On 20 June 2014 04:42, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 on a par with the Earth turning out to be flat after all, as far as your views on time dilation are concerned. > > It is true that the "measured" speed of light in a vacuum is always c. You've put measured in quotes - as opposed to what? The speed of light is continually being measured as constant by the fact that we can see a coherent picture of the world. When it varies we get interesting effects like mirages. We don't see many of those outside the Earth's atmosphere, indicating that c is constant in a vacuum. > 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. > I believe GR explains gravity by saying that space-time operates on matter in a manner that can be modelled as a curvature in a higher dimension. I don't think it says that the curvature or the higher dimension necessarily exist. However, GR has been tested to fairly high precision and shown to be accurate, regardless of how one interprets the equations. > > My theory provides a better simpler explanation of gravity. Hmm. But not, so far, as accurate, as far as I can tell. To quote the man himself, a theory should be as simple as possible to explain the observed facts, but no simpler. > 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. > This is a fascinating concept but I'm not sure it's crazy enough to be true. You need some mathematical modelling before you can claim that "situation X produces result Y". > > 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. > How does that work? > > 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'm sure you have but without the mathematical underpinning for the whole theory it doesn't tell us much. For example, what is the cross section for neutrino absorption by stars, planets, etc? Current theories make this very, very low indeed, certainly not enough to provide a significant flux that somehow provides gravity as a by-product. > > 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. > > As I have mentioned before, this would be a differential pressure, so lighter components should get pushed out of galaxies (away from the centre of the universe, assuming it has one as your model indicates). So all galaxies should have hydrogen tails pointing outwards from the centre of the universe. Also, your shell that looks like the CMBR should statistically be closer to us in one direction (the chances of us being at the exact centre of the universe being not worth mentioning). How does that show up in sky surveys etc? > 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. > Too late, they already found it! PS please answer *all* the points made above, quoting so I know what you're referring to, and using different posts if necessary. Thank 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.
