# Pretending Subquarks actually exist!

• 483 Replies
• 12642 Views
?

#### JackBlack

• 15178
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #420 on: July 13, 2020, 01:41:13 PM »
Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
And like I pointed out he doesn't understand the difference between negative mass and imaginary mass.

The sources he clings to do not claim a negative mass.
They say negative mass squared. That means an imaginary mass.
Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?
Here, let me help:

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #421 on: July 13, 2020, 01:43:18 PM »
Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
Well, if he does he's wrong! It's "imaginary mass" that matters.

Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?
And why does that make it right?

#### Code-Beta1234

• 1061
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #422 on: July 13, 2020, 02:44:39 PM »
Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
And like I pointed out he doesn't understand the difference between negative mass and imaginary mass.

The sources he clings to do not claim a negative mass.
They say negative mass squared. That means an imaginary mass.
Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?
Here, let me help:

Wait. I am sorry. It seems you are right. It says mass squared. So it isn't anything new?

#### NotSoSkeptical

• 6531
• Flatness as in the shape of a water droplet.
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #423 on: July 13, 2020, 03:29:31 PM »
Sandokhan says that "negative mass" is what matters
And like I pointed out he doesn't understand the difference between negative mass and imaginary mass.

The sources he clings to do not claim a negative mass.
They say negative mass squared. That means an imaginary mass.
Book said so. Do i need to make red srcle pointing where?
Here, let me help:

Wait. I am sorry. It seems you are right. It says mass squared. So it isn't anything new?

It also says "experimental" right next to the "squared-mass"
Rabinoz RIP

?

#### JackBlack

• 15178
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #424 on: July 13, 2020, 04:50:01 PM »
Wait. I am sorry. It seems you are right. It says mass squared. So it isn't anything new?
No, it is Sandy not understanding the difference.

It comes from many different locations, perhaps the easiest is the relativistic mass correction.
A key part in many transformations is the term:
gamma=1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
If you have v>c, this means you have 1 minus some number larger than 1, which means you have the square root of a negative number, which is imaginary.

Thus in order for the mass to make sense, using the standard relativistic mass correction m=m0*gamma, the rest mass needs to be imaginary.
This also ties into various other equations.

So a tachyon should have imaginary mass.

#### Timeisup

• 1593
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #425 on: July 14, 2020, 07:50:21 AM »
I don't know why people are arguing the toss about sub-atomic particles when no one has the resources or means to establish the truth. The only recourse we have to listen to what the experts say on the matter without distorting what they actually say. Why people choose to distort science and just make things up is a mystery.

For experts, CERN is a good place to start as they have the experimental means to establish the truth of the matter or to confirm what we actually know

https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model

This is what they say:-

Matter particles
All matter around us is made of elementary particles, the building blocks of matter. These particles occur in two basic types called quarks and leptons. Each group consists of six particles, which are related in pairs, or “generations”. The lightest and most stable particles make up the first generation, whereas the heavier and less-stable particles belong to the second and third generations. All stable matter in the universe is made from particles that belong to the first generation; any heavier particles quickly decay to more stable ones. The six quarks are paired in three generations – the “up quark” and the “down quark” form the first generation, followed by the “charm quark” and “strange quark”, then the “top quark” and “bottom (or beauty) quark”. Quarks also come in three different “colours” and only mix in such ways as to form colourless objects. The six leptons are similarly arranged in three generations – the “electron” and the “electron neutrino”, the “muon” and the “muon neutrino”, and the “tau” and the “tau neutrino”. The electron, the muon and the tau all have an electric charge and a sizeable mass, whereas the neutrinos are electrically neutral and have very little mass.

