My theory describes the internal structure of electrons, photons, protons, 
atomic nuclei, magnetism, gravity, what preceded the Big Bang, universe 
contraction, inflation and  anti-gravity.  In the (you would say very unlikely) 
event that it turns out that I am correct and existing theories are wrong, I 
don’t think I will be denied the Nobel prize because I haven’t explained 
Mercury’s precession.

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 9:35 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES

 

On Sun, May 18, 2014  John Ross <jr...@trexenterprises.com> wrote:

 

> I plan to  save your e-mails and maybe I will read some of them to the 
> audience if and when it turns out that I am correct and am awarded the Nobel 
> prize in Physics. 

 

Wow what a honor, my humble words read out to the entire Swedish Academy!   

 

> I believe Albert Einstein misinterpreted the Michelson-Morley experiment.  
> That experiment proved that the measured speed of light was always constant.  
> It did not prove that the actual speed of light is always constant.


If the measured speed of light is never the "actual" speed of light then what 
does "actual" even mean? Exactly what is so great about the "actual"  speed, 
what makes it more "actual" then the measured speed?

>  I believe light travels in Coulomb grids 


Nobody but you knows what " Coulomb grids" are and nobody but you knows what 
"the Coulomb force" is. 

> Do you understand how Albert Einstein explained the advance of Mercury’s 
> perihelion?  I certainly don’t. 


You expect to receive a Nobel Prize in physics but you haven't even bothered to 
look at groundbreaking work in this area done a century ago?

> Although I have no reason to believe that My theory would not also explain 
> the advance.

 

You expect to receive the Nobel Prize in physics but you haven't even bothered 
to use your own theory to calculate what it predicts Mercury’s precession of 
perihelion should be?!  Newton said it should be 531.65  +- .69 arc-seconds per 
century,  but the observed value is 574.10 +- .65. Einstein used his theory to 
derive a formula for the precession of a planet per orbit, it's 24*pi^3*a^3/ 
cT^2(1-e^2)  where a is the semimajor axis of the planet's orbit, c is the 
speed of light, T is the period of the planet's orbit, and e is the 
eccentricity of the planet's orbit. When you plug the numbers for Mercury into 
Einstein's formula you get a value of 574.63 +- .04 arc-seconds per century, in 
excellent agreement with observation and vastly better than Newton.

Before you but a ticket to Stockholm and start writing your acceptance speech 
you need to derive a formula for the precession of perihelion of the planets 
and hope it agrees with observation even better than Einstein's formula.

  John K Clark







 


 






 

  I believe my theory explains gravity much better than Albert Einstein did.  
You are right that I have more to work with than Einstein.  About 100 years of 
science.

 

John R

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 4:01 PM


To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES

 

On 18 May 2014 07:38, John Ross <jr...@trexenterprises.com> wrote:

I believe there is a need for my model because I believe it is a great 
improvement over existing currently accepted models. 

 

I get that, but everyone with a theory believes that. I'm interested in the 
specific flaws with the standard model that it fixes, and / or the reasoning 
that leads you to believe that it is better. (The reasoning should be the 
reasoning, not just a description of the end result of the reasoning!)

 

For example, I believe special relativity addresses the problems that Maxwell's 
equations break down for an object moving near lightspeed, and the anomalous 
results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, while general relativity addresses 
the advance of Mercury's perihelion. They are both based on equivalence 
principles, SR being that no moving observers should be privileged, GR on the 
equivalence between aceleration and gravity (the apparently fortuitous fact 
that the mass values in F=ma and F=Gm/r^2, if I have those right, is the same). 
So you can see how Einstein used certain principles he believed to be 
fundamental to support his reasoning, and how the results fixed particular 
problems with the existing models. I would expect your theory to have similar 
theoretical and experimental underpinnings if it's to be taken seriously. 
You're probably in a better position than Einstein as far as time and resources 
go since he was working in the Swiss patent office at the time he developed SR, 
if I remember correctly.

 

My book should be in your hands in a very few days if it is not already there.  
I suggest you read it a decide for yourself whether it has any merit.  After 
you have read it, I suggest you give it to your son.  If you do so, warn him 
that his professors probably are great supporters of the standard model and 
relativity.  Also see my response to John Clark.

