Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

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, > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>>
 On 19 June 2014 02:01,  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 sadlyhas 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 w

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

My point is that time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe,
no matter where you are or how fast you are traveling.  For example, if we
knew exactly when the Big Bang occurred, the time since the Big Bang
should be the same everywhere.

John R

> On 19 June 2014 02:47, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM,  wrote:
>>
>> > Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by
>> gravity.
>>> Clock speeds may be effected but not time.
>>>
>>
>> OK fine, but if it's not time then we're going to need a new word to
>> describe whatever it is that clocks actually measure, lets call it zime.
>> I
>> would submit that we could not tell even in theory if time stayed the
>> same
>> or sped up or slowed down or went sideways or even ceased to exist. But
>> we
>> certainly notice zime! Therefore there is no way to know if time even
>> exists and given that it does absolutely positively nothing there is
>> also
>> no reason to care if it does or not; but zime certainly exists and it
>> does
>> a hell of a lot. There is nothing more important in our life than zime
>> but
>> even if time exists it doesn't matter.
>>
>> I might just add, in case it isn't clear, that to say that "clocks" slow
> down is also to say that atomic vibrations and everything else slow down,
> including people's thoughts and perceptions. I should also mention that SR
> says this is a measurement effect while observers move at a constant speed
> relative to one another. It's only when they (or one of them) accelerates
> that you get a "twin paradox" where the overall elapsed time along one
> path
> through space-time is not equal to another one, even though they have the
> same start and end points.
>
> --
> 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.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

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, > 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 be

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
relativity theories is faulty.

Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity. 
Clock speeds may be effected but not time.  Time passes at the same rate
everywhere in our Universe.

Light travels through Coulomb  grids which are curved by massive objects.

Gravity is produced in Black Holes with the destruction of protons to
release neutrino photons that keep stars in orbit around the Black Holes. 
Some of the neutrino photons are absorbed by stars and planets and later
released to give these objects their gravity.

When Einstein developed his relativity theories, he was not aware of
Coulomb grids or the internal structure of protons.

John Ross

> On 18 June 2014 08:43,  wrote:
>
>> I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks
>> here on earth.  However, I just can't understand why we would use
>> Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks on satellites when it would be
>> so easy to adjust them in accordance to the exact time here on earth.
>>
>
> That isn't the point. For all I know they may adjust them using clocks on
> Earth. The point is that the satellites provide yet another way to test
> special and general relativity, and since scientists are always trying to
> check their theories are correct, they consider it worthwhile to work out
> how fast or slow these theories say the satellites' clocks will run and
> compare this to the measured values. The results are in accordance with
> both theories - working out the time dilation due to the satellites'
> relative motion and their position in the Earth's gravity field gives the
> observed result.
>
> Note that SR and GR give this result without needing any free parameters
> to
> be tweaked. SR involves simple geometry applied to 4 dimensional
> space-time; as far as I know the only "free" parameter is the speed of
> light. GR involves the gravitational constant (I think) but I'm told there
> are no simple ways in which the equations can be modified to give similar
> results. Hence the clock rate is "forced" to have a particular value in
> both theories - the result falls out naturally from the theories without
> any need to introduce any corrections that could equally well have given
> other results.
>
> Here  is
> a more detailed description of this effect.
>
> If you have a theory that can give the same result (with a similar lack of
> "wriggle room" for adjusting free parameters) then you should get some
> serious interest from scientists.
>
> --
> 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.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks
here on earth.  However, I just can't understand why we would use
Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks on satellites when it would be
so easy to adjust them in accordance to the exact time here on earth.