Forces and carrier particles
There are four fundamental forces at work in the universe: the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. They work over different ranges and have different strengths. Gravity is the weakest but it has an infinite range. The electromagnetic force also has infinite range but it is many times stronger than gravity. The weak and strong forces are effective only over a very short range and dominate only at the level of subatomic particles. Despite its name, the weak force is much stronger than gravity but it is indeed the weakest of the other three. The strong force, as the name suggests, is the strongest of all four fundamental interactions. Three of the fundamental forces result from the exchange of force-carrier particles, which belong to a broader group called “bosons”. Particles of matter transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other. Each fundamental force has its own corresponding boson – the strong force is carried by the “gluon”, the electromagnetic force is carried by the “photon”, and the “W and Z bosons” are responsible for the weak force. Although not yet found, the “graviton” should be the corresponding force-carrying particle of gravity. The Standard Model includes the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces and all their carrier particles, and explains well how these forces act on all of the matter particles. However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, gravity, is not part of the Standard Model, as fitting gravity comfortably into this framework has proved to be a difficult challenge. The quantum theory used to describe the micro world, and the general theory of relativity used to describe the macro world, are difficult to fit into a single framework. No one has managed to make the two mathematically compatible in the context of the Standard Model. But luckily for particle physics, when it comes to the minuscule scale of particles, the effect of gravity is so weak as to be negligible. Only when matter is in bulk, at the scale of the human body or of the planets for example, does the effect of gravity dominate. So the Standard Model still works well despite its reluctant exclusion of one of the fundamental forces.

So far so good, but
......it is not time for physicists to call it a day just yet. Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture. The theory incorporates only three out of the four fundamental forces, omitting gravity. There are also important questions that it does not answer, such as “What is dark matter?”, or “What happened to the antimatter after the big bang?”, “Why are there three generations of quarks and leptons with such a different mass scale?” and more. Last but not least is a particle called the Higgs boson, an essential component of the Standard Model.On 4 July 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) announced they had each observed a new particle in the mass region around 126 GeV. This particle is consistent with the Higgs boson but it will take further work to determine whether or not it is the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model. The Higgs boson, as proposed within the Standard Model, is the simplest manifestation of the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism. Other types of Higgs bosons are predicted by other theories that go beyond the Standard Model.On 8 October 2013 the Nobel prize in physics was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter Higgs “for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider”.So although the Standard Model accurately describes the phenomena within its domain, it is still incomplete. Perhaps it is only a part of a bigger picture that includes new physics hidden deep in the subatomic world or in the dark recesses of the universe. New information from experiments at the LHC will help us to find more of these missing pieces.

Conclusion.

Sub Quarks, have never been discovered
No Nobel prize has ever been given for their discovery as they have not been discovered.

Gravitons have never been discovered and are no more than hypothetical.

Muon neutrino have a tiny mass which is not negative as far as CERN is concerned.

Do tachyons exist?

There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned the previous night!

— Reginald Buller

In a word no, or not as far as we know.

When it comes to the latest squabble over Neutrinos, this is what CERN has to say, after all it is their experiment. You might not like what it says, but unless you have your own similar experiment or have access to the results, there is little you can do but accept the work of the experts.

The CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso (CNGS) project aimed to unravel some of the mysteries surrounding neutrinos - light, neutral particles that hardly interact with matter. Three types or "flavours" of neutrino exist: the electron neutrino, the muon neutrino and the tau neutrino. But it seems that neutrinos are the chameleons of the particle world: they can change from one flavour into another. This phenomenon, called “oscillation”, occurs as neutrinos travel long distances through matter. The process is directly related to the neutrinos' tiny mass.

From July 2006 to December 2012, the CNGS project sent muon neutrinos from CERN to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory (LNGS), 732 kilometres away in Italy. Neutrinos interact so weakly with other particles that they pass easily through the intervening rock. At Gran Sasso, two experiments, OPERA and ICARUS, wait to find out if any of the muon neutrinos have transformed into tau neutrinos.

To create the neutrino beam, a beam of protons from the Super Proton Synchrotron at CERN was directed onto a graphite target. The collisions created particles called pions and kaons, which were fed into a system of two magnetic lenses that focused the particles into a parallel beam in the direction of Gran Sasso. The pions and kaons then decayed into muons and muon neutrinos in a 1-kilometre tunnel. At the end of the tunnel, a block of graphite and metal 18 metres thick absorbed protons as well as pions and kaons that did not decay. Muons were stopped by the rock beyond, but the muon neutrinos remained to streak through the rock on their journey to Italy.

#### Code-Beta1234

• 1061
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #426 on: July 14, 2020, 09:59:04 AM »
That wall of text made me think you are sandokhan

#### Timeisup

• 1593
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #427 on: July 14, 2020, 02:28:36 PM »
That wall of text made me think you are sandokhan

It's not a wall, it's not a barrier. If you care to read it you may learn something.

#### Code-Beta1234

• 1061
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #428 on: July 17, 2020, 12:37:32 PM »
Why did you guys stop debating zeta zeros?

