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.
-----Original Message----- From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; email@example.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