Recent content by Ganzfeld

Insofar as the essence of any piece of numerology is along the lines of 'surely this is beyond chance ?', perhaps the most useful thing would be to be able to determine just exactly what the probability is for any result. To be able to say ' the odds against chance are 1 in a million ' would at...

Hans I don't disagree that if one starts with the maths, one has to end up with some physics to support it. But surely half the basis of particle physics is in itself mathematical...all the different SU models are derived from group theory and so on. The wonder is that the physical world just...

I think the problem is that despite having copious books on the subject I've never seen anything that suggested the relationship was anything other than linear...especially with space being generally flat...so I've just assumed that it is, and that someone would have said so if it wasn't. If...

Interestingly...the original Nature article does not contain the operation table as presented above. It contains the 9 values in a different form. And it was not till several years later that it dawned on me that the whole thing could be derived simply from the operation table for positive times...

Well...the editor of Nature ( John Maddox, at that time ) originally described my results as 'spectacular' when I first sent them in July 1981. He then sat on them for 2 whole years before finally publishing in July 1983. I was at a bit of a loss to understand what his mention that I was a...

Here's something I can never get my head around, no matter how hard I try. As you look out in space, you look back in time. Fine. No problems yet. Further back in time, the universe was smaller...or at least things were closer together. Hmmm...hold on just a minute. We have a problem...at...

I always hate the term 'laws of physics'. Strictly speaking they are 'laws of physicists'. It's always seemed a bit odd to me that the 'laws' of relativity are actually based not on a law but on a 'principle'...that of equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses. Nobody has ever shown...

I got hold of a copy of the Particle Properties Data Booklet ( it's a little ciggarette packet sized booklet...very small print ) simply by writing to Rutherford/Appleton laboratories in England and asking for a copy...which they sent for free. Mind you, that was 1981, so I wouldn't count on it...

Nope...it didn't line up...but it shouldn't be too hard to get the gist. It's a simple mathematical operation table.

The 6 pi^5 ratio for the proton-electron mass ratio was also independently published in an item by me in Nature ( July 7th 1983 I think the date was )...which the editor rather scathingly titled ' The Temptations Of Numerology '. The same stuff was also published in 1984 in 'Speculations In...