Thanks for the response.
Your reference quotes Professor Feynman in part as follows:
"So that is the end of that theory. 'Well,' you say, 'it was a good one,
and I got rid of the mathematics for a while. Maybe I could invent a
better one.' Maybe you can, because nobody knows the ultimate. But up to
today, from the time of Newton, no one has invented another theoretical
description of the mathematical machinery behind this law which does not
either say the same thing over again, or make the mathematics harder, or
predict some wrong phenomena. So there is no model of the theory of
gravity today, other than the mathematical form."
I say I have done what Professor Feynman said at that time had not been
done, namely "invent a theoretical description of the mathematical of
Newton's law of gravity".
The example that Feynman rebuts is just the opposite of mine. There the
sun blocks particles flying through the universe. In my theory the sun
is the source of the particles. We know that there are truly
150,000,000 neutrinos from the sun passing through every square
centimeter of the earth's surface every second. We also know that
neutrino flux decrease by the inverse square of distance. I have shown
how Coulomb forces from these neutrinos apply a force on the charges in
the earth pushing earth toward the source of the neutrinos!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:lasermazer.domain.name.hidden]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:21 PM
To: jross.domain.name.hidden; everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
John Ross:
>
>Thanks for the response.
>
>Yes my theory involves a lot of math. Have you read my patent
>application? For example, I have a quantitative description of Coulomb
>forces acting inside photons. These integrated forces represent the
>photon's energy.
Do these equations allow you to predict quantitative results of
experiments
that have already been done, or are you just using math to describe new
phenomena (like 'Coulomb forces acting inside photons') that have no
current
experimental correlate? For your theory to be taken seriously, you have
to
be able to reproduce successful predictions made by earlier theories
(ideally, all the successful predictions made by the standard model of
quantum physics, and by general relativity in the domain of gravity),
and
also make predictions about new phenomena which can be tested
experimentally.
>
>Somehow I lost your pushing gravity thought and your reference to
>Feynman. Could you re-send me the e-mail that included those thoughts.
There's an archived copy at
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40eskimo.com/msg08025.html
--the
message includes a link to a wikipedia article which has a list of
critisisms of "push gravity", as well as that long quote by Feynman I
provided.
Anyway, as Russell Standish said to you earlier in the message at
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40eskimo.com/msg08016.html ,
this list is not really for discussing alternative physics theories, the
"theory of everything" title refers not to a unified theory of physics
but
to the idea that all possible universes (or all possible conscious
experiences, maybe) exist, and some hope to derive an explanation for
why we
see the laws of physics that we do from this sort of assumption. See Max
Tegmark's multiverse page at
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html for more background.
You
might want to try submitting your ideas to the "independent research"
subforum of physicsforums.com, located at
http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146 , there are a lot of
knowledgeable people there.
Jesse
Received on Mon Oct 10 2005 - 19:19:01 PDT