My Initial Proposal to the Theory of Everything Chat Group

Some of you may be interested in taking a look at my new book, recently made available at  It is:



The Source of the Coulomb Force


The Building Blocks of Universes


Just go to, click “books” and search for “tronnies”.

J Ross

Following are my answers to a series of questions and criticisms from the members of the chat group.  The headings describe the subject of the questions and criticisms.


Take a peak.  

I believe I address every major issue in physics, from the internal structure of an electrons, photons, and protons to the Big Bang, inflation, gravity and anti-gravity, electricity, magnetism, what preceded the Big Bang, the recycling of universes, the Higgs boson (and the real particle that give mass to other particles), relativity, neutrinos and neutrino photons, etc.  Many of my explanations are inconsistent with the Standard Model and existing relativity theories.   

I also make 101 predictions based on my theory.  I am not sure they are all correct, but so far no one to my knowledge has proven any of them incorrect.

I have been working on this thing for 13 years.   

If you go to, click “books” and search for “tronnies”, then click “look inside” twice, you will see a table of contents.


What is your experimental evidence that the electron does not have an internal structure?  

Electrons have a size and a mass.  According to my model, an electron is comprised of three tronnies, two minus and one plus and a positron is comprised of two plus tronnies and one minus tronnie.  An entron is comprised of one plus tronnie and one minus  tronnie both traveling in a circle at a speed of π/2 times the  speed of light.  Repulsive and attractive forces between the two tronnies exactly cancel in the diametrical direction.  Every photon is comprised of one entron traveling in a circle at twice the speed of light and forward at the speed of light.  This path defines the photon’s wavelength and frequency.  Tronnies being mass-less point particles with a charge of e must always travel faster than the speed of light to stay ahead of their own Coulomb forces which are traveling at the speed of light. 

When electrons and positrons are destroyed at least two photons are produced (my model says there are three photons produced).  There are six tronnies in a positron and an electron and six tronnies in three photons.  Photons also have and internal structure according to my model as explained above.  And according to my model they  also have a mass and a size depending on their energy.  The third photon in electron-positron annihilations is a neutrino photon which is not detected.  Each neutrino photon is comprised of one  neutrino entron.  A proton is comprised of two positrons, one electron and one neutrino entron.  The neutrino entron gives the proton almost all of its mass.  Protons are destroyed in Black Holes releasing the neutrino entrons that exit the Black Holes to provide the gravity of galaxies.  Most neutrino photons pass through stars and planets applying a reverse Coulomb force directed back to the source of the neutrino photon.  Some are stopped temporally in the stars and planets then released randomly giving them their gravity.

John R


Yes, in that sense tronnies form protons, just as they form everything else in our Universe.  Protons need a lot of tronnies to do what they do.  Combinations of hydrogen (one proton) produce helium and the fusion energy of stars.  This energy is provided by the approximately 15 gamma ray entrons (30 tronnies) in each proton.  The neutrino entron (two tronnies) in the proton provides galactic gravity when it is released as a neutrino photon (aka graviton) with the destruction of protons in  Black Holes.  

As to your island issue, I think you may have a point if it were true that our Universe began with a singularity.  But that is not correct.  I explain the Big Bang and inflation in Chapter XXV, “Life and Death of Universes”.  Our Universe was preceded by our predecessor universe.  Universes are created in Big Bang explosions of Monster Black Holes which form near the center of each universe about half way through the life of the universe.  The Monster Black Holes grows by consuming galaxies until it has consumed a large majority of the universe.  Toward the end of the life of the universe the gravity of the Monster Black Hole extends to the edge of the universe.  When the Monster Black Hole explodes in its Big Bang, galaxies from the outer edge of the universe would have been accelerating toward the Monster Black Hole for many billions of years, picking up speed each second.  Some of these galaxies will be approaching the  site of the Monster Black Hole from all directions when it explodes.  They will be traveling at speeds of many thousand times the speed of light (such as 20,000 c) and may be located several light years from the Monster when it explodes.  These galaxies will pass through the site of the Big Bang explosion and will continue at about the same speed expanding in all directions to create the inflation period of the  new universe.

