On Saturday, May 17, 2014 8:27:19 PM UTC+1, John Ross 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. > How do you define a crackpot, out of interest? I understand a pretty constrained and precise set of characters. I think you come close John, if as you say, not in fact being a 'crackpot'? It isn't a derogatory label in my view. Most of us are crackpot at one time or another, or regarding one interest or another. I think you qualify because you don't seem to know your subject at anything approaching 'depth'. And you, don't seem to understand what is critical in a theory, and what is 'good to have'. A more elegant, asymmetric arrangement, with a simpler family of fundamental particles. This is 'good to have'....it's definitely where science wants to be...but the standard of proof goes up inversely as theories get simpler and more elegant. The two go together...but far and away the critical 'must have' is the standard of what a theory says about the world. If it corrects, or supercedes, or generalizes Relativity and QM, and has a mathmatical reality and does everything they do, and more. That's a profound development, and will quickly find itself elevated to the top table and celebrated round the world. But what if it's all that, but involves a more complicated particle structure and actually increases the number of loose ends and puzzles or whatever? Would make no difference at all. If it's a better theory that replaces the best we have, then it's immaterial if it's more elegant or more complex, simpler, or messier. All that would matter would be the fact major predictions an d generalizations were opened up in a process that involved discovery things are messier and more complex than we previously thought. e John...a situation like that wousld happen all kinds of way. Most frequently, there's no change to the longer term trend toward elegance...go back 2 or 3 steps and things were far messier...but the discovery is that last step just gone saw simplifications that were not grounded in good science. The last step over simplified and wrong simplified and that's why the right theory here is a more complex and messier. John, maybe that was you....maybe the last step had a John Ross at the helm, and John Ross got it into his head simpler and more symmetrical is right for its own sake....even if the theory doesn't do anything and doesn't replace relativity and QM....and faces falsification from hard science (courtesy John C), and violates major principles in physical law, and makes no predictions, and has no unififying equations,hat' and can't calculate or solve problems. Even if all that.....because it's SIMPLER and SYMMETRICAL and John Ross thinks that's the HARD challenge in science...all the other stuff....is the easy part. So John Ross ignores all the problems and inadequecies....because he's solved the hard problem of coming up with a simpler particle idea and being symmetrical. Get real John. It's EASY to dream up a simple elegant structure, if it don't gotta do anything much. I could have ten for you by sun down.
> > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > Gamma ray photons are entrons released from the nuclei of atoms and > visible light photons are mostly entrons released from the electrons > orbiting the nucleus of atoms. > > > > I should not do this since your comments have been so nasty; however, > believe it or not I appreciate them, since it gives me a chance explain > details of my theory publically to a serious skeptic. So I make the same > offer to you that I have made to others. I will mail you a copy of my book > free of charge if you will let me have your address. If you don’t want to > publish your address, you can call me at 858-646-5488 and leave your > address on my voice recorder. I won’t even ask you to agree to read it > although I would hope you would. > > <span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sa > ... -- 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.
