Stephen Hawkins in his book The Theory of Everything complained that science had become too complicated for philosophers and in conclusion had this to say:
"However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principal by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of why the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For thin we should know the mind of God." Einstein's theories and the string theories are too complicated as Hawkins observed. Mine is not. -----Original Message----- From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:18 PM To: John Ross Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything You clearly forgot to read this: http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html John Ross: ''General Relativity and String Theory [0005] Einstein's special theory did not deal with acceleration and gravity but his General Theory of Relativity did. His general theory, attempting to explain gravity further complicated physics proposing for example that gravity produces a curvature of space. Various String Theories also attempt to explain how the universe functions. Relatively very few people understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or these string theories. I am one of the many who do not. Most people are reluctant to say these prior art theories are wrong. Not me.'' If you don't understand these theories, how can you claim they are wrong? ''Light Speed [0014] Photons in a light beam slow down when passing through a Coulombic reference frame (such as a laboratory where light speed is being made) moving opposite the beam. And they speed up when the reference frame is moving in the same direction of the beam. Based on this preferred model, time does not slow down when you go fast and things do not get shorter. Simultaneous events are simultaneous in all reference frames. Time is absolute. When an astronaut returns to earth he and his twin brother can have their next birthday party together at the same time.'' There are journals devoted to quacky theories (e.g. physics essays), but I think that even these journals will reject your work. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Bruno Marchal'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'Hal Ruhl'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Russell Standish'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 07:34 PM Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything > Have you read my patent application? It has plenty of details (17 > pages of fine print). Take a look at it on www.uspto.gov search under > patent applications for Pub No. 20050182607 or Application Serial No. > 11/108,938. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 6:45 AM > To: John Ross > Cc: 'Hal Ruhl'; 'Russell Standish'; [email protected] > Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of > Everything > > > > Le 11-oct.-05, à 01:46, John Ross a écrit : > > > Because there is only one particle (and its anti-particle) and one > > force from which the entire universe is built. How could there be > > anything simpler? > > > 0 particles and 0 forces, no time nor spaces but a web a overlapping > turing machines' dreams emerging from addition and multiplication ... > > John, if you want your theory being a TOE, don't forget to address the > mind body problem, and to be clear on all your assumptions (ontology, > epistemology). > > Now to be honest I have no idea how neutrinos could be photons. If you > thrust your idea try (at least) to write a paper with some details. > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/= > >
