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
John Ross wrote:
Another solution is for you to ignore my comments, or maybe me yours.
This isn't just about me personally not being interested in your posts, it's
about the discussion of your alternative physics ideas being *off-topic*
on this list, just as much so if you came here and
The discussion of John Ross's theory is off-topic.
However, I would be happy about it anyway, IF I thought it was a good
theory, which I do not.
But I don't feel like taking the time to argue about why i don't think it's
a good theory, so I will continue to ignore the thread.
-- Ben Goertzel
I am entertained by the discussion with John Ross, and can think of
more entertaining questions for him (such as how about travelling by
firing a neutrino gun at objects that you want to travel to? sorry I
couldn't help it), but I believe it is off topic.
Tom Caylor
-Original
Tom Caylor wrote:
I am entertained by the discussion with John Ross, and can think of more
entertaining questions for him (such as how about travelling by firing a
neutrino gun at objects that you want to travel to? sorry I couldn't help
it), but I believe it is off topic.
For those who
5 matches
Mail list logo
