Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

Very informative for me. Understanding the correlation between theory and experiment is critical for gathering useful scientific knowledge. For me, interested amateur, experimental results help when learning theory. Denying this profound correlation is what internet cranks do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The fact is that the Newtonian theory is sensitive to small perturbations which are important when we calculate the perihelion precession for Venus (only for Venus). Such calculations are very difficult. In perturbative theories is free choice as well so manipulations are possible. My theory is the non-perturbative theory (very simple) and leads to the exact result. For example, such non-perturbative Everlasting Theory within the same model leads to the theoretical results for magnetic moments of electron and muon respectively 1.0011596521735 (page 23, formula (69)) and 1.001165921508 (page 50, formula (142)). For example, there is no proof that the perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics confines at low energy so probably there will appear new parameters or/and new mechanisms. Just it will be a childish game to fit the theoretical results to experimental data. Can you see that the modifications must concern the FOUNDATIONS of the Standard Model? We cannot calculate the masses of the up and down quarks because there is big mistake in the mainstream QCD. Or, scientists will admit that my Everlasting Theory which shows the differences between structure of particles and their interactions is correct. Just origin of the perihelion precession of Mercury and Venus is associated with the entanglement and evolution of the solar system (see my book).

Total perihelion precession is the sum of the result obtained within the Newtonian theory and the GR correction. When we neglect the very small perturbations, we obtain

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newton/node115.html
(it concerns the Newtonian theory)

For Mercury is: 532 (Newton) + 43 (Einstein) = 575 arc seconds per century.
For Venus is: 1075 (Newton) + 8.62 (Einstein) ≈ 1084 arc seconds per century whereas the observed precession is about 204 arc seconds per century and such value I obtained within my non-perturbative theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We have discussed the difference between the confinement and asymptotic freedom many times but you still write the untrue. I never wrote that confinement appeared in 2010. About the confinement and asymptotic freedom in the mainstream theory and in my theory I wrote as follows.

Confinement
Scientists claim that the observed liquid-like substance in the very energetic collisions of ions it is result of the confinement/thickening of the quarks and the tricolour gluons.

I claim that it is due to the atom-like structure of baryons. The observed liquid-like plasma consists of the cores of baryons in which are produced the emitted particles.
Moreover, due to the atom-like structure of baryons range of the strong field is maximum 2.93 fm. In the strong fields PHOTONS (the 1 type) BEHAVE AS GLUONS (the 8 types)! In my book it is widely described. There is not in existence the confinement described in the QCD.

Asymptotic freedom
Scientists claim that in the strong field there is obligatory the stronger and stronger mutual attraction of the point quarks when they are moving away.

I claim that all phenomena seen in the Universe contradict such behaviour of point objects. I claim that the asymptotic freedom follows from the fact that the carriers of the strong interactions, due to the atom-like structure of baryons and the Uncertainty Principle, do not behave according to the Einstein formula for the relativistic mass. Inside the strong fields, when energy increases then mass of the carriers of the strong interactions DECREASES. It is the reason why there appears the asymptotic freedom. In high-energy regime there appears the asymptote for the running coupling for the strong interactions 0.1139.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AlphaNumeric, it is very difficult to discuss with you because you indeed do not understand what you are reading. I never wrote that someone says that the structure of atom consists of its spectrum. I tried to show that the QCD needs revision because the mass spectrum of quarks is some analog to the photon spectrum whereas the QCD says nothing about structure of baryons i.e. about some analog to the structure of atoms (nucleus + electron(s) + allowed state(s) of the electron(s)). Moreover, the authors of the QCD claim that the non-interacting nucleons consist of the up and down quarks! I wrote that by SOME ANALOGY IT LOOKS AS IF the atoms consisted only of the photons which appear in their photon spectrum.

 

AlphaNumeric, it is awful that you, PhD, do not understand what you are reading. I wrote about mass of atom, not of electron! Do you claim that photon spectrum of an atom leads to the masses of proton and neutron? It is the example how you change my words to be right. Awful!