This has been going on for many universes.  (I take a guess that our Universe is about 47 in the series of universes.)  The new universe will be made of matter or anti-matter depending on the matter or anti-matter of the predecessor universes.  This is why we do not in our Universe see any anti-matter galaxies.


All 101 of my “predictions” are predictions.  I looked up “prediction”.  It means: “Something foretold or predicted”.  Many predictions turn out to be false. 

I think the issue is, “How many of my predictions will sooner or later be recognized by the scientific community as true and how many will be  recognized as false”.  For some of my predictions, we may never know for sure whether they are true or false.  I believe there is a significant probability that they are all correct.  If any of them are proven incorrect, I will eliminate the incorrect predictions or correct them.  So far no one has proven to me that any of my predictions are wrong.  For those “predictions” that cannot ever be proven right or wrong, the question would be whether my prediction is more likely to be correct than other explanations dealing with the same issue. 

I predict that tronnies are the source of the Coulomb force.  And that each tronnie has a charge of plus e or minus e.  And that the electron is comprised of two minus tronnies and one plus tronnie and that the positron is comprised of two plus tronnies and one minus tronniie.  I also say that entrons are comprised of one plus tronnie and one minus tronnie and that there is one entron in each photon.  These are all predictions that most knowable people would disagree with.

However we know that a 1.02 MeV gamma ray photon is required to produce an electron and a positron and that electron – positron annihilation processes creates two lower energy gamma ray photons.  This is pretty good evidence that electrons, positrons and photons are made from the same things.  Those things are tronnies.

I explain that there are two additional photons (that scientists are not aware of) involved in the pair production process and that one additional photon (also undetected) is involved in the annihilation process. 

The question is: “Am I right?”


According to my theory:

Pair production is the combination of the three entrons of three photons:

  1. A 1.02 MeV gamma ray photon
  2. A 928 MeV neutrino photon
  3. A 1.12 KeV photon

These photons are resonant with each other.  In thepair production process the all of the entrons/photons disappear.

When the positron combines with the electron in the annihilation event you get two 0.51 MeV entron/photons and a 928 MeV neutrino entron/photon which is not detected because it normally passes through planets without interacting with anything.

This same neutrino entron is more than 99 % of the mass of every proton.  Protons are destroyed in Black Holes where the neutrino entrons  are released as neutrino protons to provide the gravity of galaxy that surrounds the Black Hole.  I have assumed that the Black Hole in the center of the  Milky Way consumes on the average one earth size planet per day.  At that rate of consumption the neutrino photon flux at our Solar System would be about 68,000 photons/m2 –second.  This is my explanation of gravity.  It also means that there is always  on earth plenty of neutrino photons to participate in pair production.  It also means that we do not see them or detect them normally.  However, some may be detected in neutrino detectors. 

I believe my theory is a much simpler theory as compared to QM and relativity.  My theory is extremely symmetrical.

John R 


My theory does not include the neutrino.  It does include neutrino photons which have the same structure as all photons.  But it has an energy of 928 MeV and a corresponding mass almost equal to the mass of the  proton.  Its entron (one plus tronnie and one minus tronnie) is one half the size of an electron at about 1 X 10-18 m.  Protons are destroyed in Black Holes with the release of their neutrino entrons which escape the Black Hole to provide the gravity of the galaxy surrounding the Black Hole.  Most neutrino photons, like the theoretical neutrino, pass through stars and  planets.  The charges in the  stars and  planets do not feel the Coulomb forces of the neutrino photon until after the neutrino photon has passed the charges so the stars and  planets are accelerated in the direction of the source of the neutrino photons (i.e. the Black hole).  This is gravity.

My theory does not, at least yet, deal with lepton numbers.



