On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:39 PM, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
> My theory predicts anti-particles and explains the internal structure of > the basic particles, electrons, positrons > Bullshit. Forget cutting edge questions on the frontiers of science, you can't even explain how magnetism works, but Maxwell could do so 150 years ago. >and entrons. > Since there is no evidence that "entrons" exist there is no need to explained them. >Your’s do not. > Feynman explained why the magnetic moment of the electron can not be exactly 1 and must be 1.00115965246; what do you calculate it to be? > The only force in the Universe is the Coulomb force. Then why stick the name "Coulomb" on it? All Coulomb did was discover the law of static electrical attraction, a very very small (and dull) part of Maxwell's grand theory of electromagnetism, which is just a small part of Electroweak Theory, which is just small part of the Theory Of Everything, assuming such a theory exists. I don't understand why you don't just call it "The Force". Too Star Wars? > > > there is no strong force. > Then what keeps the nucleus from exploding from the repulsive force of all those positively charged protons? > > I never understood the electroweak force. > Wow what a surprise. > > > There is a force of gravity but only my theory explains how gravity is > produced. > Einstein explained why gravity causes the precession of the perihelion of Mercury to have the value we observe it to have, you've admitted that your theory can not. If your theory is better than Einstein's how is that possible? > >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 > If you can't even write an intelligent post how can you write a intelligent book? > and study my calculations. > Calculations?! You don't even understand arithmetic, you think .928 is equal to 1.946. > > I had the impression that a goal of this chat group was to find a > “theory of everything” > If it is then that's foolish, the goal should be to just find out more about the world; we don't even know if a theory of everything exists, and even if it does it is most certainly not going to be simpler than Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism which you have zero understanding of and have probably never even heard of even though it's by far the greatest development in physics during the 19th century. > that would be a simple understandable theory that would explain all of > nature. > We don't know if a theory of everything even exists and even if it does we don't know if the human brain, any human brain, is powerful enough to understand it. John K Clark -- 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.
