On 18 May 2014 07:27, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > John Clark, > > > > I assure you I am not a crackpot. I am a graduate Nuclear Engineer, a > Patent Attorney and Vice President Intellectual Property of a respected > corporation engaged in important scientific research and development. I > am a good friend of many brilliant scientist. Most of them are also > skeptical of my theory, but none of them has convinced me of any basic > errors in my theory, other than it is inconsistent with existing accepted > theories. >
We are at the Auckland Writers Festival this weekend, and just went to see last year's Man Booker prize winner, Eleanor Catton, author of "The Luminaries". And she was brilliant - wise, insightful, precise, humble, genuine. Just wonderful. Virtually the first thing she said (at the prompting of the interviewer) was to tell us about why she believes in astrology. "My publishers call it dropping the A-bomb," she said. "I know this is going to make it hard for a lot of people to take me seriously,.." Which of course it was. She was wise, insightful etc DESPITE (for some reason) believing in an ancient system of "pre-psychology" with no theoretical or empirical evidence (apart from perhaps a correlation between the season someone is born and their personality - which of course should be flipped when you switch hemispheres...) I wanted to shout "FFS, Eleanor, just use it as a clever structuring device, don't actually believe it!" - but perhaps she couldn't have written the book had she done that. Why do I mention this? Well, I trust I don't have to spell out the parallel, but just in case, obviously you have friends who look at you as I regarded Ms Catton. You may well be wise and insightful, you seem a nice person from what one can judge online - and you happen to believe in what is looking rather like a crackpot theory (at least I keep asking you to prove otherwise, so far without success). > > > I have developed my “Theory of Everything “ through 13 years of hard > work. Like all theories (like the relativity theories and the standard > model) my theory may or may not be correct. It is certainly not generally > accepted by the scientific community like relativity and the standard model > are. The scientific community is not yet even aware of my theory. Other > than my own friends and family, this chat group is the first people to be > aware of it. This group has asked a lot of good questions all of which I > have tried to answer quickly; however, to my knowledge no one in this > group has read my book. It is available at Amazon.com. And I have offered > to send copies to several of this group who have appeared to be seriously > interested in my theory. I honestly believe my theory is a great > improvement over the standard model and relativity theories. But I am not > absolutely certain of that. Time will tell. > I will have a look at it. Either I will find that I have so many questions after the first few pages that I need to come online and deluge you, or I will find that (imho) you really have something. My bet is on the former, but I would love to be proved wrong. > > > In the meantime, Richard Feynman’s father was on the right track and > Richard Feynman’s answer was not a good one. Richard was correct that the > photon was not in the atom. The photons that his father was talking about > are much too large to fit in an atom. However, as I have explained several > times to this group the energy part of the photon is an entron. The entron > is two tronnies traveling in a circle at pi/2 times the speed of light. > The diameter d’ of the entron circle is: d’ = λ/1431 so most entrons can > easily fit inside and atom and there are many entrons inside of atoms. > There are even entrons inside of the nuclei of atoms. When entrons escape > from atoms or their nuclei they do so as photons. A photon is an entron > traveling in a circle at twice the speed of light and forward at the speed > of light as I have explained before. > > > A photon is a "medium of energy exchange" as far as I know. It can be created and destroyed, as various particles can, from energy. The photon happens to be its own antiparticle and hence when you create one it's akin to an electron-positron pair. It may have internal structure we're unaware of, of course - maybe even the one you suggest. But I would like to kow the reasoning that leads to that conclusion! :-) -- 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.