 

You write about interactions whereas I write about STRUCTURES OF PARTICLES and their interactions. For example, electric charge of the core of baryons and two electric charges of one created particle-antiparticle pair inside strong field give the 3 localized charges as well.

Hundreds of my theoretical results (the 7 parameters only) are consistent with experimental data as well. But in my theory is at least 3 times less the parameters than in the SM. So which theory is better?

Inside the strong fields can be produced the kaons as well and they can decay already inside the strong fields to TWO or THREE pions. The energetic pions produce the jets. This means that we should observe the two- and three-jets events.
The decaying neutral pions can produce two jets, and so on.

 

It is untrue. It is true when in both models is the same number of parameters!!!!!
How many times I must write the obvious truth? In my theory is at least 3 times less the parameters than in the SM. To fit the theoretical results, obtained within the SM, to experimental data we will must add next and next parameters because, for example, we do not know the exact masses of the up and down quarks.

BTW, why gravitational constant is TODAY constant?
My theory shows that the gravitational constant G depends on properties of neutrinos and inertial mass density of the spacetime responsible for the gravitational interactions (see formulae (11) and (12) on page 15). Value of the G changes on distances smaller than about 10^-32 m (see pages 31 and 32 in my book). The gravitational properties of the neutrinos and density of the spacetime responsible for the gravitational interactions changed only at the beginning of the era of inflation when the spacetime responsible for the gravitational interactions had expanded. Due to the tremendous pressure of the spacetime associated directly with the G (about 10^180 Pa) and the fact that the black holes in our Universe today should consist of smaller neutron black holes which masses are quantized, the changes in inertial mass density of the spacetime should be non-measurable.
The calculated G within the Everlasting Theory is (IS):

6.6740007•10^-11.

This result overlaps with the experimental data (CODATA 2010). There is following interval:

(6.67304•10^-11, 6.67464•10^-11).

 

Sorry, AlphaNumeric, that I divided your very, very long post into the parts. I did it because I think that now the picture is more perspicuous.

My basic advice is as follows. There are the structures of particles and their interactions. In the QCD authors neglected the structure of baryons in the free state of them. They mixed up structures with interactions. Free nucleons do not consist of the up and down quarks. This is the reason why we cannot calculate the exact masses of the up and down quarks (nature does not need powerful computers to know how it should behaves; nature is simple on the lowest levels). This is the reason as well why the QCD does not confine in the very low-energy regime. Only bigoted opponent cannot see that I am right. You know, the 48 years of the bigotry. Enough!

 

There is the other obvious option that you should consider, which is that you are wrong.

 

Calling intelligent folks bigoted because they don't agree with your 'really bad irrelevant science' is pretty stupid. Since nobody has EVER agreed with your nonsense bs then everybody is a bigot other than you. What a dumb crank you are.

 

I'm really surprised you'd link a crackpot theory. Not really a crackpot theory, just a cheesy mathematical model trying to make a correlation between the models results and observation. Rather poorly I might add. The Newton prediction is based on the cheesy model. The model has 'to big' an error bar to allow for accurately determining the natural rate of precession of each planet. It's the observed rate of precession minus the measured total contribution from external perturbations = the natural rate of precession predicted by GR. The only theoretical prediction is GR.


You can derive the natural precession rate of Einstein orbits. All Einstein orbits naturally precess.

Start with the Schwarzschild metric [geometric units] setting theta at 0.

dTau^2 = (1-2M/r)dt^2 - dr^2/(1-2M/r) - r^2(dphi)^2

Substituting constants of geodesic motion E/m and L/m for dt and dphi

dt = [(E/m)/(1-2M/r)]dTau

dphi = [(L/m)/r^2]dTau

The solution relates squared values for radial motion (dr/dTau)^2, energy per unit mass (E/m)^2, and the effective potential per unit mass
(V/m)^2 = (1-2M/r)(1+[(L/m)^2/r^2]).

