The electric force between an electron and a proton is due to their difference in charge. A proton carries a net charge of +1, while the electron carries a net charge of -1. The fact that there’s a total of 2177 charged quanta making up the proton and a total of 3 charged quanta making up the electron does nothing to alter this. It’s the net charge of the respective particles that matters.
Together, the proton and electron forms a neutral whole with a net charge of 0. However, this is not to say that there’s no charge surrounding a neutral atom. There’s a big difference between no net charge and no charge at all.
Neutral matter produce just as many charged neutrinos as charged matter. The only difference is that the charge adds up to exactly zero in the case of neutral matter, while charged matter produce an excess of either negatively or positively charged neutrinos.
The electric force depends on the net imbalance in charge between two bodies. When the number of positively and negatively charged neutrinos around a body average out to zero, there’s no electric force.
However, as previously mentioned, there’s a tiny difference in reactivity between positively and negatively charged quanta. This was illustrated with the analogy of Velcro, in which hooks react ever so lightly with other hooks while hoops don’t react with other hoops. This in turn was used to explain why protons are larger than electrons.
Since positive quanta react lightly with each other, we get that a collision between two positively charged neutrinos won’t be the completely perfect bounce that we get when two negatively charged neutrinos collide.
For two neutral bodies, we get that the following four types of collisions can happen with exact same probability. Note that all collisions except hooks on hooks produce one unit of pressure:
- Hooks meet hoops = 1 unit of low pressure
- Hoops meet hooks = 1 unit of low pressure
- Hoops meet hoops = 1 unit of high pressure
- Hooks meet hooks = 1-x unit of high pressure, where x is a tiny fraction of 1
The hooks on hooks collision produces a slightly imperfect collision, resulting in a less than perfect unit of high pressure. When we add up all the possible collisions, we get a tiny bit of low pressure.
With a sufficiently large number of collisions we get a weak attracting force.
It’s this weak attracting force between neutral bodies that we refer to as gravity.
From this we see that gravity is due to a tiny imbalance in the electric force. This in turn explains why the formula for Newton’s universal law of gravity bears a striking resemblance to Coulomb’s law.
Coulomb’s law is an expression for force based on net charge, while Newton’s law is an expression for force based on total charge. Since inertial mass is directly related to the number of charged quanta making up protons and electrons, inertial mass can be seen as a proxy for total charge.
This Post Has 17 Comments
Thank you so much for your books – an absolute inspiration! I think you’ve absolutely nailed it in all respects apart from one bit which I just can’t understand, which is your explanation of gravity. I can’t make the sums work.
For two neutral bodies, we get that the following four types of collisions can happen with exact same probability. Note that all collisions except hooks on hooks produce one unit of pressure:
Hooks meet hoops = 1 unit of low pressure
Hoops meet hooks = 1 unit of low pressure
Hoops meet hoops = 1 unit of high pressure
Hooks meet hooks = 1-x unit of high pressure, where x is a tiny fraction of 1
However, assuming that by ‘hook’ and ‘hoop’ you mean neutrinos with hooks or hoops that are activated, or pulled out, then in the space between the neutral bodies we have, before any collisions, a number of both types of energised neutrino. When they meet we get the 4 types of possibility:
1 hoopy energised neutrino meets 1 hooky energised neutrino = 1 zero point neutrino (loss of 2 energised neutrinos from the field, gain of one zero point neutrino)
1 hooky energised neutrino meets 1 hoopy energised neutrino = 1 zero point neutrino (loss of 2 energised neutrinos from the field, gain of one zero point neutrino)
1 hoopy energised neutrino meets 1 hoopy energised neutrino = 2 hoopy energised neutrinos (bounced with no change in energy)
1 hooky energised neutrino meets 1 hooky energised neutrino = 2 hooky energised neutrinos (bounced with slight loss in energy)
The result, if we just consider the above 4 collisions, is that we start with 8 energised neutrinos and end up with 4 energised neutrinos plus 2 zero point neutrinos. One of the 4 is slightly less energetic than the others. We can ignore the zero point neutrinos since they take no further part in the energy of the field, so we end up with a net energy loss of nearly 4 rather than the energy loss, as you suggest, of a tiny fraction of 1.
That net loss still means an attraction due to ‘gravity’ but makes it considerably stronger and not attributable to the small difference in reactivity between positively and negatively charged quanta. I’m sure you must be right, or rather I want you to be right, because it describes reality so much better, but I just can’t make the sums work.
Please help me out here – it’s driving me mad to try to make this work!
