John,
Thanks for the posting. I still have trouble conceiving of point
particles with physical dimensions of zero. Wouldn't they be not there?
But, all these ideas of getting something from nothing are on the right
track, I think. And, at least you've made some testable predictions.
That's the key for all of us, IMHO.
Roger
On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 3:52:38 PM UTC-5, John Ross wrote:
>
> Roger and Everyone,
>
>
>
> I absolutely agree. And I have been working on a model which explains how
> our Universe works including how our Universe of 100 to 400 billion
> galaxies could have been created from empty space. My model is explained
> in detail in my new book, *Tronnies – The Source of the Coulomb Force*,
> but as far as I know not one member of this group has bothered to read my
> book. My book at *Chapter XXIX* includes 101 predictions of my “Theory
> of Everything”. No one who has read my book has shown me any evidence,
> based on fact, that any of my predictions are not correct. My theory is
> definitely inconsistent with much of the Standard Model and Einstein
> relativity.
>
>
>
> Tronnies (discovered by me about 13 years ago) are point particles with a
> charge of plus e or minus e. So tronnies are the *source* of the Coulomb
> force. Tronnies, in order to exist, must travel in circles at π/2 times
> the speed of light, with one or two other tronnies (twosomes and
> threesomes). (Doing so, each tronnie is always at the focus of its own
> Coulomb force; so tronnies are also the *product* of the Coulomb
> force.) The twosome is an entron (also discovered by me about 11 years
> ago) which provides all of the mass of our Universe except for the mass of
> electrons and positrons. The threesomes are electrons and positrons. (
> *My* *model is completely symmetrical with no symmetry breaking.)* There
> are an equal number of electrons and positrons in our Universe. Everything
> else in our Universe is made from entrons, electrons and positrons. For
> example, each proton is made from two positrons and a very high energy
> electron (which is a combination of an electron and a very high energy
> entron). An anti-proton is the opposite of a proton. In our Universe
> protons dominate over anti-protons merely because there are more free
> electrons as compared to positrons, so protons are easier to make. Any
> anti-protons made are quickly annihilated by combination with protons.
> However, there are probably universes within our Cosmos in which
> anti-protons are dominate over protons.
>
>
>
> An alpha particle is comprised of four protons, two electrons and several
> gamma ray entrons. There are no neutrons in the nuclei of stable atoms.
> (Neutrons have an average life of about 15 minutes.) The nuclei of all
> stable (and very long-lived unstable atoms) heaver than helium are
> comprised of from 1 to 60 alpha particles, 0, 1, 2, or 3 protons, and a
> number (between 0 and 28) of electrons and between about 13 and 322 MeV of
> gamma ray entrons. For example the carbon-12 nuclei is comprised of three
> alpha particles and about 13.04 MeV of gamma ray entrons. The oxygen-16
> nuclei is comprised of four alpha particles and about 13.04 MeV of gamma
> ray entrons. The silver, Ag-107 nuclei is comprised of 26 alpha
> particles, 3 protons and 8 electrons and about 25 MeV of gamma ray entrons.
> The Ag-109 nuclei is comprised of 27 alpha particles, 1 proton, 8
> electrons and about 29 MeV of gamma ray entrons.
>
>
>
> My book is available for about $25 at Amazon.com. Just search for
> “tronnies”. You can see a summary of my model at the Amazon.com web site.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Roger, I read your article from your web site. It is very interesting,
> although it takes a different approach from my model in dealing with the
> “something vs nothing” issue. On page 18 you said you can’t conceive of
> anything [not] having “*either*” height, depth or length. My tronnies
> have “*neither*” height, depth nor length. They also have no mass.
> They are point particles. They have no properties other than charge of “e”
> (about 1.602 X 10-19 coulombs) which means they are a source of the
> Coulomb force. Actually my tronnies are the only source of the Coulomb
> force. All other charged particles get their charge from the tronnies
> that they are comprised of. You might ask, “Where do the tronnies get
> their charge.” The answer is they get most of their charge from
> themselves, because traveling in a circle at a speed of π/2 times the speed
> of light, each of them are always at the focus of their own Coulomb force.
> Some of the tronnie’s charge may come from Coulomb grids that fill our
> Universe and is sum of all of the speed-of-light Coulomb waves that fill
> our Universe. However, entrons, electrons and positrons (made from
> tronnies) do have size and mass. Entrons are two-dimensional; electrons
> and positrons are three-dimensional.
>
>
>
> If all of the plus and minus tronnies that our Universe is comprised of
> could be combined, we would have “nothing” instead of “something”. This is
> simply because:
>
> -e plus +e = 0.
>
> However, they cannot be combined because each of them are repelling itself
> at a speed in excess of 3 X 108 m/s. The best they can do is to circle
> each other at π/2 times the speed of light. Their attractive and repulsive
> Coulomb forces exactly cancel in the diametrical direction. And the
> integrated force between them is thenin the form of energy and mass because
> the r2 in Coulomb’s Law becomes r when you do the integration around the
> circle.
>
>
>
> I invite you to revise your article to make it consistent with my model.
>
>
>
> John Ross
>
>
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 11, 2015 8:23 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
> *Subject:* Isn't this group supposed to be about trying to figure out how
> the universe works and not so much about religion and insults?
>
>
>
> Everyone,
>
>
>
> I'd like to propose that we get back to the subject of discussing our
> ideas on how the universe works, why it's here, etc., and stop talking
> about religion so much. It'd be nice if we could all also provide
> constructive criticism if we disagree, instead of insults. If this turns
> into a religion, hatred, insults type forum, for me at least, it will have
> lost the value it had.
>
>
>
> To start, I'd like to propose the following: We all have different
> views on the question "Why there is something rather than nothing?", if
> that question even has value, how the universe works, etc. I think it's
> safe to say that, unless you're an academic, our ideas are also routinely
> ignored, criticized and made fun of by academics. The only way for
> amateurs to ever get more traction is if we can take our ideas on the
> universe, build them up, and make models and testable predictions. That's
> pretty much the scientific method. Also, if we're discussing metaphysics,
> metaphysics is the study of being and existence. Because the universe
> "be"s and exists, and physics is the study of how the universe works, the
> laws of physics and the universe should be derivable from the principles of
> metaphysics. I think many of us are trying to work out the principles of
> metaphysics that apply to how the universe works. I call this a
> metaphysics-to-physics or philosophical engineering approach. I'd like to
> challenge all of us to build models and make predictions based on our
> ideas. That's what I'm trying to do in my own thinking. I've got a very
> basic beginning model based on my thinking at my website at:
>
>
>
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing
>
>
>
> in the section called Use of the proposed solution to build a model of the
> universe. I look forward to reading about others' models on this list in
> the future.
>
>
>
> Anyways, even if no one is interested, I'd still vote to get away from
> religion. Live and let live, let everyone have their say, and move on.
> That's my two cents. Thanks.
>
>
>
> Roger
>
> --
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> <javascript:>.
> 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.
