My understanding is that the experimental evidence of Mercury's orbit preceded Einstein's general theory. There nothing wrong with qualitative explanations, especially if they turn out to be correct. Copernicus' predictions were qualitative. Who knows my theory might match the experimental data to 10 places.
-----Original Message----- From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea John Ross wrote: > >I have not dealt with Mercury's orbit. This is one of the most important experimental confirmations of general relativity. Were you even aware of it? >My theory can explain the double >slit results just as well as any other theory, better than most. Quantitatively? Can you predict the exact probability distribution for the particle to hit different locations on the screen, in both the case where its path is measured and the one where it isn't? > I have >not tried to calculate the muon magnetic moment. The magnetic moment anomaly, not the magnetic moment. This is widely considered one of the most successful predictions in physics, experimentally verified to something like eight decimal places. My theory does however >predict that a muon is nothing more than a high energy electron that >has obtain its energy by capturing the entron of a high energy photon. That's a non-quantitative "prediction", and I have no idea what experiment you're proposing to test it. Are there *any* quantitative predictions from either general relativity or quantum field theory (not ordinary nonrelativistic QM) that your theory can reproduce? I'm sure the answer is no, since few people who haven't done a graduate degree in physics have much detailed familiarity with these subjects (I don't), and your comment about GR earlier revealed a lack of familiarity with some pretty basic concepts, not to mention your attempt to overturn theories about neutrinos based only on eyeballing some pictures of particle tracks. Again, please take this discussion elsewhere, it's off-topic on this list. Jesse > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:59 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com >Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea > > >John Ross wrote: > > > > >To the best of my knowledge and belief, my theory successfully > >predicts > > >all known experimental knowledge of physics, chemistry and optics and > >does so better and simpler than any other theory. I am working on a > >list of predictions of new things that can be proved experimentally. > >Does your theory in its current form reproduce all these predictions >quantitatively, or just in terms of word-pictures? Have you made a >detailed study of general relativity and the standard model of quantum >physics to see >if you understand all the main predictions made by these theories? Can >you >quantitatively reproduce GR's prediction of the precession of the >perihelion >of Mercury's orbit, for example (see >http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html ) or the >extremely accurate prediction of the electron and muon magnetic moment >anomaly by quantum electrodynamics (see >http://latticeqcd.blogspot.com/2005/06/most-accurate-theory-we-have.htm l >)? >Can you predict more basic things like the interference pattern seen on >the >screen in the double-slit experiment, and how this pattern changes when >you >measure which slit the particle travels through? > >Jesse >