Hoping you can help,
Thanks for contacting me with your concern. Clearly, I haven’t made my point as clear as I should have, so let’s see if I can clear things up for you.
I think you might be confusing energy with pressure. My reasoning relating to gravity derives from the electric force. That’s a force and not energy, and I explain it as follows:
When we have two equally charged plates, neutrinos in the aether will have a tendency to get trapped in the field between the plates. The result of this is a repelling force.
When we have two opposite charged plates, neutrinos in the aether will have a tendency to vacate the field between the plates. The result of this is an attracting force.
The idea here is that the neutrinos carry footprints of the plates into the field. In the case of two negatively charged plates, this footprint is abrasive. There are hooks on hooks collisions. However, such collisions are not as perfect as other collisions. There’s a tiny imperfection, so the repelling force in this particular case is a tiny bit less than the attracting force between oppositely charged plates and the repelling force between two positively charged plates.
This is where the four types of collisions come into the story. The field between two neutral bodies will have a tiny attracting force due to the tiny imperfection of the repulsion between two negatively charged particles. (Keep in mind that neutral bodies are made up of an equal number of positively and negatively charged particles.)
What I find particularly pleasing in this explanation is that it also explains the larger size of the proton, relative to electrons. Protons are large because they contain abrasive particle quanta that will stick ever so lightly to other abrasive particles. It is this tendency of abrasive particles to interact that make protons large relative to electrons. This is the same tendency that makes the abrasive on abrasive neutrino collision imperfect, with gravity as a consequence.
Feel free to contact me directly on email if you want more help on this. I can assure you that the explanation is fairly straight forward once it’s properly laid out. I’m interested in making this story as clear as possible, so don’t hesitate to contact me if you’re still confused.
Use the contact form, or email me on firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks so much for getting back to me, but . . . still confused!
I agree that my use of the word ‘energy’ was misleading – I was rather confusingly describing the hooks or hoops condition when extended as ‘energised’ in the sense of activated.
What I was trying to say was that, using my sums (!), I get that after the 4 collisions, we started with 8 neutrinos with hooks or hoops extended and end up with 4 neutrinos with hooks or hoops extended plus 4 zero point (hooks or hoops not extended) neutrinos. I assumed that we can ignore the zero point neutrinos since they take no further part in any interactions or pressure:
1 hoop extended neutrino meets 1 hook extended neutrino = 2 zero point neutrino (loss of 2 hoop/hook extended neutrinos from the field, gain of 2 zero point neutrinos)
1 hook extended neutrino meets 1 hoop extended neutrino = 2 zero point neutrinos (loss of 2 hoop/hook extended neutrinos from the field, gain of 2 zero point neutrino2)
1 hoop extended neutrino meets 1 hoop extended neutrino = 2 hoop extended neutrinos (bounced with no change in energy)
1 hook extended neutrino meets 1 hook extended neutrino = 2 hooky energised neutrinos (bounced with slight loss in energy)
That means that, because of the tendency of hoops on hoops to remain in the field and hooks on hooks to remain, we have that, of the original 8, 4 will tend to leave and 4 will tend to stay – a net loss of 4 and so a pressure drop of 4 ‘units’. Well actually a little less than 4 because 2 of these are subject to imperfect bounce of hooks on hooks.
The pressure change is therefore from 8 units to a bit less than 4 units.
Still driving me mad that I can’t make this work!
Rather than extending this blog, you might prefer to reply direct, as you prefer.
Hi again Paul,
Here’s a different way of looking at the problem which doesn’t involve any thinking about hooks and hoops. The basic idea is that neutrinos in the aether carry information regarding whatever charged particle they last were in contact with.
This would mean that a large neutral body would be surrounded by a huge number of neutrinos carrying information about it. Half of these will be positive and the other half would be negative.
This should not result in any attracting force between two large neutral bodies because the positive and negative neutrinos are equal in numbers. However, if there is a tiny defect in the repelling force, the net effect would be attraction.
What I’m suggesting is that this is indeed the case. Gravity is due to a tiny imbalance in the electric force. Repulsion between equally charged particles is not exactly equal to attraction between oppositely charged particles. The difference is something like a trillionth of a trillion, with repulsion being weaker than attraction, but that’s all it would take to get gravity, the weakest of all known forces in the universe.