(dr/dTau)^2 = +/- (E/m)^2 - (1-2M/r)(1+[(L/m)^2/r^2])

Taking some license for the weak field and multiplying through by 1/2 after multiplying out the squared effective potential

1/2(dr/dTau)^2 = 1/2(E/m)^2 - [1/2 - M/r + (L/m)^2/2r^2 - M(L/m)^2/r^3]

setting (V/m)^2 = U/m

U/m = 1/2 - M/r + (L/m)^2/2r^2 - M(L/m)^2/r^3

1st derivative

d(U/m)/dr = M/r^2 - (L/m)^2/r^3 + 3M(L/m)^2/r^4

2nd derivative d'2(U/m)/dr'2 = rate of radial oscillation = w^2_r

w^2_r = M(r-6M)/r^3(r-3M)

Without writing down details the rate of angular velocity becomes

w^2_phi ~ (dphi/dTau)^2 = M/r^2(r-3M)

Both are really close in the weak field. We could approximate a large value for r and we would have Newton's result M/r^3 for both radial rate of oscillation and rate of angular velocity but we would end up with the wrong answer that GR orbits and Newton orbits are the same.

So

w^2_phi - w^2_r = 6M^2/r^3(r-3M)

This is the difference so we can find a factor * M/r^3 which closely approximates
6M^2/r^3(r-3M)

That factor is 6M/r

(6M/r)(M/r^3) = 6M^2/r^4

The last step is further license for the weak field taking the root of the factor and doing the approximation

(6M/r)^1/2 ~ 1/2(6M/r) = 3M/r

So a very close approximation for the rate of orbital precession, in the weak field [our solar system] is 3M/r. You can plug in numbers and get an answer that matches observation.

3M_Sun = 4431m
r_mean Mercury = 5.8x10^10 meters
415.1539069 times Mercury orbits the Sun in 100 Earth years
360 degrees per year
3600 arcseconds per degree
etc...

 

The perihelion precession of Mercury is 574.10±0.65 arc seconds per century! The Mercurian relativistic perihelion ADVANCE EXCESS (the GR) is 42.98 arc seconds per century, and so on.

I see that I should not discuss with dunces.
I see that I should not discuss with people who can write only a ble, ble, ble …. as well. Why many posters on this Forum do not understand that scientific arguments are most important? All I have written follows from my theory. It is scientific theory because there are the initial conditions (the 7 parameters only), there are the derivations of a few hundred basic physical quantities and they are consistent or very, very close to experimental data.

 

I revised my last post after reading about the cheesy predictive model you linked. Go read it. Since you think we're all dunce and bigots why don't you just move on to make friends with another set of bigoted dunces. They make an excuse for the huge Venus error in their model. Nobody who needs to make accurate measurements will use that cheesy model. How many things does your theory predict that exceed the local coordinate speed of light?

 

Thanks Brucep. Just to check, you understood my explanation about how the coupling constant is extracted from experimental data using the SM, right? I want to make sure so that I can be confident the reason Sylwester doesn't get it is because of his problems, rather than me not explaining it well enough. I give another explanation below, since Sylwester didn't get it again.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0176

And yet you still don't understand them.

You've just shown you don't understand what asymptotic freedom is. Asymptotic freedom is not the fact quark interactions get stronger as you move the quarks away from one another. That is, as it happens, related to confinement.

Confinement is the observed fact we do not see free colour charges, unlike electromagnetic charges such as an isolated electron or ions. Confinement is related to how whenever we try to pull apart some bound state of strong charged objects, such as a proton into its 3 quark components, it requires so much energy that new quarks are formed and once again collect together to create something which is colour-neutral. It's this which causes 2 quarks being pulled apart to be connected by a 'flux tube' of gluons. The flux tube's internal energy grows linearly with the separation distance. Eventually it snaps and the potential energy is dumped into making more quarks to maintain the colour neutrality of the bound states. That is confinement, not the asymptotic freedom you said.

