You guys should get a copy of my new self-published book. It is
entitled "A Single Particle Universe, The Simplest Yet Theory of
Everything". According to my theory, the single particle is a mass-less
point particle with a charge of +e or -e. The particles, I call
tronnies, attract their opposites and repel their own kind with
Coulomb-like forces that expand out at the speed of light. The
particles also repel themselves so their speed can never be less than
the speed of light. This is possible because they have no mass.
Photons are comprised of a plus tronnie and a minus tronnie (net zero
charge) circling in a circle with a diameter equal to half the photon
wavelength). In the photon frame of reference each tronnie travels
around the circumference of the circle at 1.57 times c. It's force
field traveling at c from the opposite side of the circle provides a
repelling force that maintains the diameter of the photon. The two
tronnies circle because they are attracted to each other. Each of the
circling tronnies also push itself in the photon direction at the
speed of light.
An electron (negatron) is comprised of two minus tronnies and a plus
tronnie (net -e charge) and a positron is comprised of two plus
tronnies and a minus tronnie (net +e charge). Neutrinos are very high
frequency photons (net zero charge and a very very small diameter
corresponding to its high frequency). Electrons and positrons can and
do capture neutrinos greatly (by up to several hundred times)
increasing their mass/energy. High mass/energy electrons and positrons
combine to form protons. So a proton is comprised of at least one
electron, two positrons and the three captured neutrinos that add up
to 15 tronnies, (8 plus and 7 minus so the charge is +e and the mass is
1,800 times the electron mass). The proton can also capture photons but
with longer wavelengths (for example, gamma rays). A neutron is a
proton combined with a high energy electron.
Neutrinos are the carriers of gravity. Coulomb force fields expand out
behind the neutrinos in the direction of the source of the neutrinos.
The neutrino rides in front of these expanding force fields like a boat
riding in front of its wake. These force fields expanding behind the
neutrinos push charged particles in matter through which they are
passing toward the neutrino source. This is gravity. Neutrinos from
the sun passing through the earth (100 million per square cm per second)
push the earth toward the sun. Neutrinos trapped in the earth and
later released in random directions provide the earth's gravity.
Neutrinos from a black hole in the center of our galaxy hold our galaxy
together. The Universe is expanding because neutrinos are captured by
hydrogen in intergalactic space but much longer wavelength photons are
not. These much longer wavelength photons are pushing galaxies apart at
the present time. Later on when more of the hydrogen in intergalactic
space has been sucked into black holes the neutrinos will become more
effective relative to the longer wavelength photons and will begin
compressing the Universe ultimately into a single black hole that will
shrink to the size of a basketball as molecules, atoms and photons are
broken down to the basic + and - tronnies. Then this black will
experience the next Big Bang initiating the next universe. The initial
expansion can be several billion light years in a fraction of a second
since there is no limit to how fast tronnies can travel if they are not
tied to an opposite tronnie in a photon or an electron.
So ours in only one Universe in a long string of a series of universes.
If you are interested you can buy my book at:
Earth Song Bookstore
1440 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Ph: 858-755-4254
Fax: 858-755-6787
e-mail: books.domain.name.hidden
web: www.earthsongbooks.com
-----Original Message-----
From: John M [mailto:jamikes.domain.name.hidden]
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 7:26 AM
To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden; Hal Ruhl
Subject: Re: Then I can jump in with my bias....
Hi, Hal,
I like your nihilistic (oops: zero-based) ontology as a representation
of our knowledge. Beyond that:
I tried to cut out the 'expansion' as a cute idea which got only a
justification by ignorance:
it was applicable and no other reasonable proposition was competing with
the millions of slanted (theory laden) experiments to prove it - all
assuming in advance that it is true.
Hubble was a genius. Not "god's" prophet. He may be right (not
necessarily).
In your logic, if 'everything' increases within (including inter- and
intraatomic measures, even an expanding space), does it make sense to
speak about an unobservable overall change? We, our views, the details,
the connections, all change the same way. Is it a fata morgana, if
everything stays the same, we just say that the total is getting bigger?
(while the universe? - space? being infinite?)
I tried to circumvent this obstacle in my narrative for a beginning
(without a "creator"), by assigning 'space' (and 'time) to *our*
organization of *our* universe from within. So 'my'
infinite means: the edge of defining space - no such measure beyond
that.
Any other "edge" has something beyond it. (Einstein's joke: north of the
North Pole?)
Like George, I can dream up occasions for a redshift beside a slow-down.
The conventional physical edifice resulting in missing (dark) things and
controversies is the result of views (and calculations!) from an age
with less epistemic cognitive inventory to base upon, wishful postulates
upon the then logical explanatory trials (discount phlogiston) in
concepts not identified to meet our present scrutiny (energy? gravity?
their prodigies?)
but used as base in our religious-like belief system of 'physics.
Russell scolded me some years back: Don't I dare call his science a
'religion" - well I don't
but it is a belief system.
This list started to attempt to break loose from it - but too many
conventional physicist-opinions terrorized many free spirits back into
the 75 subsequent college-generations-brainwashed
'physicist'-community-memes of classical and well calculated physical
thought.
Becuase it is efficient and productive it is not necessarily true (like
the redshift).
As George said: "I now humbly wait for rebuttals ..." not offers to go
elsewhere, because even if I get silenced, after many years of
participation, I still want to read this list.
John M
http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/SciRelMay00.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Hal Ruhl <mailto:HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Then I can jump in with my bias....
Hi George:
The idea at least for my point of view is more along the lines that the
multiverse is a form of Nothing something like 256/256 is a form of 1
and [256/256 - 239/239] is another form of zero.
By the way the idea is that space itself expands. This mechanism does
not slow photons but rather increases their wavelength.
Hal
At 05:07 PM 5/22/2004, you wrote:
Ron,
It seems most logical, to me anyway, that the Universe is truly infinite
in time and space. Nothing
created it, it will never end, and that is more logical, to me, than
arising from nothingness.
The whole modern concept of big bang etc. is mostly based on Hubble's
red shift.
When I read articles about the cosmos' origins and recent astronomy
discoveries,
I keep imagining immense distances and all kinds of possible
ATTENUATIONS of light and gravity
from distances that we haven't seen. At least not yet Gravity from
further reaches of the same U slows
light photons and therefore RED SHIFTS the light. I know, the same
general gravity should act
the same everywhere and therefore not attenuate, but I can imagine a
relative kind of attenuation
because the light or gravity photon or wave does become affected by all
sorts of local gravities
on its way to us. Why not just like the way light is bent around Mercury
or gravity by Jupiter?
The immense distances would allow for multiple interactions and a
gradual slowing or red shift.
So we don't need the big bang. The church likes it because it allows for
a creator.
And the missing energy or mass or dark matter..
Why not just our parallel universe operating in a kind of 180 opposite
direction from ours.
Where else would those positrons and other fleeting particles have to
go? Into our sister Universe, I
would guess.
I have been looking for a forum to express these views....and since I
know of no one else..
Everything-list people might be it.
I now humbly wait for rebuttals and offers to go elsewhere.
George
Received on Mon May 24 2004 - 15:34:39 PDT