Yes, that makes perfect sense . . . but I still can’t get my head around how the neutrinos add up here. If you still have the stamina (!), let me try it this way:
Looking at your Static Charge & Neutral Bodies page, your diagrams show the schematic negative/positive layout of a neutral surface. If we use the same surface representation on your Electric Field page, you show diagrams of positive/negative and negative/negative charged bodies – but to complete the picture for two neutral bodies we need to add two more diagrams, a negative/positive and a positive/positive in order to represent the positive/negative surfaces of both bodies as in the first diagram.
Each of the two surfaces is producing positively charged neutrinos from the positively charged sections and negatively charged neutrinos from the negatively charged sections. So there are 4 possible types of collision each with the same probability: Positive-positive, negative-negative, positive-negative and negative-positive.
As you describe on the Electric Field page, the similarly charged neutrinos in between the positive/positive and the negative/negative sections make a non-abrasive collision with no hard turn so they stay in the field giving 4 units of high pressure (one unit for each neutrino in the field). The positively charged neutrinos are slightly less bouncy, so in fact we get a little less than 4 units.
Between the positive/negative and the negative/positive sections we have neutrinos with different charges so all 4 make an abrasive collision with a hard turn and vacate the field giving 4 units of low pressure.
Before any collisions we had 8 units of high pressure (all 8 neutrinos in the field) and after collisions we have a little less than 4 units of high pressure (only 4 neutrinos in the field).
Since all collisions are equally likely, this means a net loss of a little bit over 4 units of pressure.
I’m sure I must be counting this wrong somewhere, but I still can’t see where.
If your patience isn’t completely exhausted by now, perhaps you can help me out here!
I don’t mind at all. I rather like the challenge.
I get the impression you’re adding things up wrong for some reason. I’m not sure where you get the 4 units of pressure at the end.
You’re right about the four different types of collisions. Two of which keep neutrinos in the field and the two other expelling neutrinos. That should add up to zero, not four.
The next step is to consider that hooks on hooks collisions are not quite as perfect as hoops on hoops. Hooks on hooks collisions result in a tiny fraction of the neutrinos that should have stayed in the field nevertheless escaping.
The result of this is that our above result of zero becomes a tiny bit less than zero. There’s a tiny bit of leakage. Aether is drifting out of the filed between neutral bodies, and we get the corresponding attracting force that we call gravity.
Keep in mind that the hooks on hooks collisions are only a tiny bit imperfect. These collisions are almost identical to hoops on hoops collisions in terms of behaviour. The difference is so small that we can only detect it when we deal with large bodies like planets. If you are treating hooks on hooks collisions as similar to that of hooks on hoops, you’ll get a very strong force, and not the tiny force that is gravity.
It might be helpful for you to think of the aether as a fluid.
Imagine this fluid to be such that it will escape out of the field between two bodies of opposite charge, and be sucked into a field between two equally charged bodies. This would then explain the phenomenon of electrostatic attraction and repulsion.
In the case of two neutral bodies, there is a tiny drift of aether out of the field between them due to a tiny imperfection in hook on hook collisions. What should have been a net force of zero, had everything been perfectly balanced, ends up as a tiny bit less than zero.
Thanks for your patience! I totally get the difference in positive and negative bounce (one perfect and the other not quite perfect) which accounts for the tiny differences you describe. I also totally get, and am somewhat in awe of, your whole theory of a superfluid aether of neutrinos and photons, three fundamental particles and one force which accounts for . . . well, pretty much everything!
However, the bit I just don’t get is your explanation of Gravity.
You say ‘You’re right about the four different types of collisions. Two of which keep neutrinos in the field and the two other expelling neutrinos. That should add up to zero, not four.’
By my reckoning, that adds up, not to zero, but to a net loss of neutrinos since, as you say, two collisions keep neutrinos in the field (zero change) and the two others expel neutrinos (net loss).
Or, put another way, with the four equally probable types of collision, we start with 8 neutrinos in the field (4 from each side) and, after 4 have left (that is, the 2 abrasively colliding positive on negative and the 2 abrasively colliding negative on positive), we are left with 4.
That’s a net loss of 4. Which means that the tiny differences in bounce between 2 of the other 4 remaining neutrinos is largely irrelevant.
I want to be wrong but can’t make the sums work that way!
I think I’ve spotted the element of confusion! It took me a bit of thinking to see it, but let’s see if this helps:
What you are forgetting is that the aether is full of neutrinos that whizz about in all directions. Under completely neutral conditions, neutrinos come into the field at the exact same rate as they exit.
With this in mind, we can consider the four types of collisions that come about when we have two neutral bodies. The two abrasive on woolly collisions will make neutrinos exit the field at a higher rate than normal. The two equal on equal collisions will make neutrinos stay in the field a little longer than normal.