A small percentage of neutrino photons from our Black Hole are temporarily stopped by interaction with electrons in stars, planets and moons and later released in random directions.  That provides the gravity of stars, planets and moons.

We are told that a small percentage of “neutrinos” are detected in underground neutrino detectors.  I suspect that these are neutrino photons.  (I have no proof that detected “neutrino” are neutrino photons, just a suspicion.)  

John R 


Each proton includes one neutrino entron.  The neutrino entron has a diameter of 0.9339 X 10-18 m.  The diameter of a neutrino photon is 911 times larger at 0.851 X 10-15.  An entron is two tronnies traveling in a circle at 1.57 times the speed of light (pi/2)(c).  A photon is an entron traveling in a circle at twice the speed of light and forward at the speed of light.  The diameter of the photon circle is 911 times the entron circle for all photons.)  It would help if some of you would get a copy of my book. 

In the entron the tronnie, traveling at (pi/2)(c), arrives at the opposite side of the circle at the same time its Coulomb force, traveling at c, arrives there.  In the photon the entron with its two circling tronnies must travel at 2c in order for both tronnies to stay ahead of their own Coulomb force. But the entron travels forward at only c so as to not outrun its Coulomb forces.  



My theory does not include the old fashion neutrinos.  I don’t believe they exist.  My neutrino photon is a very high energy photon (928 million eV).  Its entron has a mass of 1.65 X 10-27 kg.  They are produced in Black Holes with the destruction of protons and most of them they pass through stars and planets producing a backward force directed toward the source of the neutrino photons.  Stars and planets capture some that are later released to give the stars and planets their gravity.  

My theory is completely consistent with conservation of energy.  But with at least one exception.  I believe Big Bang explosions increase the mass-energy of universes.  My guess is that Big Bangs approximately double the mass-energy from one universe to the next universe.  I admit this is speculation, but it is logical speculation.  It is a possible explanation for how our Universe could have gotten so large as it is.

John R




My neutrino photon is a photon like all other photons.  It is an entron traveling in a circle (with a diameter of about 1 X 10-18 m) at a speed of 2c and forward at a speed of c.  It has no net charge, but its entron is comprised to two tronnies with charges of e and -e, so it carries the Coulomb force.  And it has a large mass.  Each proton is comprised of one neutrino entron along with two positrons and one electron.  The neutrino entron provides the proton with almost all of its mass.  The two positrons and the electron provides the proton's charge of +e.  According to my model the neutrino photons are released from Black Holes with the destruction of protons to supply the gravity of each galaxy.  

I have been working on my theory for 13 years and have explained it to many very smart scientists.  All are extremely skeptical like you are but not one has provided any evidence (other than other existing theories) that my model is incorrect.  Most, even my many of my good friends have not been willing to examine my theory in great detail.  I think this is because for my theory to be correct, much of the standard and relativity theories have to be incorrect.  Most are not willing to consider the possibility that there are basic flaws in these existing theories, since these existing theories have been so successful in explaining how our Universe works.  This is why I wrote my book.  A good summary of my book is available at  Just search for "tronnies".  I would be happy to send you a free copy if you would promise to read it and look for mistakes based on fact, not theory.

I have tough skin and I promise I will not be upset if you don't accept my offer.

For most of the last 13 years, I have told my friends that I would like for them to point out a basic flaw in my theory so I could forget about it and try to get my handicap down to a reasonable level.  Maybe you could help me out.  

John R.  

Thanks for the comment.  I make the same offer to you that I just made to Russsel.  

I must say however that I am not aware of any portion of my theory that is at odds with observation.  I know that it is greatly at odds with existing theories.

