Error in numbers but not concepts
It had been quite a while since i've 'played with the numbers' (of curvature etc), so i didn't notice some errors in my numbers and numerical claims. Taking five numbers and their associated uncertainties, i propagated the uncertainties until i arrived at the curvature ratio between electron and proton. In the process, i noticed an error in the electron curvature and error in my claim about 'exactness'. Please forgive this - it was not intentional and the error - actually helped me think more clearly about the concepts. But to clear the air, i will list out my numerical errors.
Idiotically, i couldn't even get the ratio right because i had the electron wrong. The correct approximate values are: (2/3)10^-23, (11/9)10^-20, and (6/11)10^-3 for electron, proton, and ratio. That leaves the progression to approximately be: (11/9)10^-20, (2/3)10^-23, (4/11)10^-26, and (24/121)10^-29. It's a little sticky to convert back and forth between curvature and mass so the easier approach is simply to use the NIS value for proton-electron mass ratio, invert it, and apply that on the electron mass. The mass progression from proton to electron to something-1 to something-2 is: 1.673*10^-27 kg, 9.109*10^-31 kg, 4.961*10^-34 kg, and 2.702*10^-37 kg.
Upsettingly, i re-realized the upper limit for neutrino mass proposed by convention is about 2 eV (electron-volts). This converts to a mass of about 4*10^-36 kg. So.. "I'm frakked" (with the numbers) as Starbuck loves to say. 8| Even considering my error bounds as i traced them above, doesn't allow me leeway to claim rational numbers for coefficients. :( And what do we do with the conventional claim neutrinos have a maximum mass of 2 eV? i can't just pretend that doesn't exist..
My intuitive prediction for the pattern would have been something like this: proton, electron, positive charged 'something-1', and negative charged 'something-2'. Not a neutral particle. So there's something wrong with the way we measure mass, our theory about neutrinos, or my thought processes. ;) i know what you're going to say..
All my numerical errors cannot erase the conceptual insights i've arrived at over the years: charge moment is impeded spin, elementary particles are dual flux-vortices and screw-dislocations in spacetime, more deeply - they are spherical standing waves of temporal curvature, and all the associated insights of complex time.. i know there are many who would 'throw up their arms' at the numerical mistakes i've made but the spirit and motivation of/for Iam space stands.
A billion numerical errors and Iam space are preferable to the Standard Model and virtual exchange.