 

They are great supporters with good reason! But of course they know those 
theories can't both be correct... 

 

John Ross

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 2:36 PM


To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES

 

Apparently gamme rays are emitted by nuclei when they drop from an excited 
state to a lower energy state (much as a lower energy photon can be emitted 
when an electron in an atom moves from a high to a low energy state). Hence 
what the atom had beforehand was excess energy (in some form). I assume one of 
the particles making up the nucleus was in some state equivalent to an electron 
being in an outer electron shell, and drops into its ground state after a 
while. I can check with my son, who is studying nuclear physics at school at 
this very moment. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomeric_transition#Decay_processes

 

I must say it is ominous that you are consistently failing to answer my 
questions about the reasoning behind all of this, but just picking on some 
small simple point each time and ignoring most of my posts. I'm beginning to 
wonder how much reasoning there actually was. I still don't know why you think 
there is a need for this model, what questions is answers that the original 
fails to, etc.

 

 

On 17 May 2014 03:44, John Ross <jr...@trexenterprises.com> wrote:

A radioactive atom that decays with a gamma ray photon has within itself before 
it decays something that will be released as a gamma ray photon when it decays. 
 That something (I say that something is an entron) has a mass equivalent to 
the energy of the gamma  ray photon.  When the decay occurs the mass of the 
atom decreases by an amount equal to the  mass of the gamma ray photon and  the 
gamma ray photon leaves with a mass equivalent to the energy of the gamma ray 
photon.

 

How can you disagree with this simple logic?  In your analysis is that 
something “rest mass” and if it is not what is it?

 

JR

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 12:23 PM


To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES

 

 

 

On 16 May 2014 06:54, John Ross <jr...@trexenterprises.com> wrote:

LizR,

 

See my  reply to Russell.

 

I know this is going to upset you but in my model every single photon in our 
Universe has a mass and that mass is determined by E = mc squared. 

 

This is true in relativity as well. 

 

Specifically the 1.02 MeV gamma ray photon has the same mass as the combined 
mass of the electron and a positron.  Visible light photons have a very small 
mass.  The green light photon has a much smaller mass of 4.08 X 10-36 kg.  You 
can calculate it yourself using Albert’s formula.  My neutrino photon has a 
mass almost equal to the mass of a proton!

 

We know  a photon has momentum which should indicate that it also has mass.  I 
think the problem is that no one wants to admit that a photon has a mass 
because it is travelling at the speed of light which should make that mass go 
to infinity

 

Only if it has a rest mass, which it doesn't.

 

.  I don’t have that problem with my model.

 

All of this is explained very well in my book which should be arriving in about 
one week.

 

John R.  

 

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:32 PM


To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES

 

On 15 May 2014 04:59, John Ross <jr...@trexenterprises.com> wrote:

I assume you would agree that a photon is self-propelled.  Protons  and alpha 
particles are also self-propelled.  They are sel-propelled by their own 
internal coulomb forces.  Electrons, protons, atomic nuclei and atoms are all 
perpetual motion machines.

 

You have to give a better explanation than that. According to all our current 
theories and observations, photons and other massless particles are in a 
different category from particles that have a rest mass. You need to explain 
why we should assume there is any equivalence between a massless particle that 
always travels at c, as measured in all reference frames, and a massive 
particle which travels at some fraction of c, a fraction that will vary 
depending on which frame its velocity is measured in.


Also, a photon doesn't violate Galilean, Newtonian or Einsteinian relativity. 
Self propelled particles do - they define an absolute state of rest. I know of 
no observational reason to assume an absolute state of rest exists, although 
this is suggested by the idea that space-time is quantised. (But then I believe 
you reject quantum mechanics?)

 

In any case, I wouldn't describe a photon as "self" propelled. It is created 
with a certain energy and momentum that are supplied by the emitter, and which 
it eventually passes on to the absorber. In between it doesn't gain or lose 
energy (except when it climbs out of or falls into gravity wells, or travels 
across an expanding or contracting universe - but these can't be described as 
self propulsion).

Sorry but your above answer is a hand waving argument at best. It needs 
detailed theoretical backing, and explicit answers to the questions I've given 
above, plus any others that may come up (e.g. there was mention of the 
"ultraviolet catastrophe" earlier - was that resolved?)

-- 

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to