#### NotSoSkeptical

• 6531
• Flatness as in the shape of a water droplet.
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #429 on: July 17, 2020, 12:45:40 PM »
Why did you guys stop debating zeta zeros?

Sando gave up.
Rabinoz RIP

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6747
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #430 on: July 17, 2020, 12:54:36 PM »
Why did you guys stop debating zeta zeros?

You are continuously bumping up threads for no reason at all.

This is forbidden by the rules of this forum.

You seemingly ask innocent questions, which are always directed against me, while providing a chance for the RE to of course use the opportunity to negate facts once again.

The reason why the debate on zeta zeros is over should be obvious to you: I was able to derive the second zeta zero using the exact ratios, as requested by the RE.

#### NotSoSkeptical

• 6531
• Flatness as in the shape of a water droplet.
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #431 on: July 17, 2020, 12:56:34 PM »
Why did you guys stop debating zeta zeros?

You are continuously bumping up threads for no reason at all.

This is forbidden by the rules of this forum.

You seemingly ask innocent questions, which are always directed against me, while providing a chance for the RE to of course use the opportunity to negate facts once again.

The reason why the debate on zeta zeros is over should be obvious to you: I was able to derive the second zeta zero using the exact ratios, as requested by the RE.

You derived nothing and provided no formula.
Rabinoz RIP

#### sokarul

• 18473
• Discount Chemist
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #432 on: July 17, 2020, 12:57:11 PM »
Yet I’m still waiting for an answer. I have 10 tons of gold for you when you tell me how to turn lead into gold.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6747
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #433 on: July 17, 2020, 12:59:14 PM »
The value of the second zero of the zeta function, to four decimal places accuracy, using only the five elements subdivision applied to both zeta functions as a guide, with the exact ratios.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2082278#msg2082278

T/20
T/10
3T/20
T x 0.254545454

T = 63.6363636363

63.6363636363
16.19835
9.54545454
6.36363636
3.18181818

47.43801
12.07513

35.36288
9.00146

26.361424
6.71018

19.65124
5.002134

14.64911
3.72886

10.92025
2.7797

8.14055
2.07214
1.2210825

6.06841
1.54468

4.52372
1.1515

3.37223
0.858386

3.181818
0.80997
0.47727
0.3181818
0.1591

14.134725 + 6.36363 = 20.49836

20.49836 + 0.809917 = 21.30828

2.7797

22.275274

2.07214

20.20313

Upper bound: 21.30828

Lower bound: 20.49836

1.2210825

21.05419: new upper bound

20.49836 + 0.47727 = 20.97563

2.07214 - 1.2210825 = 0.8510575

0.8510575
0.21663277
0.127658
0.08510575
0.0425528

Substracting the bottom four values successively from 21.05419:

20.837557
20.9265
20.9691
21.011637

21.011637 is the new lower bound for the entire approximation.

0.809917 - 0.47727 = 0.332697135

0.332697135
0.0846738
0.049897
0.0332647

Adding the bottom four values successively to 20.97563:

21.0603
21.025527
21.00889

21.025527 is the new upper bound for the entire approximation.

0.049897 - 0.0332647 = 0.0166232

0.0166232
0.00423376

21.00889 + 0.00423376 = 21. 013124

0.0166232 - 0.00423376 = 0.0123985

0.0123985
0.00315589

21.013124 + 0.00315589 = 21.01628

21.01628 is the new lower bound.

0.0425528
0.01083162

21.05419  - 0.01083162 = 21.043358

0.0425528 - 0.01083162 = 0.031721329

0.031721329
0.00807452

21.043358 - 0.00807452 = 21.035283

0.031721329 - 0.00807452 = 0.0236468

0.0236468
0.00601918

21.035283 - 0.00601918 = 21.029264

0.0236468 - 0.00601918 = 0.0176276

0.0176276
0.00448703

21.029264 - 0.00448703 = 21.024777

21.024777 is the new upper bound.

0.0123985 - 0.00315589= 0.00924251

0.00924251
0.00235214

21.01628 + 0.00235214 = 21.01863

0.00924251 - 0.00235214 = 0.0068899

0.0068899
0.00175378

21.01863 + 0.00175378 = 21.02038

0.0068899 - 0.00175378 = 0.00513612

0.00513612
0.00130735

21.02038 + 0.00130735= 21.021687

21.021687 is the new lower bound.