John r


I have math to prove that the integrated Coulomb forces between the two tronnies in an entron, one +e and one –e, traveling in a circle at (pi/2)c exactly cancel in the diametrical direction.  The entron can have any size from 0.9339 X 10-18 m to a few centimeters.  My entrons  are the basic mass quantum in our Universe.  They provide all of the mass of our Universe except for the mass of  electrons and positrons (electrons and positrons are each comprised of three tronnies also traveling in circles at (pi/2)c.  There is one entron in each photon.  The entron does what I understand the  Higgs boson is suppose to do.  There is no such thing as the Higgs boson (at least according to my theory).  We don’t need it if we have my simple entrons.  This is all explained very well in my book.  Go to and search for “tronnies” for a nice summary.  

I will also send you a copy if you will promise to read it with an open mind.

John R.  


To answer your question: A neutrino photon is a neutrino entron traveling in a circle at a speed of 2c and forward at a speed of c; just like every other photon is an entron traveling in a circle at a speed of 2c and forward at a speed of c.

The electrons, positrons, protons alpha particles are just as stable in my model as in yours.  The difference is I have a simple explanation of their internal structures using only one particle and its anti-particle (the plus e and minus e tronnies). 



The neutrino entron disappears in pair production, but it reappears in annihilation.  There is no violation of conservation of energy!  Three entrons are comprised of a total of six tronnies.  An electron and a positron together comprise six tronnnies.  The electron and the positron are each comprised of three tronnies.  I could have been more precise.


John R




My theory does not violate conservation of mass-energy.  It does not deal with Lepton number.  How do you know neutrinos have a Lepton number of 1?  How do you know neutrinos exists?  Have you ever seen one?  I don’t believe neutrinos exist.  I have never seen proof that they exist.  Do you have real proof that they exist?

A photon travels at the speed of light.  It also has a frequency so something must be oscillating within the photon.  Whatever that something is must during part of each cycle be traveling faster than c.  My understanding is that current scientific thinking has our Universe expanding to 40 % of its current size in a very short time period.  This sounds like something was traveling faster than the speed of light.  My book contains a good explanation for the inflation period.  How do you explain it?

John R     


A 928 MeV photon is a very high energy photon.  It is off the scale of every chart I have ever seen of the electric magnetic spectrum.  Why don’t you send me your chart showing your 500 GeV photon.

John R. 



Thanks for your thoughts.

A tronnie is a point particle with a charge of plus e or minus e.  This means that each tronnie is a source of the Coulomb force.  The Coulomb force travels at the speed of light.  Tronnies attract unlike tronnies and repel like tronnies because of their charge of e.  Every tronnie exists in combinations of twosomes (which is an entron) or threesomes (which is an electron or a positron).  Tronnies always travel in circles at pi/2 times the speed of light.  As a result each tronnies is always  at the focus of a ring of charge produced by its own circular path.  This is because the tronnie arrives at the opposite side of its circle at the same time its Coulomb force arrives there.  After passing through the focus points which is the tronnie, the Coulomb force waves are continually exiting each tronnie in all directions. If you look up the definition of charge it will be something like a “property of something that allows it to produce the Coulomb force”.

I am not sure whether the tronnie gets all of its Coulomb force from itself or just part of it.  My theory includes a great variety of Coulomb grids which are grids made up of speed of light Coulomb force waves all traveling at the speed of light in pretty much random directions.  The earth has a Coulomb grid that is carried along with the earth as it flies through the solar system Coulomb grid, and the solar system carries along its Coulomb grid with it as it flies through the milky way Coulomb grid, etc.  Tronnies may get some of its charge from the Coulomb grid in which it happens to be locate.  

In its twosomes and threesomes diametrical forces exactly cancel so the entrons and the electrons and positrons are completely stable and can exist for billions of years.  Of course electrons, positions and entrons can combine with each other or  larger particles to make a great variety of things, including you and me.

Everything in our Universe is made from tronnies or  things made from tronnies.



Of course there is gravity.  Gravity is produce in Black Holes which consume a portion of its galaxy to produce proton-antiproton annihilations which releases the neutrino entrons in both particles.  These neutrino entrons ultimately exit the Black Holes to provide the gravity holding the galaxy together.