Asymptotic freedom is about energy scales and coupling runnings. In things like Newtonian gravity the force between 2 objects is dependent upon their charges (ie mass in this case) and the distance between them. In quantum field theory there's an additional consideration which is the energies the particles have. Consider 2 charged particles (quark and quark or electron and electron etc) some set distance apart. The strength with which they will interact depends not just on their charges and distance but also in how fast they are moving relative to one another. In the case of the electromagnetic force two electrons at rest with respect to one another will interact less than two electrons at the same distance apart but moving very quickly. This is because the EM force has a running coupling which goes up as the energy scale increases (QED contains a Landau pole). For the strong force it is the other way around, two fast moving quarks interact less than 2 stationary ones. As you make them move faster and faster the coupling goes down and down and eventually tends to zero. That is asymptotic freedom, the quarks are free (ie don't interact) as the momenta goes to infinity.

The fact, which you've demonstrated again, you don't even know what the phenomena in question are shows you cannot possibly be correctly explaining them, since you don't know what you're trying to explain!

You loudly complained about it, saying "Moreover, structure of the atom DOES NOT CONSISTS OF THE PHOTON SPECTRUM.", clearly implying that's what the mainstream supposedly says. It's not my fault you cannot explain yourself clearly.

QCD does allow you to talk about the structure of baryons. In fact explaining the mass/spin structure of baryons is what lead to QCD. Look up things like 'The Eight-fold way'. Using group theory it's possible to construct representations of the SU(3) gauge group associated to the strong force which explain the spin/mass multiplets of families of baryons!

The problem isn't with what the mainstream says, it's what you understand it (or rather don't understand it) to say. You clearly have no knowledge of the mathematical workings so at best all your knowledge is superficial wordy simplifications others have provided for you but as I just demonstrated, even that you don't understand.

You're tilting at windmills, complaining about things which are actually an artifact of your ignorance.

And you didn't read what I said or bother to go find anything out about it. The Hydrogen example was a specific examine of a more general concept which I'd just explained. Obviously it passed you by so I'll explain it again.

If you want to work out the spectra of molecules then in quantum mechanics it is done by solving the Schrodinger equation eigenvalue problem for the molecule. The Schrodinger equation includes terms which involve particle masses and charges and interactions. Therefore the result of solving the equation is dependent upon the values of the masses of the particles involved. In quantum chemistry the computation of something like the spectrum of Carbon Dioxide involves putting in the masses of the electrons, the carbon nucleus and the oxygen nuclei. By measuring the real spectrum of the molecule it is then possible to work out the masses of the electrons and nuclei. It isn't done that way because there's more precise methods but it is still possible.

I gave the Hydrogen example because it's the example everyone learns in university and it has analytic answers which are clearly dependent upon the mass of the electron and the charges of the proton and electron, illustrating how you could measure Hydrogen spectra and then work out properties of the electron from it. The proton isn't involved in that case due to translation invariance but something like the Hydrogen molecule definitely involves them. The \(H_{2}^{+}\) ion is one of the most studied ions in all of quantum chemistry. But you wouldn't know any of this since you haven't ever done a quantum mechanics course, you haven't read any books on it and your mathematical capabilities are so bad even if you picked up a book on this stuff you couldn't understand it.

Interactions between particles is how we explore their properties. The interactions between high energy electron beams and nucleons is what allowed us to experimentally demonstrate the nucleons are made up of smaller things, we deduced their structure. This isn't even a difficult concept to grasp, I don't see why you're struggling. Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just plain dense?

Considering your work is internally inconsistent and, by your own admittance(!), contradicted by experiments the answer is the SM.

No, it is true. Given the same data two different models will, almost certainly, output different results. For example, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory predict different values for things like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. The latter predicts g=2 exactly. The latter corrects this with effects which involve relativity, as quantum mechanics is non-relativistic while quantum field theory is relativistic.

