On listening to the video again, I see I am probably wrong on Larry Springs and you disagreeing about the length of a photon, really that isn't debatable.
But I really think you should look into his model and the reasons for it, for instance one test he did that I recall was to make a waveguide that was half the wavelength of the photon, this allowed the photons to move through, but not if it was made and smaller. I also recall he made polarizers out of wire ||||| so that it would pass through or be absorbed depending on the polarization axis. His other theories don't seem to hold water but I really think that you should at least consider if his views on the photon make sense with your model somehow. On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:59 AM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.larryspring.com/ > > <http://www.larryspring.com/>Ah, here his site is, it seems there is quite > a bit more than just his info on the photon. > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:55 AM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Frank, I don't think that is quite right... >> >> Larry Springs made a book I've got lyring around here and he makes a very >> strong case for the width being half the wavelength (when collapsed). >> >> But I think he claims the length is twice as long as you do, so twice as >> long but half as wide might give the same answer with the math? >> >> He also claims they are spherical. >> >> http://keelynet.com/gravity/spring1.htm >> >> <http://keelynet.com/gravity/spring1.htm>I have his book somewhere, if >> you can't figure out any other way to get it I'll happily send or scan what >> you want. >> >> He worked with low frequency photons and got very tangible results. >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 3:51 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Lane is doing a fantistic job. Take a look at this >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-G2Juj_17U >>> >> >> >
