I'd like to see their work on what their theory predicts or expects for the proton radius. So far what they offer does not fit, not matter how many terms are added their polynomial does not fit (research series of polynomial no fit papers) the gap between their theory and the measured.

Dan really gets to the point and summarizes Keystone points of information required to EVEN begin to talk about interstellar reality (the way Nature truly is and behaves).

Interstellar Value of Humans: Bliss-Radiance Fractal Wireless Energy-Pyramids and Stargates

A good starting point would be to examine the coefficients (constants) of the equation for the Rydberg Constant and comment on which ones are in minor error, major error, and why.

Feynman gave up on the question why and ridiculed philosophers. I don't think he quite realized the box he had trapped himself in so deeply. Why always points to more and possible purpose. Richard dug through the cargo like no other cult scientist. Anyway, I digress.......

The glaring error is the -4% on the proton radius. Mainstream (NIST/CODATA) doesn't have a correlation of the proton radius with the proton mass nor any of the other physics constants. While the Rydberg constant equation puts constraints on other constants (due to correlation via Rydberg equation of the standard model) but mainstream doesn't include the proton radius, thus missing the boat.

Tying in the proton radius to the full Rydberg equation not only then puts constraints on the proton radius like it does the other constants, it also becomes an equation that can be solved via iteration.

(paste error table here an initial CODATA starting values)...

The sign-flip algorithm to be implemented in an Excel macro using VBA (Visual Basic) will proceed in steps. Incremental progress via integration of effort over time...

Have you ever tried to design a voltage reference circuit, one that comes out to a precise voltage?

A standard? A calibration reference?

The bandgap reference circuit, to predict its voltage, one must know all about solid-state electronics and crystal analysis, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO CHOICE OF CONSTANTS to be able to predict the absolute voltage of the bandgap reference with precision.

How far can one take this?

Voltage reference standards are a completely different animal, however, to push a cheap silicon process to it's limits, using a trim process, one can approximate a voltage reference to at least some tolerance over a temperature range. Maybe get a few digits of precision untrimmed raw. The bandgap is a medium precision circuit. Other techniques are used for real precision standards, like Josephson voltage standard. Better than 9 digits of agreement* accuracy. (rough skimming analysis of state of art, not meant to be comprehensive)

Nothing unusual here, until one attempts to get even more accuracy...

Solid-State physics gave birth to the Higgs Bozon idea.

Real physicists call Solid-State Physics "Squalid State", because they know it is an approximation.

So then one understands why such simple things puzzle the modern MAINSTREAM high energy particle physics, if their BIG BOZON, The God Particle, The Higgs, was born from this theory.

It's not because their work is poor, it's because they skipped the basics, and missed some very important things. Then one goes searching for ghosts, ghostbusting, when firing up LHC.

Another way to look at the polynomial is that it is from the solution of the Schrรถdinger wave equation (Full Wave Equation version, not the reduced mass of solid-state) with the Bohr atom as a boundary condition - quantized angular momentum - for a single hydrogen atom at 0°K.

Special note for the stability analysis of the polynomial: The form of the equation MATCHES that of the ideal analysis of a simple unity gain connected op-amp feedback circuit. Stability analysis of that form of equation wrt time and frequency domain analysis is well known. The stability of the iterative solution to the polynomial for it roots is due to the built in feedback nature of the equation. All kinds of arguments / analogies can then be made for the unique stable solution for the values of the constants of this polynomial. Thus known as the man who solved science.*