Le 22-oct.-05, à 04:50, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
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?
John, if you want your theory
Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
n load the application from
www.uspto.gov .
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 4:02 PM
To: John Ross
Cc: 'Saibal Mitra'; everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
Every
gt;
> 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: ev
There is also the "Crackpot Index" by physicist John Baez:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
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:
from the index:
"8. 5 points for
15 PM
To: Saibal Mitra
Cc: John Ross; everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
Everything
Very good! If we ever get around to making a FAQ for this group, this
link should be right up front.
Cheers
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:18:19AM +0200, S
awkins observed. Mine is not.
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:18 PM
To: John Ross
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
Everything
You clearly forgot to
Russell Standish wrote:
Very good! If we ever get around to making a FAQ for this group, this
link should be right up front.
Cheers
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:18:19AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
> You clearly forgot to read this:
> http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
"How to
Very good! If we ever get around to making a FAQ for this group, this
link should be right up front.
Cheers
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:18:19AM +0200, Saibal Mitra wrote:
> You clearly forgot to read this:
> http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
>
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask
ese journals will reject your work.
- Original Message -
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Bruno Marchal'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'Hal Ruhl'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Russell Standish'"
]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 6:45 AM
To: John Ross
Cc: 'Hal Ruhl'; 'Russell Standish'; everything-list@eskimo.com
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
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 e
Hi Jesse:
At 10:51 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Jesse:
In FCC ABC layering the distance between the centers of any two
adjacent regions is always the same.
Now if we get to motion the question is whether or not the model
allows motion. In a discrete state evolving univers
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Jesse:
In FCC ABC layering the distance between the centers of any two adjacent
regions is always the same.
Now if we get to motion the question is whether or not the model allows
motion. In a discrete state evolving universe there is no motion while a
universe is in a
Hi Jesse:
In FCC ABC layering the distance between the centers of any two
adjacent regions is always the same.
Now if we get to motion the question is whether or not the model
allows motion. In a discrete state evolving universe there is no
motion while a universe is in a particular state a
Hi Russell:
Because there is only one primitive - an isolated point and one
source of "meaning" its position in its region. If the region has
only discrete locations then one can encode a state of this type of
universe directly as a string of 0's and 1's. 1's mark the position
occupied by t
Hi Russell:
At 06:56 PM 10/10/2005, you wrote:
But look at your assumptions.
* 3 dimensions
Actually there are more space dimensions. The FCC ABC layering
provides in general six additional local dimensions from the point of
view of the central region.
* a discrete lattice structure: wh
Hi Russell:
I forgot to mention that for the asynchronously updated regions [no
entanglement with other regions] each individual region update is a
new state of that universe so computing new states is very easy. The
fact that it takes many updates to produce a large scale change in
the grid
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: "'Hal Ruhl'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
Everything
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:56:23 +1000
But look at your assumptions.
* 3 dimensions
* a discrete latt
g simpler?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:06 PM
> To: Hal Ruhl
> Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
> Everything
>
>
: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
Everything
Why is this the simplest? It looks horrendously complicated to me.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:07:26PM -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
> Actually the simplest potential model of our universe I know of
Why is this the simplest? It looks horrendously complicated to me.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:07:26PM -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
> Actually the simplest potential model of our universe I know of is
> mine [was I first with this idea?] which I have posted on before. It
> is just a discrete point spa
Actually the simplest potential model of our universe I know of is
mine [was I first with this idea?] which I have posted on before. It
is just a discrete point space where the points are confined to
regions arranged on a face centered cubic grid and "particles" are
just dances of these points
Yes. But building a neutrino shield would be difficult.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 4:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
George Levy wrote:
Jesse wrote
Well, you're free to define "negative mass" however you like, of
course--but this is not how physicists would use the term. When you plug
negative values of mass or energy into various physics equations it leads
to weird consequences that we don't see in every
I'm not really confusing the two, but the idea is so imprecisely put
it probably seems as though I do. The Dirac equation has both positive
and negative energy solutions. The Dirac solution to the negative
energy solutions was that they are all present as an unobservable
"Dirac sea". If you pop a p
--- Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John M wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Jesse and George:
SNIP
> JeMa:
> Well, you're free to define "negative mass" however
> you like, of course--but
> this is not how physicists would use the term. When
> you plug negative values
> of mass or energy into var
Jesse wrote
Well, you're free to define "negative mass" however you
like, of course--but this is not how physicists would use the term.
