On 28 May 2014 12:03, John Ross <jr...@trexenterprises.com> wrote: > Some of you seem to think the relativity theories and the Standard Model > are fact. Last time I looked they were still regarded as theories. I > know there is lots of evidence that support these theories. There is just > as much (maybe more) evidence to support my theory. A lot has been learned > in the past 100 years that Albert Einstein was not aware of when he did his > work. So in that respect I have an advantage over him. >
Well, except that just about all the evidence that has come in *since *1915 has supported relativity theory. I don't think there are any widely accepted pieces of data that contradict SR or GR, unlike Newtonian gravitation, which I believe had a problem with the perihelion of Mercury long before Einstein explained it. So in that sense Einstein has the advantage of having had his ideas tested for a 100 years by lots of independent groups, and to have passed at least 99.9...% of these tests (all of which were conducted by people who would have loved to have proved him wrong and scooped a Nobel, of course!) > > > As a simple example Coulomb’s Law supports the most important feature of > my theory. Coulomb’s Law requires that all charged particles must be > point particles or made from point particles. > This is a good point, if you'll excuse the pun. However, I'm not aware that quantum theory claims that the electron has any internal structure, either. The probability of finding one is described by a wave function, which is spread out in space, but whenever you actually find one, as far as I know it registers as a point particle...??? I can think of a counter example, by the way. I don't suppose it's viable but I will just mention it to contribute to the discussion. As far as I know, Coulomb's law also allows charge to be spread evenly over the surface of a hollow sphere, in which case there is no repulsive force inside the sphere. So one can imagine particles being hollow spheres, as long as they can withstand the finite repulsive force that wouldf be trying to blow it apart, they would remain intact. I'm not saying this is a viable model for electrons, but it does imply that it may at least *be possible* for Coulomb's law to support non-point particle models...I'm still trying to think of a snappy name for my hollow sphere particle model, though. (Somehow "a load of balls" doesn't quite cut it...) > Do any of you believe that there are an equal number of electrons and > positrons in our Universe? Remember electrons and positrons are created in > pairs and destroyed in pairs. (Where are the missing positrons?) > Another interesting point. As far as I know the only existing answer involves symmetry splitting (plus perhaps some hand waving). However, the Tronnie theory would still have to explain why some collections of tronnies prefer to form into massive particles and some prefer to form light ones - one particle being around 1836 times the mass of the other. (This is also asymmetric behaviour, of course...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