Hell, you give an example yourself. You claim the strong coupling constant doesn't flow to 0. The asymptotic freedom calculations (computing the beta function) are done using QCD, so it is QCD which predicts that eventually \(\alpha \to 0\). You claim such calculations are nonsense. But it's the same model, the same types of Feynman diagrams, the same perturbative construct, which is used to convert accelerator data, which only measures energies and momenta, into a value for \(\alpha\).

Colliders measure lots and lots of \((\mathbf{x}_{j},\mathbf{p}_{j})\) data sets, ie the position of a particle at some point in time and its momentum. This can then be converted into energy, charge and mass data using electromagnetics and relativity. Once you have energy, mass and momentum data you use those values to do lots and lots of Feynman diagrams, lots of perturbative (and some non-perturbative on a computer) calculations and they tell you what the relationship between the particles going in and the particles coming out are, according to the Standard Model. You then find what value of \(\alpha\) makes the predictions match experiment and there's your 'experimentally measured coupling constant value'. It's all thought the eyes of the Standard Model. If no value makes the calculations match experiment then the model is wrong. That's the scientific method.

Now you claim all those calculation methods are nonsense, that they lead to wrong asymptotic freedom predictions. But then you claim you can accurately predict the coupling constant value. But that value, the value you get in data sheets published by places like CERN, is computed using those same calculations you're rubbishing! It's a fundamental inconsistency in your entire approach.

I gave another example involving G, which also seems to have gone over your head. What does it mean when some paper says "The experimental value of G is ...."? Do we measure G directly? No, we don't. Instead we measure the movement and behaviour of some gravitational system and then use a model, Newtonian or GR, to convert that data into a value for G.

For example, suppose you have 2 spheres of mass M and m. You place them in empty space, a distance 2L apart, and hold them still. You then simultaneously release them and they'll begin to accelerate towards one another due to gravity. You can time how long they take to collide, call it time T. Where's the value of G in all of that? How do you measure it directly? You don't. Instead you say "I have measured the masses, the distance and the time involved and now I'll put them into some gravitational model I have". Since you obviously don't understand how I'll explain it with a specific example....

Let's say m=M. By symmetry we know the masses collide at the centre point from their initial starting position. So initially let's place mass 1 at \(x = -L\) and mass 2 at \(x=+L\). By symmetry and Newton's 3rd law each mass feels the equal and opposite force of the other so let's look at the mass which starts at x=L. It experiences a force \(F = -G\frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{D^{2}} = -G\frac{m^{2}}{(2x)^{2}}\) with x=L initially. That is where G comes in, we have assumed a model for gravity, relating mass, distance and force. Now we use another model to relate force to acceleration, \(F = ma = m\ddot{x}\). So now we combine those two models and have \(m\ddot{x} = -G\frac{m^{2}}{4x^{2}}\) and so \(\ddot{x} = -\frac{Gm}{4x^{2}}\). This is a second order differential equation with initial conditions \(x(0) = L\) and \(\dot{x}(0) = 0\). We know L and m so we could put them into our equation. Let's say m=4 and L=1 so we have \(\ddot{x} = -\frac{G}{x^{2}}\) with \(x(0)=1\). The only unknown is G and we've yet to use T. Solving this equation gives x(t) and we want the t where x(t)=0, call it t*. Clearly this will depend on the value of G. Well since G is an overall scaling factor we can explicitly work out the G dependency. It involves a change of variables \(t = \sqrt{G}\tau\), which gives us \(x'' = -\frac{1}{x^{2}}\) with x(0)=1 and x'(0)=0 again, solve numerically and then we rescale back at the end. I'm in no doubt you don't understand how to do this but suffice to say the answer is \(t* = \frac{1.1107}{\sqrt{G}}\). But we measured t* in the experiment, its T. Therefore we have the equation \(T = \frac{1.1107}{\sqrt{G}}\). We know T so we can now get a value for G.

