I greatly appreciate the criticism of you, Liz and John Clark, but I have seen nothing that has caused me to back down on any portion of my theory. I never expected that my defense of my theory would be easy, since I am up against the Standard Model and Einstein's theories of relativity.
I do take some comfort in Stephen Hawking's conclusions in his "Theory of Everything" that science has become too complicated and that we need "to discover a complete theory that in time should be understandable in broad principal by everyone, not just a few scientists". For more than 13 years I have been trying to discover that theory. I think I either have it or am pretty close. I think there is a good chance that this group could help me improve on my theory if its members would begin to look at it more positively than they have in the past, at least to the extent of allowing me to send the really interested people a copy of my book. John Ross > > > On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:35:58 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> On 19 June 2014 14:34, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >>> >>>> On 19 June 2014 02:01, <[email protected]> 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 >>> >> >> Thank you, I appreciate that :-) >> >> >>> (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). >>> >> >> I'm sorry to hear that. >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Yes. Working away on something in isolation for years may be OK for a >> work >> of literature, but less so for science - especially nowadays, with rapid >> developments, a huge number of scientists (it's no longer the preserve >> of >> the idle rich, as seems to have been the case a couple of centuries >> back) >> and readily available information ... although Mr Ross obviously knows a >> few scientists personally, too. Fan clubs are an interesting one, I >> hover >> on the edges of some fan groups and they can get so intense... >> >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> I'm fairly sure that's a "Far Side" cartoon and the caption's a bit >> longer >> - listing symptoms ("those glazed eyes", etc) - hang on a minute while I >> try my google-fu...nope, can't find it. But I'm 99% sure I know the one >> you >> mean. >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> I think you are right. (After reading those 2 paragraphs I also have >> huge >> doubts about almost everything I believe, but then that's probably >> good...) >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Yes, I see ... but will throwing stuff at him concerning flaws at least >> help his ideas get stronger, in a Neitzschean kind of way? His basic >> idea >> seems kind of vaguely plausible, but he's added a lot of extras that >> don't >> appear to work will a lot of existing observations. So he may need to >> keep >> the core idea and "kill his babies" with some of the other stuff. >> >> PS please don't leave. Who is ostracising you? I don't get to read >> everything, so I didn't realise... there's a lot of blooming buzzing >> confusion on this forum (which I would say is good on the whole). >> > > you are such a sweet person! I meant to say "not MUCH longer to remain..." > so I've still got one or two items to stay around for. > > > -- > 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.
