Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Why I don't believe in Ross' model

Expand Messages
  • Ross Tessien by way of cyrano@aqua.ocn.
    ... If you use a structure of waves to replace, Spacetime , then you can speak in terms of absolute phase. But really what you are talking about is the phase
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 16 9:00 AM
      At 10:56 AM 6/16/01 +0900, you wrote:
      > >Return-Path: <daniel.lapadatu@...>
      > >From: Daniel Lapadatu <daniel.lapadatu@...>
      > >To: "Claude (E-mail)" <cyrano@...>
      > >Subject: Why I don't believe in Ross' model
      > >Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:59:31 +0200
      > >
      > >Dear Claude,
      > >
      > >This is briefly why I don't believe in Ross' model:
      > >
      > >Wave physics indicate that what is physically relevant is the phase
      > >DIFFERENCE between waves, and not the phase itself.

      If you use a structure of waves to replace, "Spacetime", then you can speak
      in terms of absolute phase. But really what you are talking about is the
      phase of one wave relative to spacetime here, the phase between spacetime
      here and spacetime there, and the phase relation of the resonance over
      there relative to spacetime. Because spacetime is fully locked in
      step.........ie like a long series of Josephson's junctions or coupled
      oscillators, they all resonant in step with one another globally and you
      can just use that as a reference "clock" of sorts.

      Thus, you can speak of phase once you make some assignment as to what "0"
      degrees of phase angle means.

      I assign the wave resonance we call "positive" charge to be that which is
      coupled to spacetime at what I arbitrarily assign to be the 0 degree
      phase. With that assignment, you can now speak of phase absolute.

      > >
      > >Phase, like the potential energy levels, can be chosen arbitrarily. They
      > >have no physical meaning by themselves. Just the differences (or the
      > >gradients) have the meaning.
      > >
      > >This "indiference" to phase (symmetry to translation in phase)is reflected
      > >by the law of electrical charge conservation. Since no one doubts this law,
      > >no one should doubt the fact that phase is irelevant.
      > >
      > >Now, if electrons, neutrinos, positrons and antineutrinos are the same
      > >thing, but phase shifted, one should expect to get the same physics between
      > >objects that are in phase (phase difference equal to zero):
      > >
      > >1. electron-electron interaction;
      > >2. neutrino-neutrino interaction;
      > >3. positron-positron interaction;
      > >4. antineutrino-antineutrino interaction.
      > >
      > >Well, it turns out that while 1 indeed matches 3 and 2 matches 4, these two
      > >different matching sets do not match each other. Therefore, they the
      > >neutrino is not just an electron shifted by 90 degrees! It must be something
      > >else!

      Who ever did neutrino-neutrino collisions in the laboratory? It may be
      that theory says these interactions are different, but, is there proof?

      In my model, I am not satisfied that a neutrino is simply an
      electron. There is another resonance geometry they could satisfy and I
      have not been able to rule out one or the other. The electron resonance is
      a massive one with aether condensate at the core......ie, focal point of
      the spherical resonance. A neutrino could either be a phase rotated one of
      these, or, they could be a hole in the aether. In this case, they would be
      a hole that is spherically resonant sort of like an electron hole in
      electronics theory. That is applied to a notion where there is a deficit
      of electrons that propagates forward like an electron, but it is a deficit
      of electon that is moving and not a positron.

      That said, it seems likely that neutrinos ARE phase rotated electrons due
      to the weak nuclear force which can then be treated as an exchange of one
      resonance phase angle for another which leads to a change in the "charge"
      of the nucleon.

      > >
      > >You can try other compounds, like the helium atom: one neutron plus one
      > >proton in a nucleus and two electrons around. This compound should've been
      > >behaving in the same way as the following compound (since the phase
      > >differences are the same): antiproton plus neutron in a nucleus and two
      > >neutrinos around!!! No one has seen such a compound, which should be pretty
      > >stable and as likely as the helium atom.
      > >
      > >Ross' model is not phase-invariant!!!

      Oh, I thought this was from someone new at first but I see now it is from

      First, helium4 is two protons and two neutrons, helium 3 is two protons and
      1 neutron, so I'm not certain what he means.

      Second, anti hydrogen, an anti proton and a positron has been formed
      stably, but both will be destroyed if they meet any normal matter
      components due to phase opposition which leads to their being driven into
      each other.

      One neutron plus one proton is deuterium, and would have one
      electron..........it exists and is stable and the fuel we will use in our
      fusion reactors for that matter!!!!!! Also, it isn't clear that nuclei
      **don't** have neutrinos that are with them in addition to their
      electrons. We don't have means of determining if there are neutrinos
      around because we don't have the ability to produce orthogonal charged
      plates to accelerate and experiment with neutrinos.

      Anyway, again, these assertions that the model is incorrect are based on
      not understanding the model or the physics they apply to.


      > >
      > >
      > >Cheers,
      > >Daniel
      >" Si tu te fais ver de terre, ne te surprend pas si on t'écrase avec le
      >pied. "
      > KANT

      NOTE my new Email address: rtessien@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.