That is how you extract things like coupling values from experiment. You don't measure them directly, you infer them from actually observable things like time and distance and then use a model to convert the 'raw data' into the coupling value. In this example it's the value of G but the concept applies to quantum couplings too. The values of the fine structure constant or the strong coupling constant are not directly measured, they are extracted from directly measurable things using a model. In the case of the strong coupling constant that model is the Standard Model, particularly QCD. To measure Planck's constant high precision current flows are measured through superconductors using the Josephson effect for example.

Clearly if the model is changed then the extracted value of the coupling constant will change. Adding more quarks to the SM will alter it. Saying F=2ma in Newtonian mechanics would alter the calculation I did above, resulting in a different prediction for the value of G. This is why it's necessary to do many different types of experiment, so you use other means to compute the coupling constant and hopefully they all overlap, giving you confidence you're on the right track.

If the models used to extract the coupling value from raw data are called into question then you have to go back to the raw data. You say QCD is nonsense, that the quark model is a 'sham'. So then you disagree with the models, the calculations, the quark processes, which are used to convert particle scattering data in an accelerator into things like the strong coupling constant. Therefore saying you can predict it to a high precision is logically inconsistent, since the value you're working with is computed using QCD. If you denounce QCD and the SM then you can only say "I can accurately describe/explain baryon physics" if you're applying your ideas to the raw data, everything else is 'tainted' because the Standard Model has been used to convert the raw data into other values.

I've explained this to you many times, over the space of perhaps 2 years. I've given you example after example. This is not a difficult concept to grasp yet you don't seem to grasp it. You think I'm talking about units, about the definition of lengths etc, but I am not. That only shows you have a very poor grasp of the basic procedure of experimental science. You've shown time and again you don't bother to check what scientists say, you just put words in our mouths. You've shown time and again you're utterly ignorant of what particle physics involves. That isn't just the in-depth calculations, though it is blatantly obvious you cannot do any of the mathematics involved in things like relativity or quantum field theory (despite how you used to claim you do know QFT), it's the conceptual procedures. A good scientist needs to know the assumptions, procedures and models used in obtaining and processing experimental data, even if they themselves do not do experiments. You have shown you not only don't know but you don't try to find out even when such shortcomings on your part are pointed out. Repeatedly.

You don't know what particle physicists say, you don't know their/our work and you have shown you have no problem completely misrepresenting them/us.

It does confine at low energies. Low energies are the usual state of nucleons, which show confinement. What you mean is high energy and high density. In high energy/high density systems colour locking breaks down and you get a quark-gluon plasma. Besides, the weakening of the coupling constant happens at high energy. Another example of how you don't grasp this stuff, even after I've explained it to you many many times over years.

You yourself admit you predict things contradicting experimental bounds! There's no bigotry there, you're clearly, demonstrably wrong. And as I've just done, there's plenty of justification for dismissing your work as nonsense. It isn't like I just post a one line post saying "Wrong! You're an idiot!", I explain at great length why you're mistaken. I've got nothing to hide about my opinion of your claims, I can justify all of what I've said. The fact you've spent 48 years doing this nonsense is crazy. So much time and you understand so little. You've squandered those 48 years, all because you cannot accept any kind of correction. Farsight and a few others here should take a look at you, you're a case study in crankdom. Maybe they'll then realise they need to be more realistic, lest they end up like you.

 

Yes I definitely understood. You have great communication skills. Now I'll read your post.
That was great. I feel like I've attended an 'introductory' lecture on the subjects you referenced. Thanks for linking the paper.

 

This paper proves that I am right. Just the relativistic correction.