> On 17 June 2014 07:57,  wrote:
>
>> I don't know about Einstein's 13 tensor equations and their exact
>> results.
>>
>
> You should at least know that that is how a physical theory works.
>
>
>>  I just don't believe space can be curved.
>
>
> Why not? It just needs a higher dimension. Actually there are
> interpretations of Einstein's equations that don't require space to be
> curved, but just change the distances within it to give the same result
> (somehow - I'm not very up on this, but I think the explanation involved a
> picture by MC Escher).
>
>
>> And I do believe Coulomb fields can be curved.
>
>
> I'm not sure what this means. How, and in what way?
>
>
>> Our Universe is not a mathematical structure; it is a
>> combination of atoms and molecules and light and other things that can
>> be
>> explained with physics.  We just need to use the right physics.
>>
>
> So why is maths so effective at explaining the nature of existence?
>
>>
>> As for correcting the clocks in satellites, I doubt if they rely on
>> Einstein's equations.
>
>
> You're wrong. They do.
>
>
>> My understanding is that his equations say that
>> time passes slower at high speeds and faster at reduced gravity.  The
>> simple way to correct for time variations in the satellites is to adjust
>> the clocks every now and then to make sure they are consistent with the
>> time here on earth.  My guess is that is what they do.
>>
>
> They have to be adjusted constantly, since GPS would drift out by several
> meters / day otherwise. The point is that the time dilation of the GPS
> clocks is exactly what is predicted by Einstein's equations. If you're
> going to attempt to explain the universe, you need to do at least as well
> as relativity.
>
> PS I still have some questions about this cold plasma shell thing by the
> way.
>
> --
> 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.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

I don't know about Einstein's 13 tensor equations and their exact results.
 I just don't believe space can be curved. And I do believe Coulomb fields
can be curved.  Our Universe is not a mathematical structure; it is a
combination of atoms and molecules and light and other things that can be
explained with physics.  We just need to use the right physics.

As for correcting the clocks in satellites, I doubt if they rely on
Einstein's equations.  My understanding is that his equations say that
time passes slower at high speeds and faster at reduced gravity.  The
simple way to correct for time variations in the satellites is to adjust
the clocks every now and then to make sure they are consistent with the
time here on earth.  My guess is that is what they do.

John Ross

> On 15 June 2014 02:13,  wrote:
>
>> Einstein says large masses create a curvature of space and that light
>> beams are curved by these large masses.  I say that large masses produce
>> Coulomb grids through which light travels.  Under both theories the
>> paths
>> of light are affected. I don't see any problem.
>
>
> OK, maybe you're right. It's possible all the CGs generated by all the
> masses involved average out to produce something akin to the smooth
> space-time curvature predicted by GR. Since neither of us has done the
> maths, who can say?
>
>
>> Einstein and I reach the same conclusion.
>>
>
> Hmm. He reached it via something like 13 tensor equations which can be
> solved to give exact results. You reach it via some vague wordy
> description... whether the universe is in fact a mathematical structure or
> similar, it sure *behaves* like it is, so personally, out of these
> approaches I would go for the maths and the exact predictions, which can
> actually be used for useful stuff like GPS and looknig for distant
> planets
>
> --
> 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.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

Einstein says large masses create a curvature of space and that light
beams are curved by these large masses.  I say that large masses produce
Coulomb grids through which light travels.  Under both theories the paths
of light are affected. I don't see any problem.  Einstein and I reach the
same conclusion.

John R

> On 13 June 2014 03:50,  wrote:
>
>> Yes, light changes speeds many time as it passes through our Universe,
>> but
>> it is always traveling at the speed of light through the grid it is
>> currently traveling through.  There is no reason for it to become
>> blurred.
>>  When light travels through a good prism or a microscope or a telescope
>> it
>> can change speeds several times and it does not necessarily become
>> blurred.
>>
>
> My point is that a distant extended object will send light through regions
> of space which are at a large distances from each other on its way to our
> telescopes. So a galaxy which appears to us to be partly hidden by another
> galaxy is sending light through a region of space thousands of light years
> across. This region contains a large number of massive objects, such as
> stars. If these all have their own CGs, each one travelling at a different
> speed, the light signal would be effectively scrambled as it passed
> through
> this varying "landscape" on its way to us.
>
> But it isn't, as thousands of astronomical pictures of galaxies at
> different distances which happen to lie along the same line of sight show.
>
> --
> 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.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and
Aristotle.  I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone
number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my
theory relates to the thinking of these fellows.