0.00513612 - 0.00130735 = 0.00382867

0.00382867
0.00097457
0.0005743005
0.000382867
0.0001914335

Adding the bottom four values successively to 21.021687:

21.02266
21.02226
21.02206987
21.0218784

0.0176276 - 0.00448703 = 0.01314057

0.01314057
0.00334487
0.00187185
0.00131457

Substracting the bottom three values successively from 21.024777:

21.021432
21.022805
21.02346

21.02266 is the new upper bound.

0.00334487 - 0.00187185= 0.00137302

0.00137302
0.000349496
0.000205953

Substracting the last two values from 21.022805:

21.0224557
21.0226

21.0224557 is the new upper bound.

Since 21.02226 is a lower value than 22.0224557, 21.02226 is the new upper bound.

0.00137302 - 0.000349496 = 0.001023524

0.001023524
0.000260533

21.0224557 - 0.000260533 =21.022195

21.022195 is the new upper bound.

0.001023524 - 0.000260533 = 0.000763

0.000763
0.000194216
0.00011444865
0.0000763
0.00003815

Already we can observe 11.444 = 2.861 x 4 and 3.815 = 6sc.

Substracting the bottom four values from 21.022195:

21.02200085
21.02208055
21.022188
21.022157

21.02200085 is the new lower bound.

The true value for the second zeta zero is:

21.022039639

Already we have obtained a five digit/three decimal place approximation:

21.0220

It is the values of the ratios that matter: they converge to the correct zeta zero value.

#### NotSoSkeptical

• 6531
• Flatness as in the shape of a water droplet.
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #434 on: July 17, 2020, 01:12:31 PM »
Spamming a bunch of numbers is not a formula nor an algorithm.
Rabinoz RIP

#### JJA

• 4202
• Math is math!
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #435 on: July 17, 2020, 01:34:24 PM »
An algorithm would explain all the steps without actually showing the calculations.

1. Take X, divide it by Y, if the number is bigger than 5 go to step 3...

That's how you write out an algorithm in simple terms.  Just a set of instructions.

I have yet to see more than a few vague instructions followed by massive number spam, over and over.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6747
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #436 on: July 17, 2020, 01:38:02 PM »
I was able to produce the values of the first eight zeta zeros using the same algorithm.

On top of that, zeros #21 and #50.

It sure works.

Remember, the leading expert on the distribution of the zeta zeros in the world said this:

It is my belief that RH is a genuinely arithmetic question that likely will not succumb to methods of analysis. Number theorists are on the right track to an eventual proof of RH, but we are still lacking many of the tools.

J. Brian Conrey

Which is exactly what I have accomplished!

#### JJA

• 4202
• Math is math!
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #437 on: July 17, 2020, 01:40:34 PM »
I was able to produce the values of the first eight zeta zeros using the same algorithm.

On top of that, zeros #21 and #50.

It sure works.

Remember, the leading expert on the distribution of the zeta zeros in the world said this:

It is my belief that RH is a genuinely arithmetic question that likely will not succumb to methods of analysis. Number theorists are on the right track to an eventual proof of RH, but we are still lacking many of the tools.

J. Brian Conrey

Which is exactly what I have accomplished!

You post lists of numbers with bad math and missing steps.  You have not produced anything that works.

And quoting some guy who said something about RH doesn't prove anything but you can copy-paste quotes.

Show your full algorithm WITHOUT ALL THE NUMBER SPAM.  You can't do it.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6747
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #438 on: July 17, 2020, 01:43:13 PM »

The fifth zeta zero, to three decimal places accuracy, using only the five elements subdivision applied to both zeta functions as a guide.

63.636363
16.1773
9.5445
6.36363
3.1815

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2006301#msg2006301 (basic subdivision of the first 63.63636 sacred cubit interval into five elements ratios)

16.1773 + 2.373 = 32.685

4.7459 - 2.373 = 2.373

2.373
0.6033
0.356
0.2373
0.118645

Adding to the bottom four values to 32.685:

33.2883
33.041
32.9223
32.8036

1.968

31.8494

0.984

32.8294

6.7106

33.8

32.8294 is the first lower bound.

Since 32.9223 is a higher lower bound, this value is the lower bound of the entire approximation.

