-----Original Message----- From: Craig Haynie > by back-calculating Vt, we can then use it to predict the effective radii of > protons in the nucleus, which is the variable that seems to be the least > certain.
Craig, as you no doubt have noticed in this exercise, the proton radius has been a stumbling block for a certain controversial alternative theory. There is a known value for the proton radius, but it does NOT work for the house-of-cards theory, and therefore a fictional radius has been "invented" which is much larger than the known value. To justify using such a radius, the inventor must resort to finding an argument whereby the nucleus can appear to be much larger - voila: string theory and sound vibrations, which arguably push the radius into size range where the numbers finally work. Thus everything now seems to mesh, when this fiction is applied ... if that is - you can suspend disbelief and overlook the details of the derivation. Of course, all of this machination is (arguably) done in support of a particular constant - which can appear as a velocity, but which essentially has little validity in actual experiment, when you look a bit closer. If there was some baseline validity in experiment - then the liberties taken with the proton radius would be a bit easier to swallow. Jones