John Ross

>
> On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:28, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
>
>> I am well aware of the two slit experiment.  You can't send tronnies
>> one-by-one anywhere.  They exist in twosomes and threesomes as
>> electrons,
>> positrons or entrons.  The entron is the energy-mass of each photon.
>> Photons are self propelled by internal Coulomb forces of their
>> entrons.
>> In the two-slit experiment the entron goes through one slit but its
>> Coulomb force wave goes through both slits.
>
> Like  Bohm and de Broglie. Today, this is known to introduce non local
> physical action.
>
>
>
>>
>> My theory does not deal with consciousness.
>
> It might the grain of dust which forces us to revise our opinion on
> Plato, on mind and physics.
>
> I argue that if the brain works like a machine, that is mainly in a
> local causal way ("no magic"), then Plato is right and the physical
> reality is the border of the universal mind, i.e. the mind of the
> universal machine (Turing, Church, Post, ...).
>
> I am afraid that the "Ross theory" is still in the frame of taking
> Aristotle theology for granted.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> On 08 Jun 2014, at 20:33, John Ross wrote:
>>>
 I am not trying to prove quantum mechanics incorrect.  I am trying
 to prove my theory is correct.  If my theory is correct, and quantum
 mechanics is inconsistent withmy theory then quantum mechanics may
 very well be incorrect.  There is also a possibility that on some
 issues the two theories may both be correct.
>>>
>>> QM is the only theory (or scheme of theories) which has not been
>>> refuted for more than a century. All others theories in physics have
>>> been shown wrong in less than few years, when they are not suspected
>>> to be wrong at the start (wrong does not imply "not useful" in some
>>> context).
>>>
>>> So my question, which has been already asked, is simply what happens
>>> when you send tronnies, one by one, (or compounds of tronnies) on a
>>> plate with two close small holes? (have you heard and think about
>>> Young two slits experience?).
>>>
>>>
>>>

 You lost me with Turing emulable.
>>>
>>> We can come back on this later, but as you seem not so much
>>> interested
>>> in consciousness, that might be out of your topic, at least for now.
>>> Taking consciousness into account + the hypothesis that the brain
>>> is a
>>> natural computer might force us to make physics into a sort of
>>> illusion entirely reducible to the study of machine's psychology or
>>> theology. See my URL or post, if interested.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

 JR

 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
 ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
 Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 2:35 AM
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE


 On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote:


 I do not explain consciousness.

 Fair enough. You are not searching to explain "everything".
 Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin
 of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian
 theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive
 identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between
 brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual
 infinities. With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing
 emulable, you can still attach consciousness to a brain, but you
 cannot attach a brain to consciousness, you can only attach an
 infinity of relative universal machine states to a consciousness.
 This might explain the many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is
 not yet clear to me what is your position on quantum mechanics, or
 your explanation of the two slits experiment.

 Bruno



 Jr

 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
 ] On Behalf Of LizR
 Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

 On 7 June 2014 04:12, John Ross  wrote:
 There is a theory of everything - my theory, "The Ross Model".  You
 are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject,
 so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book.  And I
 predict you will be forced to agree with me.

 I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is -
 is the idea "primitive materialism" - that space, time, matter and
 energy are fundamental? Do you attempt to explain consciousness?

 --
 You received this message because you are subscr

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

My model provides an explanation of everything including gravity which I
understand is not explained by QM.  QM does not explain logically why
electrons do not blow themselves apart.  I don't believe in quantum
weirdness.  There is a universe.

John Ross

>
> On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:51, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
>
>> I don't see how consciousness is important is describing how our
>> Universe
>> was created and how it works.  Our Universe existed for billions of
>> years
>> before there was intelligent life to be conscious.
>
> IF there is a universe. We don't know that. But we do know that the
> computations exists in arithmetic, and that from the machine's points
> of view, an infinity of universal machines competes to continue them,
> below our substitution level. It explains intuitively and formally
> some quantum weirdness.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Quantum mechanics is ok so long as it is consistent with my model.
>
> If the people are not happy, change the people! (Stalin, I think).
>
> If my theory does not fit nature, change nature!
>
> QM is not just positively confirmed since a long time, but it is
> confirmed in its most startling aspects.
>
> It is also the only theory which makes sense of liquid, solid, gaz,
> atoms and molecules, stars and black holes, particles and their
> relations (bosons, fermions, fractional spins, condensed states theory).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> My
>> theory includes an explanation of the results of the two-slit
>> experiment.
>
>
> If is not a MW theory, or a "Many Dream" theory, I am afraid you will
> need non local indeterminist sort of magic.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote:
>>>
 I do not explain consciousness.
>>>
>>> Fair enough. You are not searching to explain "everything".
>>> Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin
>>> of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian
>>> theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive
>>> identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between
>>> brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual infinities.
>>> With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing emulable, you can
>>> still attach consciousness to a brain, but you cannot attach a brain
>>> to consciousness, you can only attach an infinity of relative
>>> universal machine states to a consciousness. This might explain the
>>> many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is not yet clear to me
>>> what
>>> is your position on quantum mechanics, or your explanation of the two
>>> slits experiment.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>

 Jr

 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
 ] On Behalf Of LizR
 Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

 On 7 June 2014 04:12, John Ross  wrote:
 There is a theory of everything - my theory, "The Ross Model".  You
 are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject,
 so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book.  And I
 predict you will be forced to agree with me.