As usually you are not right. In the low-energy regime the mean distance of quarks is GREATEST and then the running coupling has the maximum value i.e. about 14.4 for interacting strongly nucleons via pions or 1 for interacting strongly pions. When nucleons collide and energy increases then mean distance between quarks decreases and value of the alpha_strong decreases. The QCD leads to the zero (i.e. the quarks become free – we never observed such state of quarks) whereas my theory leads to the asymptote 0.1139. It is my prediction. We will able confront my prediction with future experimental results. This is the difference between the asymptotic freedom in the QCD and my theory. The future experiments will show which theory is correct.

As usually, you try to COMPARE the different methods applied in the mainstream QCD and my theory and because they are different then you still shriek out that I am not right. I wrote many times that such “discussion” is stupid. There are the different initial conditions and there are applied different methods whereas there are the same definitions so we can compare which theoretical results are better i.e. closer to experimental data. If you do not understand the above SIMPLE conclusion then discussion is useless.

You write and write the nonsense to prove that you are right but you are not. And my simple proof is as follows. There is the mainstream QCD and the masses of the up and down quarks are the initial parameters. But they are not defined exactly. This means that such theory can be worthless, that someday there will appear new initial conditions, new set of parameters and new methods and such new theory will lead to more experimental data than the mainstream QCD, for example, to the masses, spins and magnetic moments of nucleons as well. Such theory is in existence – it is the Everlasting Theory. This theory leads to the same theoretical results concerning the mean square charge for the nucleon components. In the low-energy regime, for sample containing 50% of protons and 50% of neutrons, my theory gives value 0.29Q^2 (see page 19) whereas experimental result is (0.28 ± 0.03)Q^2 whereas the mainstream QCD gives 0.28Q^2. We can see that both theoretical results overlap with the experimental result. I calculated also sum of the squares of electric charges for the high-energy regime (see page 90, formula (213):
for E<3.6 GeV is 2.1,
for E<227 GeV is 3.9
and my prediction for E>227 GeV is 8.9 and it is my next prediction!
The 2.1 and 3.9 are very close to experimental data.

So once more: I apply different methods but I obtain results which are consistent or very close to experimental data. You cannot compare the different methods. Most important are the predictions and NUMBER OF PARAMETERS.

Even in Wikipedia you can read as follows.
“In physics, asymptotic freedom is a property of some gauge theories that causes bonds between particles to become asymptotically weaker as energy increases, and ...”

 

You claimed Venus's motion couldn't be explained.

Which is what I said when I corrected several things you said about confinement and asymptotic freedom.

I can't help but notice you completely ignored my lengthy explanation of how dismissing QCD methods implies dismissing the value of the strong coupling constant found in the literature and how this fatally undermines your work. Planning to spend another 48 years in denial are you?

 

AlphaNumeric, are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just plain dense? Do you assume that readers do not see your swindle? It is obvious that the first your sentence is correct. But you “forgave” that the photon spectrums of atoms follows from the electromagnetic interactions whereas to know internal structure of the nuclei components we must take into account the other interactions as well! Only an idiot can claim that we can decipher the internal structure of protons and neutrons from the photon spectrums of atoms only. You still try to belittle the difference between structures of particles and their interactions because the QCD assumes WRONGLY that even free nucleons consist of the up and down quarks which in fact appear due to the interactions of the stable structures of the nucleons.

 

And it is your next swindle. The OBSERVATIONAL result for perihelion precession of Venus is about 204 arc seconds per century. Can you cite a paper in which theoretical result for Venus is 204 arc seconds per century?

 

Incredible! At first you write something I never wrote. Then you “prove” that I am not right. It is very funny method, indeed. You write the obvious truths. There is some definition. In such definition can be physical quantities measured directly and indirectly. Even for children in primary school it is obvious. You, from such obvious truth, created big problem.

But I can formulate a question which to have gone over your head. What physical phenomena lead to the value of the G? The answer and needed calculations are in my book. There is described also the origin of the Planck constant, the speed of light, elementary electric charge, mass of electron and so on. The explanations are very simple and the theoretical results overlap or are very, very close to experimental data.