When we sum this up, there’s no difference in outcome. The total number of neutrinos entering and leaving the field remains the same, hence a net force of zero. BUT the abrasive on abrasive collision is imperfect. There’s a tiny leak of neutrinos out of the field, and hence a tiny attracting force.
Again, think of the aether as a fluid with particles moving about at the speed of light. The electric force puts an element of order into this chaos by either keeping neutrinos in the field longer then normal, producing repulsion, or expelling neutrinos a little sooner than normal, producing attraction.
This same mechanism explains magnetism as well. However, that force is communicated by photons, also present in the aether. Magnetism operates on the photon component in the aether while electric charge operates on the neutrino component in the aether.
As for neutral bodies being attracted to charged bodies, I explain this by pointing out that the surface of a neutral body will become slightly charged through induction by a nearby charged body. This produces attraction regardless of what type of charge the charged body has. However, this has nothing to do with gravity.
Gravity is due to an imbalance in the electric force that comes about due to the imperfection in abrasive on abrasive neutrino collisions.
I don’t see how the rate at which neutrinos leave the field or don’t leave the field is relevant since at any given instant they are either in or out. As you point out, gravity is a manifestation of the electric force, and so is ‘instant’. We therefore need to consider changes in the instant, not over a period of time.
At any chosen instant and any chosen location within the field between the bodies, we have the same 4 possible collisions and the same outcome – a net loss of neutrinos (as explained in my last reply).
Even looking at it from your perspective of rates of departing or staying, I still can’t make it work. Since all the neutrinos are travelling at the same speed, I assume by ‘rate’ that you mean the number of neutrinos staying or leaving in any given period of time. No matter what period of time you choose to count over, within that period there will be some neutrinos leaving the field due to abrasive on woolly collisions (and so lowering the pressure) whilst there are no abrasive/abrasive and woolly/woolly neutrinos leaving (and so nearly zero change in pressure). And when you add a loss of pressure to a no change in pressure then, surely, the sum is a loss of pressure.
Or, put another way, some leaving plus some staying adds up to some leaving. If, instead, it was a case of some leaving plus some arriving, that would be different, but that’s not the case. The ‘bouncing’ neutrinos are merely staying within the field with a nearly no change in the pressure, not arriving into the field and increasing the pressure.
I’ve read your books several times over and you definitely have me as a convert. All the other areas you cover are perfect. It’s just the gravity bit I still don’t get.
I got a feeling you’ve figured it out at this point, but that you are somehow stuck in some misconception. Neutrinos enter and leave the field all the time, as you hint at, so the rate at which this happens is key to whether there is attraction, repulsion or no force at all between various surfaces.
In the case of equally charged surfaces, neutrinos tend to stay in the field, which results in repulsion. In the case of opposite charged surfaces, neutrinos tend to leave the field, which leads to attraction. This would mean that there is no net force in the case of two neutral bodies, because the tendency to stay would be equal to the tendency to leave. However, one of the repelling collisions (hooks on hooks) is imperfect. The effect of this is that some neutrinos that would have stayed if all collisions were perfect end up leaving anyway, and we get the tiny attracting force that is gravity.
Also, gravity as modelled in my theory does not happen instantaneously. It happens at the speed of light, which is the speed that neutrinos travel.
For a collision to happen between a neutrino carrying information about Earth, and a neutrino carrying information about our Sun, neutrinos must make the journey across space. This takes time. Time is involved in this, and the rates at which things happen are therefore important.
This brings us back to my fluid analogy for the aether. There’s a tiny tendency of aether-neutrinos to leave the field between neutral bodies due to the imperfection of hooks on hooks collisions. The aether is in a sense drained out from between neutral bodies, pulling the bodies together as a result. This happens at a tiny rate relative to all the other bouncing about and comings and goings, but the important thing is that it results in a tiny net negative on the equations that would otherwise equal zero.
The imperfection is in the order of one trillionth of a trillionth, so if there is a trillion trillion collisions, we end up with only one neutrino leaving the field that would have stayed if everything was perfectly balanced. This is why we require large bodies, made up of vast numbers of protons and electrons in order to detect gravity.
Feel free to continue this thread. However, I think you might actually have figured out my thinking at this point, and that you’re somehow stuck in an old misconception that you’re reluctant to cast aside. Maybe it will help to let it rest a little before we continue. But don’t give up. I would hate to lose you at this point. Also, if you have an epiphany, let me know what the triggering insight was so that I can work it into my text to the benefit of other readers.