I have assumed that our Black Hole consumes our Galaxy at the rate of one earth-size planet  per day.  This would provide a neutrino photon flux at earth of 68,000 neutrino photons per square meter per second.  Most  neutrino photons illuminating the earth past through the earth producing a backward force in the process.  Some are temporally stopped and later released giving our earth its gravity. 

John R



Good questions.

The Black Hole’s gravity is very constant because the destruction of each proton first requires the creation of an anti-proton.  Anti-proton are created by  the combination of a neutrino entron and a positron to produce a very massive positron (having an energy-mass almost equal the mass of an anti-proton) then the massive positron captures two electrons to produce the anti-proton. Then the anti-proton must combine with a proton which combination results in the release of a the two neutrino entrons some of which make their way to the surface of the Black Hole and escape as a neutrino photon to provide the gravity of the galaxy.  The Black Hole is so huge (maybe a quarter or half as massive as the rest of the galaxy) that the month-to-month consumption of moons , planets and  stars don’t change the rate of production of neutrino photons too much over periods of millions of years

But this process can continue for billions of years and Black Holes can get bigger and bigger with more and more gravity.  Ultimately, after about 50 billion years one Monster Black Hole will have developed near the center of our Universe and its gravity will become so great as to begin attracting galaxies from the outer regions of our Universe.  By these far out galaxies reach the  region of the  Monster Black Hole, they will be traveling at speeds of many thousand times the speed of light (having been accelerating faster and faster for 50 billion years).  The Big Bang explosion of the Monster Black Hole will occur before all of the far out galaxies have arrived.  Some parts, maybe all, of these galaxies will then pass right through the region of the Big Bang and expand out in all directions at speeds many thousand times the speed of light to provide the inflation period of our successor Universe. 

John R.      



I am a patent attorney.  During the past 13 years I have documented my theory at eight times in its development by filing patent applications attempting to patent process for modeling things like electrons.  My applications have been repeatedly rejected by the USPTO.  However, they have in the process been published worldwide.  I case my theory turns out to be correct, I want this record to show that I am the author of my tronnie theory.  Anyhow if you want to see the evolution of my theory, go and search for tronnies. You might also search for “trons”. That was my first name for tronnies, but that name had been taken so I switched to tronnies about 10 years ago.

I still have an active application and I still think I am entitled to a patent.  But I don’t have it yet.




Another excellent question!

Coulomb’s Law requires that the basic particle with single charge must be a point particle.  If it had any size at all, parts of the particle would repel the other parts and it would blow itself apart at the speed of the Coulomb which is the speed of light.  Like particles repel other like particles at the speed of light.  A point particle has no mass since it is a point.  A point  particle with a charge will repel itself at speeds never less than the speed of its  Coulomb force  which is the speed of  light.  If the pjooint particle with a single charge were traveling in a straight line it would repel itself at the speed of light.

However, I have concluded (I could be wrong) that tronnies must always (or almost always) travel in perfect circles (at pi/2 times c) associated with either one other or two other tronnies, in the form of an entron or  an electron or a positron.  If it does each tronnie is always at the focus of a ring of charge created by its own Coulomb force.  That focus of Coulomb force waves is the charge that is the tronnie.  I am not exactly sure why that charge is exactly e, but it must be if three of these charges is going to make an electron.  Tronnies are nothing but a charge of e. 

John R



Yes, each entron is comprised to two tronnies.  Three entrons combine to create and electron and a positron.  Before and after you have six tronnies.



Sorry, you are probably correct.  Anyhow I don’t believe in singularities.   

John R.


The missing particles are entrons.  In my model both the proton and the neutron are comprised of gamma ray entrons.  The neutron also includes an electron.  I have not tried to explain conservation of energy and momentum in the course neutron decay.  However, I believe my model will provide a simple explanation of these issues.  I suggest you get a copy of my book and see if you can answer these question without having to rely on neutrinos. My offer to send you a copy still stands.   

