Thanks for the advice. However, I don't think you should feel sorry for me for believing that I am right and everybody else is wrong. I have a feeling that even you would admit that there is a possibility, however unlikely, that i could be correct and Einstein (and all of those who believe him) could be wrong.
It is true that the "measured" speed of light in a vacuum is always c. On that Einstein and I agree. In accordance with my model, Coulomb grids completely fill our Universe, every cubic nanometer of it (including all vacuums) and light travels in Coulomb grids at a speed of c. Therefore, if the Coulomb grid is moving in the same direction as a beam of light at a speed of b then the beam is moving at a speed of c plus b. But we need to have a reference to know how to figure the speed b. That reference could be the center of our Universe or the cosmic background radiation. In this respect my theory includes relativity features. But it does not require that the passage of time changes with speed or gravity or that massive objects produce a curvature of space. The article Liz cited is a nice article and it attempts to explain some of Einstein's concepts simply. However, I note that the article does not attempt to explain Einstein's concept of gravity. And I admit I do not understand his concept of gravity. Liz has earlier referred to as set of equations that I gather relate to the curvature of space. Since I am convinced that space cannot be curved, I don't see how the equations can accurately explain gravity. It is possible that his equations accurately predict the path of light as it passes by the sun. But that would not prove that massive objects curve space. My theory provides a better simpler explanation of gravity. There is a Black Hole in the center of every galaxy. The Black Hole continuously consumes portions of its galaxy. It breaks down the molecules and atoms of the consumed portions into protons, electrons and positrons and neutrino entrons and other entrons. It produces anti-protons from the electrons, positron and entrons and it allows the protons and anti-protons to destroy each other to release more neutrino entrons some of which escape the Black Hole as neutrino photons to produce the gravity of the galaxy and some of which help produce more anti-protons. Some neutrino photos are temporally stopped in stars, planets and moons and later released to give these objects their gravity. Photons have a mass that is equivalent to the energy of the photons. The paths of these photons are curved by neutrino photons released from stars, planets and moons. I have shown on page 136 of my book that the consumption per earth-day of an earth-size planet by the Black Hole in the center of the Milky Way would produce a neutrino photon flux here on earth of about 68,000 neutrino photons per second per square meter. Liz has my book. She can confirm that I have made this calculation. I have read that gravity travels at the speed of light. My neutrino photons travel at the speed of light. My theory also explains anti-gravity as being carried by photons, much lower energy photons that apply a photon pressure on the huge surface areas, of faraway galaxies. My theory proposes the previously unknown entron (two circling tronnies) that provide all of the mass of our Universe (except for the portion provided by electrons and positrons). if I am correct we could avoid a lot of wasted efforts looking for the Higgs boson. John Ross > > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 19 June 2014 02:01, <jr...@trexenterprises.com <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general >>> relativity theories is faulty. >>> >> >> In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all >> non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is >> based >> on the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all freely >> falling observers. What's wrong with the logic? >> >>> >>> Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by >>> gravity. >>> Clock speeds may be affected but not time. Time passes at the same >>> rate >>> everywhere in our Universe. >>> >> >> Did you look at the explanation of time dilation accessible from the >> link >> I posted? >> >> If not, here is a direct link to it ... >> http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/sr.html >> >> Look in particular at the "photon clock" and tell me where the flaw in >> the >> logic is. If you can do that (thereby beating thousands of people who've >> tried over the century since SR was advanced) then it may become >> worthwhile >> to consider Coulomb Grids as an alternative explanation >> > > p.s. addendum using this post (and the history behind it). I'm definitely > not jumping on you Liz by the way, because you are definitely one of the > people that, from my side of things, have become better and better in my > eyes during the time I've been (not longer to remain I might add, if for > nothing else due to levels of ostrasization now well past the level at > which anyone would be able to justify ongoing attention for long). > > But, for reasons that were/are related to some of the interests I have > been > pursuing on these lists - this particular context not being a direct > interest but more something changed or clarified from the norm. And > mentioning here because in this case, the changes are much more about > crystalizing what was already intuitive for the majority of people, I > would > strongly guess including you... > > John Ross, who incidently I do agree deserves your kind attention due to > much evidence of long term hard work at his end, however...unfortunately > and possibly rather sadly....has clearly succumbed to one of the top > risks we all face when our ideas for whatever reason have been either > exposed to isolated conditions for a long time.....or...I > believe...circumstances a lot of celebrities understand all too > well...which is about becoming exposed to the mind-set typically found in > fan clubs. > > Exposure there just as harmful, because it's very hard not to be > influenced > by ambient ideas when they are coming from all direction. So that one, > overlooked perhaps, can create the same basic properties that we see in > Mr. > Ross. Joining the two scenarios I might illustrate something like > 'domestication'.....due to another fleeting memory...I get them when I > address you for some reason,..this one was one of those postcards with a > silly drawing on the front and a joke caption. It was a bunch of > salivating > wolves peeping through a bush to wood frame 'outback' house with a dog > sitting outside chained to a post. > > One wolf is saying to another "I'm telling ya, it ain't worth saving him > no > more...look at his eyes! HE'S BEEN DOMESTICATED > > Anyway, in the Ross case it's a case of the more intuitive and well > recognized status. He has built himself into something, that no matter the > value of the original ideas...and there may be....also at some point began > to include probably small, rationalizations...that may well have started > out innocently as simplifications purely for thinking clearly about > things, > that were large and complicated, and which may not have had anything to do > with the ideas at all. > > But rationalizing is one of those things that once in a process, if near > the core of thinking even if not directly about the important thoughts > themselves, will nevertheless be carried by the knock-on consequences > perceived in the key ideas to other parts of the emergent structure of > thought, until eventually at a certain distance from the origin, thet > rationalizations and their consequences will dominate the process, for > that > person. > > In the case of John Ross, the rationalizing make this process useless for > him personally. So I say this just as a pointer, that I hope there's a > personal value in play for you. Which there can well be, when someone is > acclepted and on the inside of a human network, which is also > substantially > present and taking note, or potentially. > > But not for John. The best anyone can do for him, is wish him well in his > journey, which definitely looks to have - at some point anyway - involved > a > large amount of the stuff that we tend to associate with good guys. Wish > him well. Maybe he'll come out the other end with a stunning theory that > changes the world. If he gets through that valley of the dead theory, all > by his vulnerable little self. That's the way it. Can't change it for the > better. Not for him. Can only make it worse...reduce his chances of making > it through. > > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