To find the first upper bound, we need to subdivide the intervals for the second zeta function further, in order to find a lower upper bound than 33.041.

0.98422
0.25023

33.8 - 0.25023 = 33.55

0.98422 - 0.25023 = 0.734

0.734
0.18661

33.55 - 0.18661 = 33.364

0.734 - 0.18661 = 0.5474

0.5474
0.139171

33.364 - 0.139171 = 33.225

0.5474 - 0.139171 = 0.40823

0.40823
0.103788

33.225 - 0.103788 = 33.1212

0.40823 - 0.103788 = 0.304442

0.304442
0.0774

33.1212 - 0.0774 = 33.0438

0.304442 - 0.0774 = 0.227042

0.227042
0.05772

33.0438 - 0.05772 = 32.9861

32.9861 is the new upper bound of the entire approximation.

0.356 - 0.23729 = 0.11871

0.11871
0.0302
0.01781
0.011871
0.0059355

Adding the bottom four values to 32.9223:

32.9525
32.9401
32.9342
32.928

32.9401 is the new upper bound.

Returning to the subdivisions for the second zeta function.

0.227042 - 0.05772 = 0.16932

0.16932
0.04305

32.9861 - 0.04305 = 32.94305

0.16932 - 0.04305 = 0.12627

0.12627
0.0321
0.01894
0.012627
0.0063135

Substracting the bottom four values from 32.94305:

32.911
32.9241
32.9304
32.93673

32.93672 is the new upper bound.

0.012627 - 0.0063135 = 0.0063135

0.0063135
0.0016052
0.000947
0.00063135
0.000315675

Substracting the bottom four values from 32.93673:

32.935125
32.935783
32.9361
32.936414

Returning to the subdivisions for the first zeta function.

0.01781 - 0.011871 = 0.0059355

0.0059355
0.001509
0.000891
0.00059355
0.000297

Adding the bottom four values to 32.9342:

32.93571
32.935091
32.9348
32.9345

Since 32.935091 is a lower value than 32.935125, this figure is the new upper bound of the entire approximation.

0.0063135 - 0.0016052 = 0.0047083

0.0047083
0.00119704
0.000706245
0.00047083
0.000235415

Substracting the last figure from 32.935125 we obtain 32.93489.

Since this is greater value than 32.9348, it becomes the new lower bound of the entire approximation.

This is further proof that 32.935125 was an upper bound, and that 32.935091 is the new upper bound for the entire approximation.

The true value for the fifth zeta zero is:

32.935061588

Already we have obtained a five digit/three decimal place approximation:

32.935091

Further subdivisions for greater accuracy.

0.00047083 - 0.000235415 = 0.000235415

0.000235415
0.000059852
0.0000353
0.0000235415
0.000011771

Substracting the bottom four values from 32.935125:

32.935065
32.935089
32.935101
32.935113

Returning to the subdivisions for the first zeta function.

0.000891 - 0.00029745 = 0.00029745

0.00029745
0.000075624

32.9348 + 0.000075624 = 32.9348756

0.00029745 - 0.000075624 = 0.000221826

0.000221826
0.0000564

32.9348756 + 0.0000564 = 32.93492

0.000165426
0.000042055

32.93492 + 0.000042055 = 32.934962

0.00012337
0.000031366

32.934962 + 0.000031366 = 32.9349934

0.000092334
0.000023475

32.9349934 + 0.000023475 = 32.93501688

0.000068859
0.0000175067

32.93501688 + 0.0000175067 = 32.9350344

0.000051353
0.000013056

32.9350344 + 0.000013056 = 32.93504746

0.000038297
0.00000973663

32.93504746 + 0.00000973663 = 32.9350572

0.000028561
0.00000726135

32.9350572 + 0.00000726135 = 32.93506446

This becomes the new upper bound of the entire approximation (a value smaller than 32.935065 obtained from the second zeta function subdivision).

0.000028561
0.00000726135
0.00000428415

32.9350572 + 0.00000428415 = 32.93506148

The true value for the fifth zeta zero is:

32.935061588

Already we have obtained an eight digit/six decimal place accuracy:

32.93506148

You are no mathematician.

If you were, you'd realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain this accuracy if I did not have an algorithm.

