There is nothing wrong with the standard model and relativity theories. The question is are they perfect? The other question is: Is there a better theory?
Congratulations to you for looking at my summary at Amazon.com. I assume you saw my quote from Stephen Hawking’s Book, The Theory of Everything, basically saying that the current theories are too complicated and we need a complete theory that can be understood by everyone and when we have it, “...then we will know the mind of God.” I happen to believe my theory is a better theory that can be understood by everyone (if they take the time to try to understand it). I doubt if it is perfect or complete, but I believe it is better, but I do not yet know the mind of God. And I believe most of the questions you raised from reading my short summary are clearly answered in my 212 book. My theory does not deal with the Lorentz invariance or lepton numbers. There is no “weak “ or “strong” force. I explain in my book that the Coulomb force is the only force we need to explain how our Universe works. However, as Professor Coulomb proposed long ago at very short distances the Coulomb force can be very strong! The Coulomb force also provides the gravity holding galaxies together. John R. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 8:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: TRONNIES For anyone who's interested, the "good summary of my book ... available at Amazon.com" reads: Mr. Ross has identified for the first time the single particle and its anti-particle that everything in our Universe is made of. It is a point particle with no mass and no volume, but it has a charge of plus e or minus e which means these particles carry the Coulomb force. Mr. Ross has named these particles “TRONNIES”. Tronnies are self-propelled by their own Coulomb forces at speeds of (pi)/2 times the speed of light and they always travel in perfect circles in threesomes and twosomes. The threesomes are electrons and positrons and the twosomes are entrons (also first identified by Mr. Ross). Mr. Ross shows for the first time the internal structure of electrons and positrons, and their sizes to be about 2 X 10-18 m. The sizes of entrons range from about 1 X 10-18 m to about 10 cm (about 100 million-billion times larger). One entron provides the energy and mass for each photon. The same entron that provides the gravity of galaxies provides almost all of the mass of each proton. Three entrons combine to make an electron and a positron. So electrons, positrons and entrons are made from tronnies. Everything else is made from entrons or entrons, electrons and positrons. By “everything” we mean everything: photons, protons, atoms, molecules, plants, animals, people, moons, planets, stars, galaxies, electricity, magnetism, gravity and anti-gravity. Mr. Ross reveals to the general public for the first time how to build universes from these points of charge and how universes are created and recycled. One problem I have with this is that it doesn't reveal the reasoning behind this idea, even in a brief summary. Also, what's the motivation? - what is wrong with the Standard Model that is explained by this theory? Which observations are anomalous in the SM but fall naturally out of this theory? Given that this theory clearly violates a lot of the generally accepted principles of modern physics (lepton number, energy conservation, Lorentz invariance, Galilean relativity...) it is really incumbent on the author to explain clearly what is wrong with modern physics, what the fundamental basis of his theory is (Aristotelean materialism, presumably, but he should explain in rather more detail) and so on. How do tronnies explain the (appearance of the) weak and strong forces without recourse to neutrinos and quarks, for example? How do the masses of the all the muons and so on drop out of the theory? This needs to be explained at a lower level of detail than just saying "everything is made out of these particles, which behave in the following way" - we need to know why anyone would think that is the case. The reasoning, the maths, any experiments that support this theory are all notably lacking, so far. I don't have time to read another book on fringe science, I tried to read "The New Science" and wrote a comment (several pages I think) on the first chapter or so, but I have since stalled and will probably never finish (sorry!). I didn't look at Edgar Owen's book. I didn't even finish "the Beginning of Infinity" because I thought the chapter on beauty (iirc) was nonsense. But anyone with a decent theory should be able to summarise it and explain his reasoning, his assumptions, the steps that lead to his conclusion, etc. By examining that reasoning, an unbiased observer be able to form an idea about whether there is anything worthwhile to the theory, i.e. whether it's self-consistent, how it compares to existing theories, and so on. If it passes that test, then there's a reason to do some experimental testing. Otherwise this looks like just another idea that seemed like a good idea to the proposer, but that's about all that can be said for it. And it certainly isn't going to dethrone my invisible pink unicorn hypothesis any time soon. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