Gamma rays are released in the course of fusion process in which four hydrogen atoms are converted to helium



928 + 1.0214 + .00112 = 0.51 + 0.51 + 928.  You can check out my math and logic at pages 48 and 49.  

Does your neutrino have a mass?  Can you prove that the evidence of your neutrino is not evidence of my neutrino entron?



That is a good question whether we are trying to answer it based on my theory or anybody else’s theory.  Under my theory the gravity of the Black Hole would be proportional to the rate of release of neutrino photons from the surface. 

John R



Then I made a model of an electron with three tronnies.  Then by giving my entrons diameters ranging over 18 orders of magnitude I could reproduce the entire electromagnetic spectrum and I extended the spectrum beyond gamma rays to include a photon with a mass-energy equal to a proton.  It turned out that the photon included an entron with a diameter equal to about 1 X 10-18 m.  I combined that entron with an electron and I got an electron with a mass almost equal to the mass of a proton.  The entron gave the electron a velocity greater than the speed of light.  The electron combines with two positron to produce a proton.  Internal forces in the proton give the proton a natural speed of 13 % of the speed of light.  The proton captures gamma ray entrons to slow down sufficiently to capture an electron the produce a hydrogen atom.  When the hydrogen atom is fused with three other hydrogen atoms  in stars, the captured gamma ray entrons are released a fusion energy  as gamma ray photons.  Anti-protons are produced in Black Holes which combine with protons and both are destroyed releasing the neutrino entrons as neutrino photons to produce galactic gravity.    

I hope this helps.


To the best of my knowledge there is no person that has read my book that has found any error in it (other than typos and the like).  I have given away about 60 copies of my book, mostly to my friends which include several scientist.  Although, I know most of these people have not studied the book in great detail and to the best of my knowledge no one (except me as carefully checked all of my math.  I was hoping some of you folks would do that. 

John R   


The alpha particle is comprised of four protons repelling each other while circling in a tight circle and two electrons looping through the circular path of the protons.  The four protons are attracted to the two electrons.  The Coulomb forces from the two electrons are effective in keeping the protons circling.

In Chapter XIII I show that alpha particles can be combined to make carbon 12, Oxygen 16, neon 20 magnesium 124 silicon 28, sulfur 32 and calcium 40.  Their spins, like the alpha particle are all zero.  These stable combinations are possible because the charge distribution in alpha particle is negative on its outside and more positive on the inside.  However, the combination of two alpha particles beryllium 8 is extremely unstable (half-life of 7 X 10-17 second).  Beyond Calcium 40 extra electrons are needed in the nuclei to keep them stable.

John R.      




I just answered a similar question.  Here what I said: 

To answer your question:

My initial task that I assigned to myself about 13 years ago was to explain how an electron and two positrons could be combined to make a proton.

My first attempt was to show that if the three particles could be arranged so they attracted each other  with the proper Coulomb forces they might be able to reach speeds close to the speed of light which could cause their mass to increase enough so that the mass of the  combination equaled the mass of a proton.

After much effort I concluded that this was a foolish idea.  

Much later I concluded that the basic charged particle had to be a point particle, otherwise according to Coulomb’s Law it would blow itself apart.  I also concluded  that a point particle with a single charge would repel itself at speeds no less than the speed of light.  I assumed that if there were point particles with a charge, the charge would probably be e.  

My big breakthrough, about three years later, was when I discovered that two point particles with opposite charges traveling in a perfect circle at pi/2 times the speed of light  created a configuration in which the attractive and repulsive forces integrated around the circle were equal in the diametrical direction.  If the two charges are plus and minus e, this is my entron, and the two point charges are my tronnies.   

When you integrate Coulomb’s force around a circle, the r-squared in his equation reduces to r.

John R. 



This would be a lot simpler if you would let me send you a copy of my book (free of course and autographed).  Just let me know your mailing address.  You can call and leave it in a message (858-646-5488).

