My theory predicts anti-particles and explains the internal structure of the basic particles, electrons, positrons and entrons. Your’s do not. The only force in the Universe is the Coulomb force. And there is no strong force. I never understood the electroweak force. There is a force of gravity but only my theory explains how gravity is produced. It is Coulomb forces that hold atomic nuclei together. My model explains how Black Holes produce gravity. It provides a logical explanation of inflation and provides a simple description of what preceded the Big Bang and n easily understandable prediction of the future of our Universe and how it will end.
What I really cannot understand is how you can be so sure that I am wrong when you have refused to even read my book and study my calculations. I had the impression that a goal of this chat group was to find a “theory of everything” that would be a simple understandable theory that would explain all of nature. Stephen Hawking has written that current theories do not do that. Do you believe that Dr. Hawking was incorrect? I repeat my offer to send you a free copy of my book. I do not expect that you will change your mind. But who knows for sure. John Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 8:00 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:08 PM, John Ross <jr...@trexenterprises.com> wrote: > If you identify a volume and remove everything within it, you would be left > with empty space in the volume. And that is exactly what Euclid would say, but we've learned a few things in the last 2500 years and today we know that it is physically impossible even in theory to remove everything from within a volume. > That is what I mean by empty space and you could not curve that space. Why not? > What do you mean by: There is no Coulomb force? Which word didn't you understand? There are only 3 forces in nature, Gravity, The Strong Nuclear Force, and The Electroweak; "the Coulomb force" isn't on the list. > Did you ever comb your hair on a dry day? Yes. > I don’t believe in virtual photons. Virtual photons either exist or they don't and it doesn't matter a hoot in hell if you believe in them or not. And the damn things work! Dirac used quantum mechanics and virtual particles (which don't exist according to you) to predict antimatter, and Feynman used virtual particles to predict the Lamb shift. Feynman also predicted in 1948 that the magnetic moment of an electron can't be exactly 1 as had been previously thought because it is effected by an infinite (and I do mean infinite and not just astronomical) number of virtual particles (which don't exist according to you). He brilliantly figured out a way to calculate this effect and do so in a finite amount of time, he calculated it must be 1.00115965246, while the best experimental value found much later is 1.00115965221. That's like measuring the distance between Los Angeles and New York to the thickness of a human hair. In fact it would be hard to find ANY calculation in modern particle physics that doesn't involve some form of virtual particles. There is no theory in all of science that produces predictions of greater accuracy than the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics and virtual photons. None. Do you really thing that virtual photons don't exist and it was just a coincidence that calculations using them produced such astronomical accuracy??! > I do believe in entrons So using your theory of "entrons" what do you calculate the electron's magnetic moment should be? How do "entrons" produce the Casimir Effect and exactly how strong do you predict it should be? What do you figure the Lamb Shift should be? Can you beat Feynman in the accuracy of predictions department? > think about it. You need a lot of energy to hold a galaxy together. You need exactly as much energy as you need to keep the Earth circulating around the sun, zero. The gravitational attraction is exactly canceled by the centrifugal acceleration. > My model predicts that a Monster Black Hole will develop near the center of > our Universe The universe has no center. > A triangle drawn on a sphere will be curved. Yes, and the surface of a 4D sphere is 3D space and it too will be curved. > Curving space makes no sense to me. That doesn't surprise me in the slightest, I have yet to find one single discovery made in physics in the last 200 years that DOES make sense to you. > Curving Coulomb grids is natural since [...] There is no such thing as curving or un-curving Coulomb grids just as there is no such thing as "the Coulomb force". > I don’t claim to be an expert on the tau and the muon. However, I believe > they are both merely high-energy electrons, Then you are a very silly man. John K Clark -- 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. -- 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.