 I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is -
 is the idea "primitive materialism" - that space, time, matter and
 energy are fundamental? Do you attempt to explain consciousness?

 --
 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.
>>>
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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-
>>> l...@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 "

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

My assumption is that our Universe with 100 to 400 billion galaxies exists
and that it is the result of a very long evolutionary process that began
with nothing,i.e. empty space.

I have demonstrated how electron, positrons and entrons can be made from
tronnies and how everything else in our Universe can be made from
electrons, positrons and entrons.

Tronnies are point particles with no mass, no energy and no volume.  They
have only charge and their charges are exactly opposite.  If you add them
you get nothing.

My theory is the only theory that logically explains how it is possible
that a Universe could be made from empty space.

John Ross

>
> On 07 Jun 2014, at 21:43, John Ross wrote:
>
>> LizR,
>>
>> You need to read my book.  Its main purpose  is to explain the
>> existence of the universe and it does exactly that.
>
>  From what assumption? I thought you did not address that question.
> Also, what about consciousness? Is the brain working like a (natural)
> machine? Are you aware that the brain-mind identity thesis is no more
> working in that case?
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>>
>> John R
>>
>> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> ] On Behalf Of LizR
>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 8:01 PM
>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
>>
>> On 7 June 2014 14:00, John Ross  wrote:
>>
>> If you think back in time long enough before there was anything
>> anywhere you
>> get to a point in time when there was nothing.  Somehow nothing
>> turned into
>> something and that something or some things ultimately turned into our
>> Universe.  My theory suggests a logical answer for how this could have
>> happened.
>>
>> (Well, according to eternal inflation that didn't happen anyway, but
>> that's still rather speculative...)
>>
>> But in any case, if one wants to know "why is there something rather
>> than nothing?" one should also ask "why are there even laws of
>> physics?"
>>
>> So how does your model account for the existence of physics, and how
>> does it account for the existence of the universe?
>> --
>> 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.
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> 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.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

Sorry I missed your post the first time. I responded a few minutes ago.

John R

> I send again this post, as it seems to not go through:
>
>
> On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote:
>
>> I do not explain consciousness.
>
> OK. Fair enough. You are not searching to explain "everything".
> Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin
> of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian
> theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive
> identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between
> brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual infinities.
> With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing emulable, you can
> still attach consciousness to a brain, but you cannot attach a brain
> to consciousness, you can only attach an infinity of relative
> universal machine states to a consciousness. This might explain the
> many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is not yet clear to me what
> is your position on quantum mechanics, or your explanation of the two
> slits experiment.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Jr
>>
>> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> ] On Behalf Of LizR
>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM
>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
>>
>> On 7 June 2014 04:12, John Ross  wrote:
>> There is a theory of everything - my theory, "The Ross Model".  You
>> are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject,
>> so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book.  And I
>> predict you will be forced to agree with me.
>>
>> I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is -
>> is the idea "primitive materialism" - that space, time, matter and
>> energy are fundamental? Do you attempt to explain consciousness?
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> 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.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

I don't see how consciousness is important is describing how our Universe
was created and how it works.  Our Universe existed for billions of years
before there was intelligent life to be conscious.