According to my model the proton is self-propelled by internal Coulomb forces to about 13% of the speed of light.  In the early days of our Universe it slowed down to close to zero speed by capturing gamma ray entrons.  Also helped cool off our Universe.  Some of these gamma ray entrons are released when the four protons combine to make helium.  This is fusion energy.  These gamma ray entrons add to the mass of hydrogen atoms and all other atoms up through iron-56.  (I have assumed that iron-56 has no gamma ray entrons in its nucleus.)  As each of these atoms are created in stars, some of those gamma ray entrons are released as gamma ray photons.  This is the way stars create energy in my model.

Alpha particles are also self-propelled by internal coulomb forces and they slow down by capturing gamma ray entrons.  Some of these are released when the alpha particles are combined to make carbon-12 and oxygen-16 and heavier nuclei.

The deuterium nucleus is two circling protons with one electron looping through the circle.  It has an orbiting electron just like normal hydrogen.  Heavy hydrogen molecule is nothing like helium.

Alpha particles and deuterons are three dimensional.  The protons circle in a plane but the electron(s) loop through the center of the circles.

I don't believe in gluons.  I also believe neutrons have an average life of about 15 minutes whether they are inside or outside atomic nuclei.  This allows the electron in specific configurations to exactly balance the Coulomb attractive and repulsive forces in nuclei.

John R   



My theory complies with your four standards.

I need your mailing address.  You may prefer to call me and tell me what it is.  My number during the day is 858-646-5488.

John R



I think your graph is very good.  You are right about the inverse square law.  I am not sure about the screening idea.

I have not attempted to do a detailed math analysis of all or the forces acting in any of these particles other than the entron.  I have shown the math to prove for the entron that two tronnies traveling on opposite sides of a circle at pi/2 times the speed of light is stable because the attractive and repulsive integrated forces in the diametrical direction exactly cancel.  I have also constructed physical models of the electron, the positron and the proton (the same model can be used for all of them, (I used Tinker Toys).  I have measured the distances between the charged particles and as far as I can tell the Coulomb forces, that I calculate using charges of e and the measured distances, all seem to cancel.  What I need is someone who can do a precise computer analysis of all of these forces, distances and speeds to confirm that my models are stable.  I have friends who could prepare these models, but I have not yet been able to convince any of them to do it.  No one has proven that my models are not stable.

So I know the entron is stable.  I know there is an entron in every photon.  I know that electrons and positrons are made from the same things that photons are made from.  (Photons combine to make electrons and positrons.  Electrons and positrons combine to make photons; therefore, I conclude that electrons positrons and photons must be made from the same things.)  I admit that proof that the entron is stable does not automatically mean the electron is stable.  However, we know that the electron is stable.  In addition in my models of the electron the tronnies are traveling in a circle at pi/2 times the speed of light just like in the entron.

I believe the strong force that holds nuclei together is the Coulomb force.  I studied nuclear engineering before they taught quarks and gluons.  I don't think they exist.

If you have three positively particles, each having a large positive charge located at its center and a smaller negative charge surrounding the positive charge.  I am pretty certain that you could assemble the three positively charged particles so that the forces are in equilibrium. (That is why I like your graph.)  This is the nucleus of carbon-12.  Two together is unstable.  This is beryllium-8 with a half-life of 7 X 10-17 seconds!   

John R.  



I assume you would agree that a photon is self-propelled.  Protons and alpha particles are also self-propelled.  They are sel-propelled by their own internal coulomb forces.  Electrons, protons, atomic nuclei and atoms are all perpetual motion machines.

John R.


Attached is the section of my book that describes the structure of the alpha particle.

John R. 



See my  reply to Russell.

I know this is going to upset you but in my model every single photon in our Universe has a mass and that mass is determined by E = mc squared.  Specifically the 1.02 MeV gamma ray photon has the same mass as the combined mass of the electron and a positron.  Visible light photons have a very small mass.  The green light photon has a much smaller mass of 4.08 X 10-36 kg.  You can calculate it yourself using Albert’s formula.  My neutrino photon has a mass almost equal to the mass of a proton!

