe we shouldn't believe in QED until everyone
of the infinite number of the energy levels in hydrogen are calculated
to 14 decimal places and experimentally verified. So start
calculating.

kp

On Apr 27, 3:44 pm, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net> wrote:
"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message

news:3e0914lgtmmc5gogdelvcc041h56200qs0@4ax.com...

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:22:12 -0600, "Steve Bell" <sb...@starband.net
wrote:

I have presented in a cordial, clear and concise way, an error in a
fundamental prediction made by QED.

Could you provide a link to your presentation.

Yes, please see the thread entitled "Inaccurate QM Prediction for
Hydrogen."

Steve Bell

so one must read one hundred carp posts in that thread in order to get
your crap link to your crap whatever you said you did

you are crap by definition, buy a brain fool