LizR
I just answered a similar question. Here what I said: To answer your question: My initial task that I assigned to myself about 13 years ago was to explain how an electron and two positrons could be combined to make a proton. My first attempt was to show that if the three particles could be arranged so they attracted each other with the proper Coulomb forces they might be able to reach speeds close to the speed of light which could cause their mass to increase enough so that the mass of the combination equaled the mass of a proton. After much effort I concluded that this was a foolish idea. Much later I concluded that the basic charged particle had to be a point particle, otherwise according to Coulomb’s Law it would blow itself apart. I also concluded that a point particle with a single charge would repel itself at speeds no less than the speed of light. I assumed that if there were point particles with a charge, the charge would probably be e. My big breakthrough, about three years later, was when I discovered that two point particles with opposite charges traveling in a perfect circle at pi/2 times the speed of light created a configuration in which the attractive and repulsive forces integrated around the circle were equal in the diametrical direction. If the two charges are plus and minus e, this is my entron, and the two point charges are my tronnies. When you integrate Coulomb’s force around a circle, the r-squared in his equation reduces to r. John R. ____ Then I made a model of an electron with three tronnies. Then by giving my entrons diameters ranging over 18 orders of magnitude I could reproduce the entire electromagnetic spectrum and I extended the spectrum beyond gamma rays to include a photon with a mass-energy equal to a proton. It turned out that the photon included an entron with a diameter equal to about 1 X 10-18 m. I combined that entron with an electron and I got an electron with a mass almost equal to the mass of a proton. The entron gave the electron a velocity greater than the speed of light. The electron combines with two positron to produce a proton. Internal forces in the proton give the proton a natural speed of 13 % of the speed of light. The proton captures gamma ray entrons to slow down sufficiently to capture an electron the produce a hydrogen atom. When the hydrogen atom is fused with three other hydrogen atoms in stars, the captured gamma ray entrons are released a fusion energy as gamma ray photons. Anti-protons are produced in Black Holes which combine with protons and both are destroyed releasing the neutrino entrons as neutrino photons to produce galactic gravity. I hope this helps. To the best of my knowledge there is no person that has read my book that has found any error in it (other than typos and the like). I have given away about 60 copies of my book, mostly to my friends which include several scientist. Although, I know most of these people have not studied the book in great detail and to the best of my knowledge no one(except me as carefully checked all of my math. I was hoping some of you folks would do that. John R From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 1:42 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: TRONNIES In case Mr Ross missed my earlier post, I'm still waiting for his response, so here it is again (slightly modified to - I hope - make the point better). On 9 May 2014 14:06, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: I am a patent attorney. During the past 13 years I have documented my theory at eight times in its development by filing patent applications attempting to patent process for modeling things like electrons. My applications have been repeatedly rejected by the USPTO. However, they have in the process been published worldwide. I case my theory turns out to be correct, I want this record to show that I am the author of my tronnie theory. Anyhow if you want to see the evolution of my theory, go USPTO.gov and search for tronnies. I want you to explain it here, not point me to something that will involve me having to do a huge amount of work to find anything out, if I'm lucky. It's quite simple. I don't want to "see the evolution of your theory" out of casual interest. This is not some optional request from someone who's slightly kooky about something irrelevant, that you can just humour, treat flippantly, or brush aside. This is a request for you to show the bedrock on which you are (or should be) building. Anyone who is interested will want to, at a minimum, see the reasoning behind your theory - not just bald statements about "the world is composed of X and Y" which when it's gently pointed out that they contradict observation, elicit only a hand-waving response. If you have the ghost of an original idea, you should be able to explain it from the ground up. You should be eager to. So please do your best to give the information requested, rather than saying "read my book" or "look at my patent applications" or any other attempt at evading the issue. Anyone who has spent years developing a half decent theory should be able to explain it at the requested level of comprehension. In fact, having found a potentially receptive audience, he should be eager to do so. So, over to you. -- 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. -- 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.
