LizR,
Are you suggesting that just because there is an existing description of the proton that we should not try to develop a better description? I have shown that Coulomb forces can hold protons together and Coulomb forces can hold together alpha particles and all of the other atomic nuclei can be held together. We know for sure that Coulomb forces exists. We can see it when we comb our hair. We do not know the strong force exists. And we do not know quarks exists. Maybe they do exist but I do not believe so. We also do not know what preceded the Big Bang . I believe I know. Wouldn’t you like to know what preceded the Big Bang? Or would you say, “Why should we care, what difference does it make. Are you satisfied with a theory that says our Universe with 100 to 400 billion galaxies began with a singularity? At one time I thought that one of the purposes of this chat group might be to try to find a better “theory of everything”. We certainly will not find it if we don’ try. Have you read Stephen Hawking’s book: The Theory of Everything? He believes science has become too complicated and we need a theory that can be understandable in broad principal by everyone, not just a few scientists. John R. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 3:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: TRONNIES On 12 May 2014 08:18, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: LizR To answer your question: My initial task that I assigned to myself about 13 years ago was to explain how an electron and two positrons could be combined to make a proton. Why did you think this was a sensible thing to do? What problem does this solve? On the face of it, it appears to be unnecessary, as there is a good existing theory of the proton's internal structure (which I believe has good theoretical and experimental support). This would seem to be an attempt to replace up and down quarks with electrons and positrons, which of course means you have to add in lots of extra complications to account for all the features that quarks display - colour charge and so on. As far as I can see, you are trying to duplicate the effects of the strong nuclear force (100 times the strength of electromagnetism) and the weak nuclear force (between 10,000 and 100,000 times weaker than the electromagnetic force) using just the electromagnetic force. Apart from seeming like a pointless exercise, this is what I believe Einstein tried and failed to do in his Unified field theory, and Kaluza and Klein failed to do with their theory. So the bar may already be fairly high on this one. -- 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.
