On Apr 2, 12:55 am, wrote:
I have been working to develop a mechanically based Theory of
Everything. I have summarized my ideas in a new web page located at:
http://www.geocites.com/franklinhu/onetheory.html
This is the contents of this new web site:
The Theory of Everything Summary:
Physics isn't complicated.
No, but it is much stranger than you think. There are a number of
experiments that indicate that the simple, intuitive model that you
would like is simply ruled out.
In this one document, many unexplained
physical phenomenon we observe will be explained in one simple
mechanically based model. This is not a proof of these concepts, but
rather sets the stage for showing how complex phenomenon like gravity,
magnetism, and electrostatics are all linked together in a single
model which is so beautiful, it must be true. This document only
contains a summary. For more information, see my complete theory at:http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
Unfortunately, even your corrected link shows that the theory fails in
one really important aspect. You can't calculate anything with it. As
such, it can't be tested in a way that distinguishes it from other
models.
I would like to reiterate to you something that I've told you befo
A model that is conceptually simpler (in your estimation) than an
existing theory will NOT replace the existing theory unless it can do
the following things:
- Make *quantitative* predictions of measurable quantitites that are
not presently predictable with the existing theory.
- Predict a behavior that is clearly ruled out by an existing theory,
and then that behavior is later found to happen in nature.
It doesn't matter HOW elegant and simple and intuitive you think the
model is. If you can't calculate with it, and if it doesn't predict
things that the current theory does not predict, then your model is
simply useless. Period. Sorry, but that's the case.
I'll only address a couple of your points below.
1. What is the universe made up of?
The universe is fundamentally only made up of 2 particles. These
particles are the electron and the positron. All observable particles
in the universe are some combination of only these 2 particles. This
is why we have never seen a particle with a fractional charge. It
simply cannot happen.
Unfortunately, the scattering centers inside a proton *have* been
unambiguously associated with *measured* charge of 1/3 and 2/3 through
Coulomb scattering. In Coulomb scattering, one can *measure* the
charge of the object doing the scattering, whether it is seen outside
the proton or not.
2. The behavior of electrons and positrons.
Electrons and positrons are particles of finite size which act like
bells in that when they are struck, they ring out with a specific tone
or frequency. The frequency of both electrons and positrons is the
same, but are out of phase from one another by 180 degrees.
This explains little. For example, the current model can explain the
angular distribution of electron-positron pair creation from gammas.
Can yours?
[snip]
14. What causes gravity?
Gravity is simply caused by the electrostatic force. If you assume
that a tiny (10^-40) asymmentry exists between the proton and electron
charge and you apply Columbs law in a straight forward manner, you can
account for the force that we call gravity. This is a fully all
attractive force that follows the gravitational equations.
You will note a problem here. Since the Earth is made of proton and
electrons, then a tiny charge asymmetry will produce a net charge of
one sign, as you say. However, the Moon is also made of protons and
electrons, and the same charge asymmetry will produce a net charge of
the same sign as the Earth. In your scenario, the Earth and the Moon
would then have the same sign of net charge, and if you recall
Coulomb's law, like charges repel. Thus you would predict that the
Earth repels the Moon, not attracts it.
To account for attraction via Coulomb's law, you would have to explain
how it is that the Moon and the Earth acquire opposite charge.
Likewise, you would also have to explain how the Sun and the Earth
acquire opposite charge. You will also note that it is difficult to
arrange the Sun and the Earth and the Moon all to have opposite
charges, so that at least one of those pairs would have to repel each
other, which is counter to experiment.
PD
[snip]