Quantum mechanics is ok so long as it is consistent with my model.  My
theory includes an explanation of the results of the two-slit experiment.
>
> On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote:
>
>> I do not explain consciousness.
>
> Fair enough. You are not searching to explain "everything".
> Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin
> of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian
> theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive
> identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between
> brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual infinities.
> With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing emulable, you can
> still attach consciousness to a brain, but you cannot attach a brain
> to consciousness, you can only attach an infinity of relative
> universal machine states to a consciousness. This might explain the
> many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is not yet clear to me what
> is your position on quantum mechanics, or your explanation of the two
> slits experiment.
>
> Bruno
>
>>
>> Jr
>>
>> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> ] On Behalf Of LizR
>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM
>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
>>
>> On 7 June 2014 04:12, John Ross  wrote:
>> There is a theory of everything - my theory, "The Ross Model".  You
>> are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject,
>> so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book.  And I
>> predict you will be forced to agree with me.
>>
>> I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is -
>> is the idea "primitive materialism" - that space, time, matter and
>> energy are fundamental? Do you attempt to explain consciousness?
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> 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.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

I know of no experimental evidence that proves that the neutron average
life inside nuclei is longer than 15 minutes.  If you have some please
send it to me.

On the other hand, if the neutron decays inside the nuclei then the
negative charge of it electron can assist in holding the nuclei together.

John Ross

> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:36 PM, John Ross 
> wrote:
>
>>Neutrons have a lifetime of about 15 minutes
>
>
> Yes, but only when they are independent and not attached to a proton or
> other neutrons inside the nucleus of an atom.
>
>> after which they turn into an electron and a proton
>
>
> Yes it's due to the weak nuclear force, and under some conditions (such as
> inside a large unstable nucleus) the reverse can happen, a proton can emit
> a anti-electron and turn into a neutron. It's called Beta decay and Beta
> radiation is just high speed electrons (or sometimes anti-electrons).
>
>
>> >Some people (maybe a lot of people) believe neutrons live forever
>> inside
>> atomic nuclei.
>>
>
> It depends on the particular atomic nuclei you're talking about. Nobody
> has
> found even a scrap of experimental evidence that the 2 neutrons inside a
> Helium 4 nucleus will not live forever, but the evidence is overwhelming
> that the 52 neutrons inside a nucleus of Strontium 90 are far from
> eternal,
> and the probability is 50% that in 29 years one of those neutrons will
> have
> undergone Beta decay.
>
>> Under the Ross Model, neutrons have the same lifetime whether they are
>> inside or outside nuclei.
>>
>
> Then the Ross Model clearly conflicts with observation, thus if you follow
> the scientific method you must abandon your theory regardless of how
> painful that may be to you. There is no disgrace in having a theory that
> is
> wrong, all the great scientists have been wrong about something at one
> time
> or another in their career; the disgrace is holding fast to a theory long
> after it has been found to conflict with experiment.
>
>   John K Clark
>
> --
> 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.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

I am well aware of the two slit experiment.  You can't send tronnies
one-by-one anywhere.  They exist in twosomes and threesomes as electrons,
positrons or entrons.  The entron is the energy-mass of each photon. 
Photons are self propelled by internal Coulomb forces of their entrons. 
In the two-slit experiment the entron goes through one slit but its
Coulomb force wave goes through both slits.

My theory does not deal with consciousness.

>
> On 08 Jun 2014, at 20:33, John Ross wrote:
>
>> I am not trying to prove quantum mechanics incorrect.  I am trying
>> to prove my theory is correct.  If my theory is correct, and quantum
>> mechanics is inconsistent withmy theory then quantum mechanics may
>> very well be incorrect.  There is also a possibility that on some
>> issues the two theories may both be correct.
>
> QM is the only theory (or scheme of theories) which has not been
> refuted for more than a century. All others theories in physics have
> been shown wrong in less than few years, when they are not suspected
> to be wrong at the start (wrong does not imply "not useful" in some
> context).
>
> So my question, which has been already asked, is simply what happens
> when you send tronnies, one by one, (or compounds of tronnies) on a
> plate with two close small holes? (have you heard and think about
> Young two slits experience?).
>
>
>
>>
>> You lost me with Turing emulable.
>
> We can come back on this later, but as you seem not so much interested
> in consciousness, that might be out of your topic, at least for now.
> Taking consciousness into account + the hypothesis that the brain is a
> natural computer might force us to make physics into a sort of
> illusion entirely reducible to the study of machine's psychology or
> theology. See my URL or post, if interested.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>>
>> JR
>>
>> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
>> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 2:35 AM
>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
>>
>>
>> On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote:
>>
>>
>> I do not explain consciousness.
>>
>> Fair enough. You are not searching to explain "everything".
>> Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin
>> of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian
>> theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive
>> identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between
>> brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual
>> infinities. With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing
>> emulable, you can still attach consciousness to a brain, but you
>> cannot attach a brain to consciousness, you can only attach an
>> infinity of relative universal machine states to a consciousness.
>> This might explain the many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is
>> not yet clear to me what is your position on quantum mechanics, or
>> your explanation of the two slits experiment.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>> Jr
>>
>> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> ] On Behalf Of LizR
>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM
>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
>>
>> On 7 June 2014 04:12, John Ross  wrote:
>> There is a theory of everything - my theory, "The Ross Model".  You
>> are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject,
>> so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book.  And I
>> predict you will be forced to agree with me.
>>
>> I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is -
>> is the idea "primitive materialism" - that space, time, matter and
>> energy are fundamental? Do you attempt to explain consciousness?
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

