My New Book "I Killed Schrodinger's Cat!" is now for sale.

To Ian Griffiths (my sincerest apology for the early mistake),

We discussed putting the information into peer reviewed papers, but we felt that most of our concepts have already been proven by other "Peer Reviewed" papers and experiments.

It is not that we are contradicting current physics, it is that we are refining how things work based upon measured experimental data and we define how the universe makes things very simple.

An example:  We claim that nuclear fusion will not generate excess energy.

Proof:  Every fusion experiment since the 1960's has failed to generate breakeven energy.

The conventional physics claim that they just need a bigger and better whatever to reach breakeven.

Our analysis clearly show that the all of these experiments succeeded in proving our view that nuclear fusion is an endo-energy reaction.  We also show why that is the case and we prove that the astronomical theories about the stellar process is wrong.

As for Cosmin's example, there is no proof that electrons pass through conductors to carry electric charge.  As I recall, nearly every peer reviewed article using that theory has been approved.

In the book we offer the challenge to the scientific community.   PROVE US WRONG or consider our ideas.

We show many examples where data from failed experiments proves our theory.  The fact that those experiments failed to prove the "official" consensus does not invalidate the results.

I remember a time where scientist analyzed their data to glean the truth, not just toss it out because it did not confirm their expectations.

All we have done in our book is use "Peer Reviewed" data and drawn different conclusions.

The data does not lie.

Read our book and analyze the data yourself and you will see that our theory fits the data and accurately predicts how energy and mass flow at the subatomic level.

DAB

First of all, you have got my name wrong. Secondly, I am not trying to diminish or insult the work you have done, I was merely pointing out that no matter how much anyone wishes a theory to be true and believes it to be, unless it can be independently verified and tested, then we cannot conclude that is the way the universe works. For example, cold fusion is believed by many to be true, but no one has ever been able to reliably repeat the experiments.

If the concepts have been previously published in journals then I would be very interested in reading the articles (I would be very grateful if you could point me in their direction). But in the previous discussion on Cosmin's blog article you did not mention the existence of the articles, I am not aware of them and a search on the internet I did, did not turn up any related results. Hence, the appearance that your idea is entirely new and unprecedented.

Whilst I am not familiar with current fusion experiments this paper in nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7488/full/nature13008.html) suggests that the break-even point has been reached. But whether it has is not much of a concern. If you believe that nuclear fusion can never produce excess energy, then do you have an alternative to the current theories on the stellar process?

From the top of my head I would suggest that the Hall effect shows electrons carry the charge through a conductor. From your previous explanation, where photons are moving between electron clouds, I do not see how a magnetic field would cause a voltage to be produced. However, if you can explain it using your ideas then I would be very interested.

I have never met a scientist who tosses data out because it doesn't conform to their expectations, and it is not something that I would personal advocate. I am also unsure why you are talking about such practices, I can only imagine you misunderstood what I have previously written (which was "Your idea, from my understanding, seems to contradict known physics"). I was not saying that your ideas contradict known physics, but from my knowledge and your explanation, it appeared to me that they might.

Hi Ian,

Again, my apologies.

I agree, the conclusions I have derived from other physics experiments is new and different.  I am tracking down a book written thirty years ago that may predate my results.

I urge you to read the book, if nothing else than as a good laugh.

Everybody wants fusion to work so bad that they keep repeating that phrase "Just a few more Billion dollars for a bigger device and we are sure we will reach breakeven!"  After nearly forty years and over a Trillion dollars, somebody should at least be suspicious.

Yes I have a full model described in the book about how stars form, how and why they fuse particles together and what the fusion does to the balance of Kinetic and Potential energy in the Universe.

We also include a couple of proofs to show that there are no physical reason why our view does not work as we claim.

Again, the Hall Effect is based upon a disruption of a magnetic field by the flow of charge.  At no point has it been shown that it detects the movement of full electrons.  My photon/ETON view gets the same result with less energy needed.  Everyone keeps forgetting just how many atoms are in stuff.  A given length of copper wire has billions of atoms.  The move photon/ETONs at the speed of light, so you can quickly move the equivalent amount of charge compared to an electron in very short order.

In my forty years, I have seen untold amounts of data destroyed by so called good scientist.

If you have not, then I commend the people you work with.

The number of false claims and manufactured data are note worthy, especially about global warning.  Those people are shameless.

I have also seen the cut throat competition for research grants where anything goes.  So I have many experiences in observing less then stellar scientific behavior.

I am serious, I would love to have you read the book so that we can discuss it.

If nothing else, it should at least convince you that the ideas are plausible.

All I ask is that you keep an open mind and think about what the "standard Physics" claim and ask yourself if there could be valid alternatives based upon the body of evidence world wide.

Peace,

DAB

Hi Ian,

Again, my apologies.

I agree, the conclusions I have derived from other physics experiments is new and different.  I am tracking down a book written thirty years ago that may predate my results.

