I believe there is a need for my model because I believe it is a great improvement over existing currently accepted models. My book should be in your hands in a very few days if it is not already there. I suggest you read it a decide for yourself whether it has any merit. After you have read it, I suggest you give it to your son. If you do so, warn him that his professors probably are great supporters of the standard model and relativity. Also see my response to John Clark.
John Ross From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 2:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: TRONNIES Apparently gamme rays are emitted by nuclei when they drop from an excited state to a lower energy state (much as a lower energy photon can be emitted when an electron in an atom moves from a high to a low energy state). Hence what the atom had beforehand was excess energy (in some form). I assume one of the particles making up the nucleus was in some state equivalent to an electron being in an outer electron shell, and drops into its ground state after a while. I can check with my son, who is studying nuclear physics at school at this very moment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomeric_transition#Decay_processes I must say it is ominous that you are consistently failing to answer my questions about the reasoning behind all of this, but just picking on some small simple point each time and ignoring most of my posts. I'm beginning to wonder how much reasoning there actually was. I still don't know why you think there is a need for this model, what questions is answers that the original fails to, etc. On 17 May 2014 03:44, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: A radioactive atom that decays with a gamma ray photon has within itself before it decays something that will be released as a gamma ray photon when it decays. That something (I say that something is an entron) has a mass equivalent to the energy of the gamma ray photon. When the decay occurs the mass of the atom decreases by an amount equal to the mass of the gamma ray photon and the gamma ray photon leaves with a mass equivalent to the energy of the gamma ray photon. How can you disagree with this simple logic? In your analysis is that something “rest mass” and if it is not what is it? JR From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 12:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: TRONNIES On 16 May 2014 06:54, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: LizR, See my reply to Russell. I know this is going to upset you but in my model every single photon in our Universe has a mass and that mass is determined by E = mc squared. This is true in relativity as well. Specifically the 1.02 MeV gamma ray photon has the same mass as the combined mass of the electron and a positron. Visible light photons have a very small mass. The green light photon has a much smaller mass of 4.08 X 10-36 kg. You can calculate it yourself using Albert’s formula. My neutrino photon has a mass almost equal to the mass of a proton! We know a photon has momentum which should indicate that it also has mass. I think the problem is that no one wants to admit that a photon has a mass because it is travelling at the speed of light which should make that mass go to infinity Only if it has a rest mass, which it doesn't. . I don’t have that problem with my model. All of this is explained very well in my book which should be arriving in about one week. John R. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: TRONNIES On 15 May 2014 04:59, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: I assume you would agree that a photon is self-propelled. Protons and alpha particles are also self-propelled. They are sel-propelled by their own internal coulomb forces. Electrons, protons, atomic nuclei and atoms are all perpetual motion machines. You have to give a better explanation than that. According to all our current theories and observations, photons and other massless particles are in a different category from particles that have a rest mass. You need to explain why we should assume there is any equivalence between a massless particle that always travels at c, as measured in all reference frames, and a massive particle which travels at some fraction of c, a fraction that will vary depending on which frame its velocity is measured in. Also, a photon doesn't violate Galilean, Newtonian or Einsteinian relativity. Self propelled particles do - they define an absolute state of rest. I know of no observational reason to assume an absolute state of rest exists, although this is suggested by the idea that space-time is quantised. (But then I believe you reject quantum mechanics?) In any case, I wouldn't describe a photon as "self" propelled. It is created with a certain energy and momentum that are supplied by the emitter, and which it eventually passes on to the absorber. In between it doesn't gain or lose energy (except when it climbs out of or falls into gravity wells, or travels across an expanding or contracting universe - but these can't be described as self propulsion). Sorry but your above answer is a hand waving argument at best. It needs detailed theoretical backing, and explicit answers to the questions I've given above, plus any others that may come up (e.g. there was mention of the "ultraviolet catastrophe" earlier - was that resolved?) -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
