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

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.

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

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

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 Don,

As I mentioned I have downloaded your book and I am looking forward to reading it and possibly discussing some of your ideas. I know how hard it is to communicate with the status quo. I will keep an open mind and see where it leads.

Thanks John