Title: Message
You guys  should get a copy of my new self-published book.  It is entitled "A Single Particle Universe, The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything".  According to my theory, the single particle is a mass-less point particle with a charge of +e or -e.  The particles, I call tronnies, attract their opposites and repel their own kind with Coulomb-like forces that expand out at the speed of light.  The particles also repel themselves so their speed can never be less than the speed of light.  This is possible because they have no mass. 
 
Photons are comprised of a plus tronnie and a minus tronnie (net zero charge) circling in a circle with a diameter equal to half the photon wavelength).  In the photon frame of reference each tronnie travels around the circumference of the  circle at 1.57 times c.  It's force field traveling at c from the opposite side of the circle provides a repelling force that maintains the diameter of the photon.  The two tronnies circle because they are attracted to each other.  Each of the circling tronnies also push itself in the photon  direction at the  speed of light. 
 
An electron (negatron) is comprised of two minus tronnies and a plus tronnie (net -e charge) and a positron is  comprised of two plus tronnies and a minus tronnie (net +e charge).  Neutrinos are very high frequency photons (net zero charge and a very very small diameter corresponding to its high frequency).  Electrons and positrons can and do  capture neutrinos greatly (by up to several hundred times) increasing their mass/energy.  High mass/energy electrons and positrons combine to form protons.  So a proton is comprised of at least one electron, two  positrons and  the three captured neutrinos that add up to 15 tronnies, (8 plus and 7 minus so the charge is +e and  the mass is 1,800 times the electron mass).  The proton can also capture photons but with longer wavelengths (for example, gamma rays).  A neutron is a proton combined with a high energy electron.
 
Neutrinos are the carriers of gravity.  Coulomb force fields expand out behind the neutrinos in the direction of the source of the neutrinos.  The neutrino rides in  front of these expanding force fields like a boat riding in  front of its wake.  These force fields expanding behind the  neutrinos push charged particles in matter through which they are passing toward the neutrino source.  This is gravity.  Neutrinos from the sun passing through the earth (100 million per square cm per second) push the earth toward the sun.  Neutrinos trapped in the  earth and later released in random directions provide the earth's gravity.  Neutrinos from a black hole in the center of our galaxy hold our galaxy together.  The Universe is expanding because neutrinos are captured by hydrogen in intergalactic space but much longer wavelength photons are not.  These much longer wavelength photons are pushing galaxies apart at the present time.  Later on  when more of the hydrogen in intergalactic space has been sucked into black holes the neutrinos will become more effective relative to the  longer wavelength photons and will begin compressing the Universe ultimately into a single black hole that will shrink to the size of a basketball as molecules, atoms and photons are broken down to the basic + and - tronnies.  Then this black will experience the next Big Bang initiating the next universe.  The initial expansion can be several billion light years in a fraction of a second since there is no limit to how fast tronnies can travel if they are not tied to an opposite tronnie in a photon or an electron.
 
So ours in only one Universe in a long string of a series of universes.  If you are interested you can buy my book at:
 
Earth Song Bookstore
1440 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Ph: 858-755-4254
Fax: 858-755-6787
  
-----Original Message-----
From: John M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 7:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hal Ruhl
Subject: Re: Then I can jump in with my bias....

Hi, Hal,
I like your nihilistic (oops: zero-based) ontology as a representation of our knowledge. Beyond that:
 
I tried to cut out the 'expansion' as a cute idea which got only a justification by ignorance:
it was applicable and no other reasonable proposition was competing with the millions of slanted (theory laden) experiments to prove it - all assuming in advance that it is true.
Hubble was a genius. Not "god's" prophet. He may be right (not necessarily).
 
In your logic, if 'everything' increases within (including inter- and intraatomic measures, even an expanding space), does it make sense to speak about an unobservable overall change? We, our views, the details, the connections, all change the same way. Is it a fata morgana, if everything stays the same, we just say that the total is getting bigger? (while the universe? - space? being infinite?)
 
I tried to circumvent this obstacle in my narrative for a beginning (without a "creator"), by assigning 'space' (and 'time) to *our* organization of *our* universe from within. So 'my'
infinite means: the edge of defining space - no such measure beyond that. 
Any other "edge" has something beyond it. (Einstein's joke: north of the North Pole?)
 
Like George, I can dream up occasions for a redshift beside a slow-down.
The conventional physical edifice resulting in missing (dark) things and controversies is the result of views (and calculations!) from an age with less epistemic cognitive inventory to base upon, wishful postulates upon the then logical explanatory trials (discount phlogiston) in concepts not identified to meet our present scrutiny (energy? gravity? their prodigies?)
but used as base in our religious-like belief system of 'physics. 
Russell scolded me some years back: Don't I dare call his science a 'religion" - well I don't
but it is a belief system.
This list started to attempt to break loose from it - but too many conventional physicist-opinions terrorized many free spirits back into the 75 subsequent college-generations-brainwashed 'physicist'-community-memes of classical and well calculated physical thought.
Becuase it is efficient and productive it is not necessarily true (like the redshift).
 
As George said: "I now humbly wait for rebuttals ..." not offers to go elsewhere, because even if I get silenced, after many years of participation, I still want to read this list.
 
John M
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Hal Ruhl
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Then I can jump in with my bias....

Hi George:

The idea at least for my point of view is more along the lines that the multiverse is a form of Nothing something like 256/256 is a form of 1 and [256/256 - 239/239] is another form of zero. 

By the way the idea is that space itself expands.  This mechanism does not slow photons but rather increases their wavelength.

Hal


At 05:07 PM 5/22/2004, you wrote:
Ron,
 
It seems most logical, to me anyway, that the Universe is truly infinite in time and space. Nothing
created it, it will never end, and that is more logical, to me, than arising from nothingness.
 
The whole modern concept of big bang etc. is mostly based on Hubble’s red shift.
When I read articles about the cosmos’ origins and recent astronomy discoveries,
I keep imagining immense distances and all kinds of possible ATTENUATIONS of light and gravity
from distances that we haven’t seen. At least not yet Gravity from further reaches of the same U slows
light photons and therefore RED SHIFTS the light. I know, the same general gravity should act
the same everywhere and therefore not attenuate, but I can imagine a relative kind of attenuation
because the light or gravity photon or wave does become affected by all sorts of local gravities
on its way to us. Why not just like the way light is bent around Mercury or gravity by Jupiter?
The immense distances would allow for multiple interactions and a gradual slowing or red shift.
 
So we don’t need the big bang. The church likes it because it allows for a creator.
 
And the missing energy or mass or dark matter….
Why not just our parallel universe operating in a kind of 180 opposite direction from ours.
Where else would those positrons and other fleeting particles have to go? Into our sister Universe, I
would guess.
 
I have been looking for a forum to express these views……..and since I know of no one else….
Everything-list people might be it.
 
I now humbly wait for rebuttals and offers to go elsewhere.
 
George

Reply via email to