Much of my theory is described with math. You need to read my book.
JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 7:10 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 5 June 2014 13:39, John Ross <jr...@trexenterprises.com> wrote: My theory predicts anti-particles and explains the internal structure of the basic particles, electrons, positrons and entrons. Your’s do not. The standard model does all that, too. 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. The problem is that your theory doesn't explain a whole load of things, at least not in a precise way (i.e. with mathematics). For example... Quantum theory explains in great detail the nature of matter - it provides equations which can be used to predict to great numerical precision lots of previously unexplained features of atoms and their constituents. Some examples have been given already - the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift and the magnetic moment of the electron. Of course quantum mechanics also explains how electron shells work in atoms and how nuclei work and so on, not to mention "spooky" effects like the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky effect, Bell's inequality and the two-slit experiment. QM has given us transistors, lasers, etc, and is responsible for a lot of the stuff we enjoy in the 21st century - iPads, PCs, smartphones and so on. General relativity explains gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, perihelion advance, the gravitational redshift and black holes (charged, rotating, and non-rotating). That is to say it provides equations which describe all of these phenomena, and in several cases predicted their existence long before they were discovered. These equations have held up whenever they have been tested, plus they make surprising predictions. A rival theory should at least do as much... And that's what Stephen Hawking is talking about. He is pointing out that GR and QM are incompatible, a fact which is only obvious under extreme conditions (like near black holes). Hence he is saying we need a deeper theory, one which correctly predicts all the phenomena explained by general relativity and quantum mechanics (and perhaps goes on to make other, preferably surprising predictions). By this he means a theory with a well-defined ontology - it should tell us what space-time and mass-energy are - and which also gives us some equations derived from whatever basic assumptions it makes, which can be used to at least retrodict all the phenomena explained by GR and QM, possibly as limiting cases (it would be especially nice if it predicted some deviations from GR/QM which could be measured, as GR predicted deviations from Newtonian gravitation that were measured (a) retroactively, for the perihelion advance of Mercury and (b) predictively, for the bending of starlight near a lage mass. So far I haven't seen anything like that sort of level of detail in the Ross model. Where your make claims about the nature of space and time, for example, you appear to be going back to something Newtonian, but without providing equations derived from your model that would explain why that should be expected to work. I haven't seen any attempt to explain the well-known phenomena that GR explains so well - gravitational radiation from neutron stars, for example. If you intend to explain gravity via some exotic mechanism, you need to do so in a manner that covers all these observed phenomena, and (of course) does so not just with words but mathematically, because as discussed elsewhere, it is (so far) our experience that only maths works for describing the universe accurately. As things stand, I don't think Prof Hawking would see the Ross model as the answer he's looking for. -- 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.