I urge you to read the book, if nothing else than as a good laugh.

Everybody wants fusion to work so bad that they keep repeating that phrase "Just a few more Billion dollars for a bigger device and we are sure we will reach breakeven!"  After nearly forty years and over a Trillion dollars, somebody should at least be suspicious.

Yes I have a full model described in the book about how stars form, how and why they fuse particles together and what the fusion does to the balance of Kinetic and Potential energy in the Universe.

We also include a couple of proofs to show that there are no physical reason why our view does not work as we claim.

Again, the Hall Effect is based upon a disruption of a magnetic field by the flow of charge.  At no point has it been shown that it detects the movement of full electrons.  My photon/ETON view gets the same result with less energy needed.  Everyone keeps forgetting just how many atoms are in stuff.  A given length of copper wire has billions of atoms.  The move photon/ETONs at the speed of light, so you can quickly move the equivalent amount of charge compared to an electron in very short order.

In my forty years, I have seen untold amounts of data destroyed by so called good scientist.

If you have not, then I commend the people you work with.

The number of false claims and manufactured data are note worthy, especially about global warning.  Those people are shameless.

I have also seen the cut throat competition for research grants where anything goes.  So I have many experiences in observing less then stellar scientific behavior.

I am serious, I would love to have you read the book so that we can discuss it.

If nothing else, it should at least convince you that the ideas are plausible.

All I ask is that you keep an open mind and think about what the "standard Physics" claim and ask yourself if there could be valid alternatives based upon the body of evidence world wide.

Peace,

DAB

My apologies for the time it has taken to reply back to you - I have been crazily busy at work.

Whilst I agree with you to an extent that you have to be suspicious with regard to fusion experiments. I disagree that people are throwing money towards a fruitless endeavour because they want it to work. From my understanding, the experiments keep showing, at the very least, small gains. With the limitation, and the lack of progress, due to engineering difficulties and not a fundamental problem with the theory used. However, I feel the need to place a large asterisk here as I only follow the fusion experiments at the magazine/newspaper level.

I hope you don't mind, but I would like to concentrate on the Hall effect and your photon/ETON flow model.

The Hall effect is where a voltage is produced across the width of a conductor, with a current passing along its length and a magnetic field perpendicular to the current flow. For the voltage to be produced, it is required that there are charge carriers (e.g. electrons) moving along the length of the conductor. These charge carriers interact with the magnetic field and are laterally displaced. This changes the charge carrier density across the width of the conductor, and hence a voltage is produced.

From my understanding of your previous explanation of the photon/ETON model, the electrons remain bound to the atoms. With the current being due to photons/ETONs moving from atom to atom. For this to be true, photons (or equivalently ETONs) would have to have both mass and charge. Otherwise, there would be no interaction with the magnetic field and the Hall voltage would not be present.

Photons, from experimental data, have no mass and no charge, hence they cannot be the charge carriers in the above conductor. So I am very interested in how you can explain the Hall effect with your photon/ETON flow model.

Additionally, in your original description you state that the energy to move an electron is very large. Whilst this is true for bound electrons, the electrons carrying the charge in a conductor are not bound and so require only a very small amount of energy for movement to occur.

Hi Ian,

I would be happy to elaborate.

To begin, all photon/ETONs have mass.  In my book I show how the fusion process inside a star will entangle two similar sized mass objects into a gravitational and electrostatic spring.

The mass and charge determine the vibrational frequency of the resulting mass/energy object.

The issue of a photon not having mass has never been proven, while I can show that photons can be manipulated with both gravity and electrostatic charge.  Hence my definition that they have both mass and charge.

The Hall Effect is thus very tied to the photon/ETON movements between the atoms.

A moving charge produces the detected magnetic field.  This effect will occur even if no current is moving through the conductor.

Granted, the magnetic field produced by a conductor alone will be very small, but it occurs none the less.

In my atomic model, the electron does not exist as a single particle.  We have been told all of our lives that that is true, but no one has ever proven this as fact.

You can do all of the same energy/mass exchanges with the view that the electron is a collection of photon/ETONs instead of a single particle.

The benefits of my model quickly reveal themselves.  It is much simpler to form a bubble of photon/ETONs around an atomic nucleus than it is to get multiple electron particles to "orbit" the nucleus.

The geometry is simpler, the dynamics are simpler and the electron cloud approach readily accounts for the spectral absorption and emission issues with atoms.

I have postulated that you could have free stand alone electron clouds, but the geometry and dynamics make it unstable when influenced by gravity or charge.

To comply with your vision of free electrons moving down a conductor you first have to account for where they came from.  To move mega amps of power, you would need to magically create a huge number of free electrons.  Again, where do they come from?

With my model, it is very easy to move individual photon/ETONs from atom to atom and all you need is a small difference in mass/charge value between each atom.

In DC current, you have your battery doing molecular chemical reactions to free up the photon/ETONs from one terminal to move through your conductor/circuit to the other battery terminal.