#### JJA

• 4202
• Math is math!
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #439 on: July 17, 2020, 01:46:19 PM »

The fifth zeta zero, to three decimal places accuracy, using only the five elements subdivision applied to both zeta functions as a guide.

[ Tons of numbers deleted. ]

You have been asked a hundred times now to show the instructions, not just spam a bunch of numbers.  I can do that too.

Here, have a Zeta Zero based on Code-Beta's numbers. I even used them twice just to get more accuracy.

47.5924-76.1253+81.3398/68.1104*57.0099/122.9382+73.2832/47.5924+76.1253/81.3398-68.1104-57.0099+122.9382*73.2832 = 8858.6809997

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6747
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #440 on: July 17, 2020, 01:50:24 PM »
47.5924-76.1253+81.3398/68.1104*57.0099/122.9382+73.2832/47.5924+76.1253/81.3398-68.1104-57.0099+122.9382*73.2832 = 8858.6809997

Only someone who inherited the IQ of an ape could have written something like that.

I provided an algorithm which displays the fifth zeta zero to SIX DECIMAL PLACES ACCURACY.

Now, it is your turn to show to everyone where an error might lie.

If you cannot, you must shut up, and accept my results.

#### JJA

• 4202
• Math is math!
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #441 on: July 17, 2020, 02:01:00 PM »
47.5924-76.1253+81.3398/68.1104*57.0099/122.9382+73.2832/47.5924+76.1253/81.3398-68.1104-57.0099+122.9382*73.2832 = 8858.6809997

Only someone who inherited the IQ of an ape could have written something like that.

I provided an algorithm which displays the fifth zeta zero to SIX DECIMAL PLACES ACCURACY.

Oh yeah?  Mine is accurate to 6 places too.

Now, it is your turn to show to everyone where an error might lie.

If you cannot, you must shut up, and accept my results.

Ok.  Lets see...

16.1773 + 2.373 = 32.685

I'd say an error lies right here. 16.1773 + 2.373 = 18.5503

You are no mathematician.

If you were, you'd realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain this accuracy if I did not have an algorithm.

You still haven't shown an algorithm, just adding and subtracting numbers and picking numbers seemingly at random.

If you can't describe every step without just throwing a bunch of numbers out there, you do NOT have an algorithm.

You just have a bunch of numbers pulled out of the same place mine came from.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6747
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #442 on: July 17, 2020, 02:04:06 PM »
14.1347 + 16.1773 + 2.373 = 32.685

Very easy to discern.

You must show where an error might lie.

If you cannot, you must accept my results.

I used the same algorithm for each zeta zero.

#### JJA

• 4202
• Math is math!
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #443 on: July 17, 2020, 02:08:00 PM »
14.1347 + 16.1773 + 2.373 = 32.685

Very easy to discern.

You must show where an error might lie.

If you cannot, you must accept my results.

I used the same algorithm for each zeta zero.

LOL.

Of course, I should have just inferred you left out that particular number.

That wasn't an error, you just... left out a number by... well a mistake is an error so you left it out on purpose.  I see.

You still haven't shown an algorithm.  Until you can show it without using zeta numbers, it's just you posting a bunch of numbers without explaining what you're doing.

Here, have another of mine.

122.9382-76.1253/68.1104+57.0099*47.5924*73.2832-81.3398 = 198875.241144

Again, six decimal places!  Amazing.  I can do this with any set of numbers.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6747
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #444 on: July 17, 2020, 02:11:02 PM »
122.9382-76.1253/68.1104+57.0099*47.5924*73.2832-81.3398 = 198875.241144

47.5924-76.1253+81.3398/68.1104*57.0099/122.9382+73.2832/47.5924+76.1253/81.3398-68.1104-57.0099+122.9382*73.2832 = 8858.6809997

In order to walk upright like a human, you must give up monkeying around.

That's not an algorithm: a repeatable sequence of logical operations.

I use the same algorithm for each zeta zero.

A huge difference.

#### sokarul

• 18473
• Discount Chemist
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #445 on: July 17, 2020, 02:13:05 PM »
Is he an ape or monkey?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### Code-Beta1234

• 1061
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #446 on: July 17, 2020, 02:16:28 PM »
Why did you guys stop debating zeta zeros?

You are continuously bumping up threads for no reason at all.

This is forbidden by the rules of this forum.

You seemingly ask innocent questions, which are always directed against me, while providing a chance for the RE to of course use the opportunity to negate facts once again.

