View Single Post
  #162 (permalink)  
Old 14-March-2008, 03:59 AM
Jerry's Avatar
Jerry Jerry is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
Note my bold. I'll ignore your constants claim, since CM covered it. You claimed that the prediction by GR of Mercury's precession (not procession) was artificial and wasn't equally accurate for the other planets. My link shows that for Venus, Earth, and Icarus that the prediction matches observations within errors. Which you have to agree, pretty much show you don't know what you are talking about in your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tensor View Post

Object------------GR prediction-------------Observed

Mercury______________43.0_______________43.1 +/- .05
Venus________________8.6________________8.4 +/-4.8
Earth________________3.8________________5.0 +/- 1.2
Icarus_______________10.3_______________9.8 +/- 0.8
Please apply the 'Jerry Test': If I offered this data and error bars this wide as proof of an ATM theory, it would draw a wild chorus of Naays. As I said the last time we churned this: There is more going on the Either Newton or Einstein allowed and we are finally seeing evidence of it.

That said, you can't even whisper the equations of Maxwell in complex setting without worrying about second order effects: Whether or not you have a good handle on the causality. GR is just one of many possible explanations, not the right one. I am also curious as to why the error bars are tighter for Icarus than for the Earth or Venus. Has somebody got a bead on Icarus?

Quote:
LOL Jerry, why is it that as soon as something disagrees with your ideas, it's "not enough information" (even when that something is completly opposite of what you predicted) but when there is the slightest difference in a mainstream theory, your all over it wanting it overturned and replaced?
What makes you assume the data is inconsistent with my theory? I pointed out there is not an obvious connection, because the data is not well enough defined, but it is another gravity anomaly in a place that if I am correct there must be gravity anomalies

Did you even read the article? It says right in the article they need more observations of this important clue to constrain the possible explanation. And if all goes well, we will get it!

Another post with A LOT of Evidence:

Jerry Jensen's ATM idea
__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know. We should try harder to find out.