Correct, each major object carries its own Coulomb grid that move through
our Universe at the speed of the object.  In between the major objects the
Coulomb grids are overlapping combinations.  And we can have a Coulomb
grid within a Coulomb grid so light speed will be affected by both grids. 
For example the Coulomb grid of the earth will also include the Coulomb
grid of the solar system.  The farther we are from the earth the more
influence the solar system grid will have.

Right again; the speed of light can include refractive  index.

Yes; grids are superimposed and averaged where they overlap.  This may get
a little complicated in some cases but no more complicated than trying to
figure out exactly how "space" is curved half way between the earth and
the moon using Albert's approach.

Yes, light changes speeds many time as it passes through our Universe, but
it is always traveling at the speed of light through the grid it is
currently traveling through.  There is no reason for it to become blurred.
 When light travels through a good prism or a microscope or a telescope it
can change speeds several times and it does not necessarily become
blurred.

John R

> On 12 June 2014 14:03,  wrote:
>
>> There is a speed of light limit for light.  It is the speed of light and
>> it is relative to the Coulomb grid through which the light is traveling.
>>
>
> So if I understand correctly, the CG is moving at the same speed as the
> object. So each object has its own local version of lightspeed.
>
>>
>> Coulomb grids move at the speed of the objects that the grid is
>> associated
>> with.  The earth's Coulomb grid moves through our Universe at the same
>> speed as the earth moves trough our Universe.
>>
>
> OK.
>
>>
>> Right, Photons travel through Coulomb grids at the speed of light for
>> that
>> grid.  The speed of the photons traveling through my eyeball depends on
>> the index of refraction of my eyeball.
>>
>
> True, but I'm not sure if we should worry about the refractive index, that
> seems like an unnecessary complication at the moment.
>
>>
>> A Coulomb grid is the sum total of all of the Coulomb force waves making
>> up the grid.  A speck of dusk and a proton would not produce many
>> Coulomb
>> waves, so neither would produce a significant Coulomb grid.
>>
>
> So these grids are all superimposed, and they all move at different
> speeds... yes?
>
> So how do you determine the speed of light at a given point? Is it the
> average of the intensity of each CG multiplied by the velocity of that CG?
>
>>
>> If the space ship is moving at 0.57 c, the light would be moving at 0.43
>> c
>> relative to the solar system.  But it is moving at c relative to the
>> space
>> ship.  People on the space ship measuring the speed of light would
>> measuring it as c.
>>
>
> So the light has changed velocity, since it was emitted in the solar
> system's reference frame, from c to 0.57c as it approaches the space ship
> Does it change speeds gradually, or all in one go? What happens to the
> energy involved in light changing velocity by such a large amount?
>
> It seems to me that if the universe is full of CGs which are all moving at
> different velocities, and the speed of light varies according to the
> intensity and speed of the CGs it's passing through at any given moment,
> that would mean that light is constantly changing velocity as it travels
> around the universe. This would mean that images of extended objects at
> large distances would tend to be blurred, because the light from them
> would
> have traversed different regions of space where the intensity and velocity
> of the CGs would be different from each other.
>
> --
> 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.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

There is a speed of light limit for light.  It is the speed of light and
it is relative to the Coulomb grid through which the light is traveling.

Coulomb grids move at the speed of the objects that the grid is associated
with.  The earth's Coulomb grid moves through our Universe at the same
speed as the earth moves trough our Universe.

Right, Photons travel through Coulomb grids at the speed of light for that
grid.  The speed of the photons traveling through my eyeball depends on
the index of refraction of my eyeball.