When you plug negative values of mass or energy into various physics
equations it leads to weird consequences that we don't see in everyday
life, such as the f
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 08:08:13PM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> This idea looks like it's pretty similar to LeSage's "pushing gravity"
> theory--there's an article on it at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeSage_gravity which points out fatal flaws in
> the the idea. It's also discussed in the
daddycaylor wrote:
John Ross wrote:
Neutrinos and Gravity
[0010] Neutrinos are very high-energy photons. Each neutrino
comprises a
high-energy, high frequency entron. Neutrinos, like other photons,
travel in substantially straight lines at the speed of light with its
entron circling within
John Ross wrote:
Neutrinos and Gravity
[0010] Neutrinos are very high-energy photons. Each neutrino
comprises a
high-energy, high frequency entron. Neutrinos, like other photons,
travel in substantially straight lines at the speed of light with its
entron circling within the photon in circle
John M wrote:
Jesse and George:
the cobbler apprentice speaketh:
you, mathematically high-minded savants look for a
primitive realization of 'negative mass' etc, while
you find it natural to use negative numbers. If I was
185lb last week and now 180 lb, then I have 5 lb in
negative.
Of course
Note: forwarded message attached.
--- Begin Message ---
Jesse and George:
the cobbler apprentice speaketh:
you, mathematically high-minded savants look for a
primitive realization of 'negative mass' etc, while
you find it natural to use negative numbers. If I was
185lb last week and now 180 lb,
George Levy wrote:
Negative matter/energy however are different. If negative matter/energy
could exist they would give space a negative curvature.
The issue of negative curvature is somewhat separate from negative mass,
though--if the density of matter/energy in our universe was below the
c
Russell Standish wrote:
Incidently, here's my own theory on the origin of matter. (Special)
relativistic quantum mechanics delivers the prediction of matter
being in perfect balance with antimatter - this is well known from
Dirac's work in the 1930s. However, if spacetime had a nonzero
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:55:47 -0700 John Ross wrote
> The problem is I do not know for sure whether or not my theory is
> correct. I have tried without success to get my theory published in two
> very respected scientific journals and have been rejected out of hand.
> I have given descriptions of
Mr Forrester - yoohoo!!! You are not playing ther game by YOUR OWN
RULES IN ALLOWING THESE FRIVOLOUS POSTS ABOUT COPYRIGHT. The posters
are clearly and tendentiously ignoring the original poster's theory
by carrying on about this crap.
Time to lean on the "moderator's switch". HIGH TIME
Ki
I just checked the Australian patent office website - I meant
"design", not "pattern". I wonder where I got the name "pattern" from
- did it used to be used, or is my fading memory of IP nomenclature?
A design would be what Coca-Cola would register to prevent Pepsi from
selling their coke in the c
om: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 06:51:42PM -0400, Benjamin Udell wr
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 06:51:42PM -0400, Benjamin Udell wrote:
> Of course Penrose in Britain was granted a copyright (which I hear has
> expired) for the concept of the Penrose Tile -- the ability to create an
> acyclic pattern using only two tiles. He started proceedings against somebody
> fo
quot;Johnathan Corgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
ohn M wrote:
> Seriously: there are countries where a patent can be
> granted only
universe and get on with my life.
-Original Message-
From: Johnathan Corgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 11:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
Everything
John M
John M wrote:
> Seriously: there are countries where a patent can be
> granted only if a working model can be produced (this
> is against the perpetuum mobile deluge of patents). It
> may be valid for a TOE as well.
The patent process is designed to provide an inventor with certain legal
rights r
Jonathan,
you brought up old memories...
Seriously: there are countries where a patent can be
granted only if a working model can be produced (this
is against the perpetuum mobile deluge of patents). It
may be valid for a TOE as well.
Less seriously:
I worked with the Hungarian Patent Office (right
John Ross wrote:
> My April 18, 2005 version of my Theory of Everything has recently been
> published as a patent application. You can view it at the United States
> Patent Office web site by going to www.uspto.gov . Click "search" then
> click "Published Number Search" under Published Applicati
Any particular reason why you chose to PATENT your theory? And what do
propose to use the patent for? Are you going to sue the entire world
for patent infringement when it is approved? Has it not occurred to
you there might be around 10 billions years of prior art, or doesn't
that matter any more.
My April 18, 2005 version of my Theory of Everything has recently been
published as a patent application. You can view it at the United States
Patent Office web site by going to www.uspto.gov . Click "search" then
click "Published Number Search" under Published Applications. Then type
in my Pate
47 matches
Mail list logo
