On 11 May 2014 12:13, Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 11 May 2014, at 6:00 am, "John Ross" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I suggest you get a copy of my book and see if you can answer these > question without having to rely on neutrinos. My offer to send you a copy > still stands. > > Why do you keep saying this? The more you say it, the more it sounds like > a blatant self-marketing exercise, the offer of the free copy sounding like > sheer desperation. You are treating this list as a peer-review forum, just > as you did when you appeared here several years back when you were first > touting this thesis.Your ideas need to be in shape before you publish, not > after. To insist that everyone digest an entire book whose main concepts > cannot be persuasively presented in short form by its author is merely > rubbing noses the wrong way. You should provide the necessary details > (extracted from your book if necessary) but tailored to the precise focus > of the questions now being put to you. None of the questions now being put > to you occured to you while writing your book. That is why people are > reticent to read it. You may have spent 13 or more years thinking about > this but there is nothing to prevent someone spending 13 years barking up > the wrong tree. If you had systemic errors or failed to take certain > fundamentals into account at the start such as the all-important lepton > issue then you have spent that entire time finding what you seek and your > book would then be nothing more than a splendiferous exercise in > confirmation bias. >
Newton spent half his life on alchemy, Einstein on a theory of everything. And they were both bona fide geniuses. Kim has summed up the sceptical position perfectly. Please take him (or her) seriously and in particular amswer this point for all the questions that have already been put... "You should provide the necessary details (extracted from your book if necessary) but tailored to the precise focus of the questions now being put to you." In particular, I personally would like to get the answer to this question: What is your reasoning? So far you have only supplied blanket statements such as "A tronnie is a point particle with a charge of plus e or minus e.". What premises did you start from, and what logical steps have led you to think the world is built in the way described by your theory? -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
