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:
"However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be
understandable in broad principal by everyone, not just a few
scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of
why the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the
ultimate triumph of human reason. For thin we should know the mind of
Einstein's theories and the string theories are too complicated as
Hawkins observed. Mine is not.
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:18 PM
To: John Ross
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
You clearly forgot to read this:
''General Relativity and String Theory
 Einstein's special theory did not deal with acceleration and
gravity but his General Theory of Relativity did. His general theory,
attempting to explain gravity further complicated physics proposing for
example that gravity produces a curvature of space. Various String
Theories also attempt to explain how the universe functions. Relatively
very few people understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or
these string theories. I am one of the many who do not. Most people are
reluctant to say these prior art theories are wrong. Not me.''
If you don't understand these theories, how can you claim they are
 Photons in a light beam slow down when passing through a
Coulombic reference frame (such as a laboratory where light speed is
being made) moving opposite the beam. And they speed up when the
reference frame is moving in the same direction of the beam. Based on
this preferred model, time does not slow down when you go fast and
things do not get shorter. Simultaneous events are simultaneous in all
reference frames. Time is absolute. When an astronaut returns to earth
he and his twin brother can have their next birthday party together at
the same time.''
There are journals devoted to quacky theories (e.g. physics essays), but
I think that even these journals will reject your work.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Bruno Marchal'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'Hal Ruhl'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Russell Standish'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 07:34 PM
Subject: RE: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
> Have you read my patent application? It has plenty of details (17
> pages of fine print). Take a look at it on www.uspto.gov search under
> patent applications for Pub No. 20050182607 or Application Serial No.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 6:45 AM
> To: John Ross
> Cc: 'Hal Ruhl'; 'Russell Standish'; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
> 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 emerging from addition and multiplication ...
> John, if you want your theory being a TOE, don't forget to address the
> mind body problem, and to be clear on all your assumptions (ontology,
> Now to be honest I have no idea how neutrinos could be photons. If you
> thrust your idea try (at least) to write a paper with some details.