Einstein's theories are mind bending and they ARE difficult for almost
100 percent of the population but maybe not you.
I don't understand how you can say there is no way to calculate anything
with my theory. In my application I have included many calculations.
People mathematically inclined should be able to calculate everything
from my theory. I suspect you (and your buddies) have not bothered to
read my application. My theory is described in 17 pages of fine print
in US Patent Application Serial No. 11/108,938 and Publication No.
20050182607. You can view and down load the application from
From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 4:02 PM
To: John Ross
Cc: 'Saibal Mitra'; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
You could at least get his name right! Stephen Hawking, not Hawkins.
Einstein's theories are not difficult - mind-bending perhaps, but not
difficult. The book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is a
paragon of explanatory virtue. The problem is that a lot of poorly
written textbooks and courses make General Relativity difficult. I
suffered through a few of these as an undergraduate.
I have not studied string theory, but from what I understand that others
have written your charges stick. This is undoutedly due to the newness
of the theory - string theory is ca 30 years old, "Gravitation" was
written 56 years after Einstein's first paper on GR.
On the other hand, you theory looks difficult, because there seems no
obvious way to calculate anything with it. Its all descriptive, which is
no theory at all!
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 04:48:01PM -0700, John Ross wrote:
> 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 God."
> Einstein's theories and the string theories are too complicated as
> Hawkins observed. Mine is not.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:18 PM
> To: John Ross
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
> You clearly forgot to read this:
> John Ross:
> ''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
> ''Light Speed
>  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]>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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
> > patent applications for Pub No. 20050182607 or Application Serial
> > No.
> > 11/108,938.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 6:45 AM
> > To: John Ross
> > Cc: 'Hal Ruhl'; 'Russell Standish'; email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of
> > Everything
> > Le 11-oct.-05, ? 01:46, John Ross a ?crit :
> > > 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,
> > epistemology).
> > 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.
> > Bruno
> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/=
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus.
It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email
came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely
ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02