You get a full closed cycle exchange of mass/charge flow with little effort.

In AC current, Tesla saw the bigger issue.  An alternating cycle does not need photon/ETONs to move far.  They only need to move half a cycle in one direction and half a cycle in the other.  Hence very little actual movement is needed to create the "perception" of current flow.  His answer was a brilliant realization of how simple this system could work.

Overall, my photon/ETON model fully complies with what everyone observes at the macro scale but accomplishes all of the electrical implementations with a cleaner atomic model that also explains how these effects could be done, where the classical approach does not.

Just ask yourself, how can you affect photons with gravity and charge if they do not have mass and charge?

DAB

Hi Don, I too have some observations regarding your TON idea. In the book and above you mention the TONs forming gravitational/electrical field vibrational pairs. This would seem very unlikely as the gravitational force is insignificant compared to the electrical force. I know that you have postulated a smaller minimal charge to balance this out but experiments have never shown any free fractional electric charge. All electrons and protons have identical electric charges as far as technology has currently been able to measure.

In your explanations your write:

"We have been told all of our lives that that is true, but no one has ever proven this as fact"

Science does not ever attempt to prove things true or fact. Science is about falsifying ideas if possible and using the ideas that have yet to be falsified to make predictions about the outcome of experiments. While I have read most of your book and I enjoy the challenge of new ideas you would have to propose an experiment that would falsify the current theory and not falsify your own in order to catch the attention of the physics community.

John

I disagree with you that photons have never been proven to be massless. Both special and general relativity require that photons have no mass, which is a consequence of light having the same velocity in all inertial frames.

By giving photons mass, they can no longer travel at the speed of light, according to special relativity. So, therefore, one of the repercussions of your photon/ETON flow model is that it states that the fundamental arguments of special and general relativity are wrong.

Unfortunately for you, both special and general relativity have been largely proven and are accepted theories. Whilst they could potential be disproved, it is unlikely that something so fundamental, as photons having mass, would have been missed.

However, I am not just going to state that special and general relativity are largely proven, I am going to give you some evidence that they are.

One of the tests for special relativity is muon decay in Earth's atmosphere. Muons are created in the upper atmosphere at very high velocities (approximately 0.98c) and have a very short half-life (around 1.5 us). Without special relativity, the number of muons that have not decayed at ground level, relative to the flux at around 10 km, is around 0.00003% (0.3 ppm). With special relativity, approximately 5% should not have decayed by the time they reach the ground. When measured, the flux at ground level is around 5% of that at 10 km.

One of the effects of general relativity is the drifting of accurate clocks in different environments (such as different gravitational environments). If high accuracy clocks are placed in different gravitational environments around a large mass (for example at different radii around a symmetrical mass), the times on the clocks will drift apart. This drifting apart has been measured and is in close agreement with the predictions of general relativity. In fact, this drifting is compensated for in the high accuracy atomic clocks aboard every GPS, GLONASS and every other GNSS satellite.

The second piece of evidence for general relativity I'm going to mention is one of the main reasons for its acceptance as a theory, and this is the bending of light by a large mass. Light from stars, during solar eclipses, is seen to be deflected / bent by the Sun's gravitational field. In classical Newtonian physics, this deflection is independent of the mass of a photon (in much the same way that a hammer and a feather fall at the same velocity in a vacuum) and is predicted to be half of the observed value. General relativity, which incidentally was devised before the first measurements of the deflection were taken, predicts that the deflection is twice that of Newtonian physics and is in close agreement with the observations.

"A moving charge produces the detected magnetic field.  This effect will occur even if no current is moving through the conductor."

This is not observed - a magnetic field is being applied to cause the Hall effect. The Hall effect is not producing a magnetic field.

"In my atomic model, the electron does not exist as a single particle.  We have been told all of our lives that that is true, but no one has ever proven this as fact."

The electron is believed to be a fundamental particle and not a composite because there has never been any reason to suspect that it consists of other particles. Prior to the 1960s, protons and neutrons were considered to be fundamental particles. It was only when the number of fundamental particles started to balloon that the idea of a quark was put forward, due to the symmetry between the newly found 'fundamental' particles (for more information google eightfold way). So the electron is considered to be a fundamental particle because there is no evidence to suggest that it is a composite particle.

"To comply with your vision of free electrons moving down a conductor you first have to account for where they came from.  To move mega amps of power, you would need to magically create a huge number of free electrons.  Again, where do they come from?"

A conductor is a material where the valence (outer most) electrons of the atoms that make up the crystal are no longer bound to the individual atoms. Instead they are a feature of the crystal and are referred to as being the conduction band of the material. The reason why the electrons are unbound is a little complicated to explain in a comment, but is due to the electrons obeying the Pauli exclusion principle - I can recommend a couple of good books that explain this fully if it interests you. But essentially, the electrons don't come from anywhere, the fact it is a conductor means the electrons are already available.