Thanks for taking me seriously!
Maybe the confusion is due to an unfortunate use of words in my explanation. I talk of neutrinos staying and leaving. However, captured and ejected may be more fitting.
In the case of equal charges, the neutrinos that stay are accumulating due to an influx from outside the field. Neutrinos are captured. The accumulation produces pressure, and we get electric repulsion.
In the case of opposite charges, neutrinos are thrown out of the field sooner than normal. The neutrinos are ejected. This results in under-pressure, and we get electric attraction.
These two processes are in perfect balance in the case of two neutral bodies made up of electrons and protons. Except, there’s an imperfection in the process of accumulation. Some neutrinos that should have been captured escape nevertheless. The sum of the forces become a tiny bit negative, and this tiny negative force is what we call gravity.
Let me know if the change of words was in any way helpful. If so, I’ll make the necessary changes, and I’ll credit you with a mention in the acknowledgements at the end of my second book.
Thanks for your last reply – although, for me, it makes things a little more confusing rather than clarifying things! I don’t understand why neutrinos staying in the field would result in an influx of more neutrinos or why, if it does, it would happen in the same time frame as opposite charges leaving.
Going back to your earlier reply (a time when I was a little less confused!), it’s intuitively obvious that for neutral bodies the forces of attraction cancel out the forces of repulsion. However, the mechanism for this is not intuitively obvious. The fact that, in your gravity scenario, we have the 4 equally probable types of collision mean that, if we consider the 4 neutrinos from either side that would be involved in these collisions, before collision we have 8 neutrinos in the field and afterwards we have 4. That’s because 4 have bounced (the two positive-positive and negative-negatives) and remained and 4 have made abrasive collisions (the two positive-negative and negative-positives) and exited. That’s a net loss of 4 and so a pressure drop of 4. The rate at which this is happening is immaterial as long as we count everything in the same period – we can’t pick and choose when we count some and when we count others.
So, I can only make your gravity explanation work if the 4 abrasive collisions result in the neutrinos remaining in the field, but not if they leave. If they leave then, whichever way you look at it, there’s a pressure drop of 4. If they remain then there would be zero change in pressure UNLESS there was also a small difference in elasticity between the positive-positive and the negative-negative bounces. Gravity!
After some initial confusion on my part I now see what you’re getting at: There are four neutrinos leaving and only four staying. With there initially being eight neutrinos in the field, the reduction is four, and hence a strong attracting force. However, this is not how I intended it to be understood.
My intended model is one of an aether full of neutrinos whizzing about at the speed of light. There’s flux everywhere. The aether is a fluid of sorts. It’s very dense, but so void of energy and so fluid that we cannot measure it directly. We can only infer its existence from other observations, such as the three field forces, electric, gravity and magnetism.
These forces all work by either expelling aether particles at an above average rate, or retain aether particles at an above average rate. Why these rates are so well balanced is not explained in my theory. Your questions in your first paragraph are valid and something for me to ponder. However, if we take it as a given that they are equal, we get an explanation for the electric force, (and also the magnetic force, but with aether photons rather than neutrinos.)
Two equally charged surfaces will retain neutrinos longer than normal. There will therefore be a build up of neutrinos in the field due to the enormous flux in the aether itself. We get repulsion.
Two opposite charged surfaces will expel neutrinos faster than normal. There will therefore be a drain of neutrinos in the field. We get attraction.
In the case of two neutral bodies, made up of positive and negative charge in equal quantities, the above would yield zero net force. However, if the abrasive on abrasive collision is a tiny bit imperfect, as it would be due to the Velcro-like effect of abrasive on abrasive interaction, we get a tiny defect in the repelling force. The balance tips slightly towards attraction, and we have gravity as a result.
Keep in mind that I’m not saying that this is how it must be. I’m not trying to convert anybody towards this model. All I’m saying is that it works. If you have a better idea, I’m all ears. My wish for you is not that you should accept this, but that you understand my thinking.
So to recap: First, think of the aether as a fluid with tremendous flux. Second, think of collisions in the aether as being of two kinds that for some unexplained reason are exact opposite of each other. Third, have these collisions being determined by the surfaces that neutrinos previously interacted with. Finally, keep in mind that one of the collisions between equally charged neutrinos is imperfect.
From the above, we get the electric force and gravity, and we get the logic later used to explain magnetism.
