User blog comment:DE-Note/New Character?/@comment-24891101-20151024041808/@comment-24891101-20151024053144

I freely admit I could be wrong. I've never held otherwise. And I admit, it is slightly hubristic of me to quote my own paper, but this field is very small, and my work is among the first in it. I am merely citing the state-of-the-art of the field.

No one has come forth with any flaw in my methodology to show me where it is wrong. In the absence of more canonical information, we are left to conclude that the paper is accurate, since it matches experiment.

You want to try your own hand at this? My work is easily falsifiable. You could replicate or refine my work, and you might get different results. But as of right now, mine is the best work that exists in the field, to my knowledge. Show me a competing analysis, and then we can talk.

You're absolutely right. People can be wrong after doing a lot of math. But that doesn't mean they are. You have to show the mistake, otherwise it is correct, as best it can be with the experimental evidence collected to date. So, tell me where in my math I went wrong. I will repeat for the record that the only calculation done by hand was the gravity one, and that the image scaling was done in ImageJ, a tool used by microscopists to establish length scales across numerous images.