The reason why the debate on zeta zeros is over should be obvious to you: I was able to derive the second zeta zero using the exact ratios, as requested by the RE.

How did you realise i am aganist you? When talking about zeta zeros I am on your side. I asked few times that if you are wrong, how do you get accurate numbers. Futhermore, how do you manage to get zera zero form zeta zero if you are wrong?

?

#### JackBlack

• 15178
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #447 on: July 17, 2020, 02:33:19 PM »
Why did you guys stop debating zeta zeros?
Sandokhan refused to justify his numbers by providing an actual algorithm.
After repeatedly having his claims shown to be entirely baseless, he fled.

The reason why the debate on zeta zeros is over should be obvious to you: I was able to derive the second zeta zero using the exact ratios, as requested by the RE.
It is obvious, you have no algorithm and instead just spam a bunch of numbers to pretend to have one.
When continually pushed, you fled.
You were unable to derive anything of significance and then when you decided to "correct" the math mistakes you had, you just magically changed the numbers with no explanation at all.

The value of the second zero of the zeta function, to four decimal places accuracy, using only the five elements subdivision applied to both zeta functions as a guide, with the exact ratios.
Again, provide the algorithm. Don't just spam a bunch of numbers.

I was able to produce the values of the first eight zeta zeros using the same algorithm.
What algorithm?
You mean you have been able to produce the first eight zeroes (by which I assume you mean 2 through 8 or 2 through 9) by just making up numbers and pretending to have an algorithm.

You are still yet to produce any algorithm for anyone to reproduce.

We are under no obligation to show any error in any of your steps until you actually provide a clear algorithm clearly showing what all these steps are.
That is because until you actually provide this algorithm, all your numbers may as well have been pulled from thin air and you are free to change the underlying calculations to pretend they are all correct.
Just like you changed the factors you use for your 5 element subdivision.

Again, just spouting numbers is not an algorithm.

You have no justification at all for any of your steps.
For example, you have this:
Quote
14.134725 + 6.36363 = 20.49836
20.49836 + 0.809917 = 21.30828
2.7797
22.275274
2.07214
20.20313
Upper bound: 21.30828
Lower bound: 20.49836
Why pick those values to make your upper and lower bound?
What are all the other numbers being used for? Where did they come from?

You then have this:
Quote
1.2210825
21.05419: new upper bound
WHY?
There is no justification at all.

You may as well just be pulling numbers from thin air.

In order to have an algorithm you need to be able to justify each step.
So far all you have been able to justify is that you take T and multiply it by f1 through f4, to produce 4 different numbers. This can then be repeated with any of the resulting numbers or any distance between them.
But that in no way helps you reach any of the zeta zeroes with any justification.

So how about another nice simple question. See if you can answer it:
If I want to find the nth zeta zero, what do I add to z1 (the first zeta zero) to get my first lower bound?

#### JJA

• 4202
• Math is math!
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #448 on: July 17, 2020, 02:36:58 PM »
122.9382-76.1253/68.1104+57.0099*47.5924*73.2832-81.3398 = 198875.241144

47.5924-76.1253+81.3398/68.1104*57.0099/122.9382+73.2832/47.5924+76.1253/81.3398-68.1104-57.0099+122.9382*73.2832 = 8858.6809997

In order to walk upright like a human, you must give up monkeying around.

That's not an algorithm: a repeatable sequence of logical operations.

I use the same algorithm for each zeta zero.

A huge difference.

No, you are doing exactly what I did... you just posted a bunch of numbers without justification or explaining every step.

Why don't you follow your own advice, and post a repeatable set of logical operations WITHOUT USING ANY ZETA NUMBERS.

Don't just cop-paste your massive number spam again, but of course... you're going to do it, aren't you...

#### Timeisup

• 1593
##### Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #449 on: July 17, 2020, 02:45:23 PM »
It’s all just an irrelevant smokescreen. His list of numbers are meaningless just as his claims that subquarks exist. In fact as I have said before it fits into his pattern of claiming things that are not true.

He claimed he invented and made a perpetual motion machine.
He claimed Covid-19 was not a virus
He claimed gravitons had been discovered
He claimed subquarks had been discovered
He claimed ancient Egyptians turned lead into gold

Etc etc.... Sandokhan has a track record of just making things up!