Again, I’m not asking you to accept this as truth. I don’t want you to tell people that I figured it out. Rather, I’d like you to understand my model, and once you see it as I intended, we can have a discussion on details. You might have some suggestions as to my wordings. You may have some ideas that work equally well. I’m all ears.
As for the misunderstanding in your initial reasoning, I believe it’s mainly due to a static view of the aether. Once you see the aether as extremely fluid, you’ll also see that field forces are about flux and manipulation of flux.
Thanks for your reply. I totally get your proposition that the aether is a superfluid with a high density flux of neutrinos and that the electric force is all about the manipulation of that flux. I’m convinced you are right.
The bit I don’t see is how the proposition/observation/recognition that the flux builds up or drains away as a total-field event can be seen as an explanation for the electric field – unless the mechanisms are understood and explainable at the neutrino level. Otherwise it’s merely a statement of ‘that’s what it does’ but not why it does it. All your other explanations in all other areas and topics within your books (including magnetism, optics, astrophysics, etc) are detailed and right on point, so I’m frustrated that I can’t get my head around this bit. Everything else is awesome, it’s just the electric force / gravity explanation that I don’t get.
You say in the conclusion of your first book that you hope it will be an inspiration – let me assure you that you have succeeded! I ‘found’ you about 6 weeks ago after a Google search for the ’aether particle’ which was mentioned, almost as a throwaway line, by Wal Thornhill in one of his Thunderbolts videos. I’m a convert to the electric universe but I’m unconvinced about his explanation for gravity, particularly the conclusion that it’s attractive close up and repulsive at a distance.
Because, since ‘discovering’ you, I’ve clearly monumentally failed to understand your explanations for the electric force and gravity bit, I’ve been doing a lot of my own thinking (as you know!) and I believe I do have some new ideas. I’ve been putting some thoughts together since then and I think I now have some alternative ideas which work. All of it based on your basic propositions but with some different interpretations and hence different explanations for the electric force and, of course, gravity! When I have it in a form which I’m happy with, perhaps I could send it to you and get your comments?
I will be very happy to review anything you come up with, so feel free to send it to me when you have it sufficiently hammered out. I can assure you that my feedback will be constructive. I’m not married to my own theory, so I have no trouble reviewing other theories on their own merits.
I too have been inspired by Wal Tharnhill, and I have also found his explanation for gravity lacking, so we have that in common as well. We even share the view that all field forces are manifestations of the aether.
I’m very happy to hear that I’ve inspired you with my model, and I’ll do my best to help you hammer out your own alternative. The way I see it, science is best done in an environment of dialog, and with competing theories. The decision to pin things down with a consensus back in the early 20th century was a big mistake. Theoretical science has struggled to make progress ever since.
Your take on this will no doubt fit well with my theory, so I might, with your permission, share your final draft as a post on this site to give your thoughts an initial boost. If you manage to convince me completely, I’ll make changes to my own theory with due reference to your work. But I’ll only do that if it makes total sense to do so. Otherwise, it’s better to leave it up to the readers to judge for themselves.
I think this might turn out to be a lot of fun. I hope to see something in my inbox in a not too distant future!
A short 12 months on and I have finally completed work on my alternative theory.
Although based on your fundamentals – an aether of small particles, a single fundamental force and just 3 fundamental quanta (or, in my model, 2 fundamental quanta), the substantial difference in my model is that the neutrino has structure. It comprises orbiting positive and negative quanta. The outcome of this is that, although it fits well with your model in terms of the size-energy relationship for neutrinos and photons and hence the explanation for attraction and repulsion, it diverges significantly in explaining areas such as the electrostatic force and its speed, gravity, the interaction of photons with matter, the composition and size of protons, atomic structure and the creation of matter.
Because my work has been inspired by you and your ideas, I feel somewhat ‘awkward’ about now moving things in a different direction. However, I am reassured by your comment that an environment of dialog and competing theories is more likely to progress science than mere consensus (which is what we have with the current scientific establishment) and my feeling that your aim, like mine, is to make change and progress, means that I’m confident you’ll welcome these new ideas.
What began merely as a consideration of gravity, arising out of our discussions, has finally turned into a major work encompassing atomic physics, astrophysics, relativity and optics. It’s much too large to include here and so I’ve attached it in a separate email. I would very much appreciate your comments and look forward to hearing back from you!
That’s great! I was hoping for something from you. You make some insightful observations, and I like the way you put a different spin on things. I’ve provided a link to your Structured Neutrino site in the “worth a visit” list at the bottom of my pages.