A Coulomb grid is the sum total of all of the Coulomb force waves making
up the grid.  A speck of dusk and a proton would not produce many Coulomb
waves, so neither would produce a significant Coulomb grid.

If the space ship is moving at 0.57 c, the light would be moving at 0.43 c
relative to the solar system.  But it is moving at c relative to the space
ship.  People on the space ship measuring the speed of light would
measuring it as c.

> On 12 June 2014 04:27,  wrote:
>
>> Tronnies travel at speeds of about 1.57 c with respect to the Coulomb
>> grid
>> in which they are located.  Coulomb grids are *speed of light* Coulomb
>> force
>> waves that fill our Universe.  They are also traveling in a circle with
>> one or two other tronnies in the form of an entron, an electron or a
>> positron.  They reach the opposite side of their circle at exactly the
>> same time as their own Coulomb force wave.
>>
>
> Given that there isn't a speed of light limit in your model, it seems
> valid
> to ask "the speed of light relative to what?"
>
>>
>> If you and I are both located in the same Coulomb grid (for example,
>> earth's Coulomb grid) the light from the flashlight would be traveling
>> at
>> a speed of c relative to the Coulomb grid.
>
>
> Which is itself moving at c. So the photons are stationary with respect
> to
> the grid.
>
>
>> If I am moving at 0.57
>> relative to the grid, when the photons from your flashlight enter my
>> eyeball they would travel at the speed of light relative to the Coulomb
>> grid in my eyeball.  The frequency of the light would be increase, i.e.
>> blue shifted.
>>
>
> So are you saying that when the photons leave the torch they are
> travelling
> at c relative to the torch's Coulomb Grid (henceforth CG), but when they
> enter my eye they're travelling at c relative to *my* CG, which I assume
> is
> moving with me at 0.57c? So the photons have changed velocity from c to
> 1.57c relative to the torch by the time they reach my retina? Have I got
> that right?
>
>>
>> Assume you and I are both in the solar system Coulomb grid but I am in a
>> large spaceship (large enough to have its own Coulomb grid within the
>> solar system's grid)
>
>
> What is "large enough" in this context? Does a speck of dust have a CG
> moving with it? What about a proton moving at .999c?
>
>
>> traveling toward the beam at 1.57 c, I would measure
>> the speed of the beam as c, but the beam would actually be going
>> backward
>> relative to the solar system's grid. The light would be blue shifted.
>>
>
> This sounds like the same thing you said about the eyeball of someone
> moving at .57c above. So are you saying a torch can send out a beam at c
> in
> the solar system's grid, which is then swept up by a space ship moving at
> .57c towards the light source, and changes velocity so that within the
> ship's grid it's moving at c, so in the solar system's grid it's now
> moving
> at .43c?
>
> --
> 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.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

Tronnies travel at speeds of about 1.57 c with respect to the Coulomb grid
in which they are located.  Coulomb grids are speed of light Coulomb force
waves that fill our Universe.  They are also traveling in a circle with
one or two other tronnies in the form of an entron, an electron or a
positron.  They reach the opposite side of their circle at exactly the
same time as their own Coulomb force wave.

If you and I are both located in the same Coulomb grid (for example,
earth's Coulomb grid) the light from the flashlight would be traveling at
a speed of c relative to the Coulomb grid.  If I am moving at 0.57
relative to the grid, when the photons from your flashlight enter my
eyeball they would travel at the speed of light relative to the Coulomb
grid in my eyeball.  The frequency of the light would be increase, i.e.
blue shifted.

Assume you and I are both in the solar system Coulomb grid but I am in a
large spaceship (large enough to have its own Coulomb grid within the
solar system's grid) traveling toward the beam at 1.57 c, I would measure
the speed of the beam as c, but the beam would actually be going backward
relative to the solar system's grid. The light would be blue shifted.

> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 2:19 PM, John Ross 
> wrote:
>
>> The tronnies travel in circles at speeds of (π/2)c
>>
>
> Hmm, a speed of (π/2)c, but I don't understand what the reference point
> is,  tronnies are moving at a speed of 1.57079682679c with respect to
> what?
> Perhaps if you answer this question it will clarify things, in your model
> if I shine light from my flashlight at you and you're moving directly
> toward me at a speed of .57079682679c then what speed do you observe the
> light from my flashlight hitting your body?
>
>  John K Clark
>
> --
> 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.