Something I like almost as much as string theory:

megforce.com

Please look at this site, and tell me what you think.

Thanks,
T-rouser (just kiddin', mods! )


The MegForce theory puts the D in Fun.

Have you read the information about the theory?

BASICS OF THE GEATRON NUCLEAR MODEL by Pamfiloff

I couldn't tell from your statement how much you like the theory. Do you understand what he's trying to say. Why not summarize it, so I don't have to plow through that mess.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Read this page, if you haven't already, it should clear up some things for you:

http://www.2xtreme.net/~boris/predictions.htm

The theory is a bit complex, if that link I showed you in my last post does not help, I don't know how else to explain it to you. Basically, I think this theory explains the electromagnetic aspect of particles, while showing how the virtual particle lineup and spin can produce a gravity force (at least from what I drew from the theory). I think this theory is worth a string. It may be just a bit complex, but I haven't found anything countering the theory. There's even a book out, which one'll find on the site. Trust me. This theory is worth reading about.

OK, I read the page. It cleared some things up. You are claiming this is a beautiful theory as a joke. There's no point in tearing in to the whole thing but just for example:
There are many observations that rule out neutrinos having a mass THAT large [2/3 of an electron]. One example is the speed at which neutrinos arrived from SN1987A.

The Large Magellenic Cloud is 180,000 light years away. What energy would something with 2/3 the mass of an electron have to have in order to get here within a few hours of the first light of the explosion? How much energy would it release when it gets stopped in a detector full of water? How many would have to have been given off for us to see 19 of them in one tank of water? Now, what's the total energy given off in neutrinos by SN1987A? Pamfiloff [like Dogbert] must figure that no one who can think is going to read his book, but that still leaves a huge market. Some layman can't tell the difference between his work and that of Brian Greene?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I just liked the four-fundamental-particle simplicity.
And about that neutrino thing, if that's what you are going to base your opinions on, that's fine by me. But whether or not the theory is correct, it still provides a simpler, more acceptable outcome than other theories. By the way, your questions on the e neutrino confuse me. Honestly, sometimes you end up raising eyebrows, so the initial impression is uh, okay...next!

If the theory predicts things that can't be true, does the fact that it is simpler and more acceptable make it better? Why not take it all the way back to Earth, Air, Fire, and Water? That's a pretty simple theory. Aristotle found it acceptable.

In this case, I didn't have to look far for something that MegForce doesn't work for. There's loads of others, but I selected one that I thought you'd see right away. Sadly I overestimated. In simple terms, neutrinos having a mass of 2/3 the mass of the electron would require that SN1987A needed about a million times more energy than it could have given off to propel these things. And even if it did have that kind of energy, the neutrinos themselves that were detected had about one millionth of the energy each than the theory says they should have had. Basically, we have a hard observation that knocks the theory out in one shot.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Alright, I'll keep that in mind. Thanx. B)

I was reading Michael Lawrence singlet theory. Has anyone else examined
this? This theory explains QCD and many other tidbits. His website is
http://www.mlawrence.co.uk/index.htm.