We know  a photon has momentum which should indicate that it also has mass.  I think the problem is that no one wants to admit that a photon has a mass because it is travelling at the speed of light which should make that mass go to infinity.  I don’t have that problem with my model.

All of this is explained very well in my book which should be arriving in about one week.

John R.  


If a photon is not self-propelled, what propels it?  

I say the photon is self-propelled because each of the two tronnies are repelling themselves at the speed of light so they leapfrog each other at twice the speed of light in a circle and forward at the speed of light in order to always stay ahead of their own Coulomb forces.  The path looks a little like a small light attached to the rim of a wagon wheel.  In the perfect model the light on the rim would be moving twice the speed of the wagon.  The distance the wagon travels as the light makes a full circle is the wavelength of the light.  The photon circle is 911 times the entron circle. 



All of the charges in all atomic nuclei are point particles (tronnies).  The net charges in all atomic nuclei are all positive (I am not including anti-particles, where the net charges are negative).  Inside the nuclei the point particles are arranged  so that stable nuclei are stable.  

In the simple proton there are 11 point charges: a high-energy electron which is an electron combined with a high energy entron and two positrons.  The electron is comprised of two minus charges and one plus charge. The entron is  comprised of one plus  charge and one minus charge and each of the two positrons is comprised of one minus charge and two plus charges.  Thus, there are in the simple proton eleven charges, six plus and five minus charges.  

The proton is held together because the Coulomb forces within the proton are in equilibrium. 

Typical protons also are comprised of additional entrons, each of which has one plus charge and one minus charge which does not change the net charge of the proton.

John R 


A radioactive atom that decays with a gamma ray photon has within itself before it decays something that will be released as a gamma ray photon when it decays.  That something (I say that something is an entron) has a mass equivalent to the energy of the gamma ray photon.  When the decay occurs the mass of the atom decreases by an amount equal to the mass of the gamma ray photon and  the gamma ray photon leaves with a mass equivalent to the energy of the gamma ray photon.

How can you disagree with this simple logic?  In your analysis is that something “rest mass” and if it is not what is it?



Photons and electrons have internal structures both photons and electrons are made from the same things, tonnies.  You will see the structures when my book arrives.

You should not have any problem with the first few pages.  The first chapter is a summary of existing theories.  The second chapter describes tronnies.

John R.



John Clark,


I assure you I am not a crackpot.  I am a graduate Nuclear Engineer, a Patent Attorney and Vice President Intellectual Property of a respected corporation engaged in important scientific research and development.  I am a good friend of many brilliant scientist.  Most of them are also skeptical of my theory, but none of them has convinced me of any basic errors in my theory, other than it is inconsistent with existing accepted theories.

I have developed my “Theory of Everything” through 13 years of hard work.  Like all theories (like the relativity theories and the standard model) my theory may or may not be correct.  It is certainly not generally accepted by the scientific community like relativity and the standard model are.  The scientific  community is not yet even aware of my theory.  Other than my own friends and family, this chat group is the first people to be aware of it.  This group has  asked a lot of good questions all of which I have tried to answer quickly; however, to my knowledge no one in  this group has read my book.  It is available at  And I have offered to send copies to several of this group who have appeared to be seriously interested in my theory.  I honestly believe my theory is a great improvement over the standard model and relativity theories.  But I am not absolutely certain of that.  Time will tell.

In the meantime, Richard Feynman’s father was on the right track and Richard Feynman’s answer was not a good one.  Richard was correct that the photon was not  in the atom.  The photons that his father was talking about are much too large to fit in an atom.  However, as I have explained several times to this group the energy part of the photon is an entron.  The entron is two tronnies traveling in a circle at pi/2 times the speed of light.  The diameter d’ of the entron circle is: d’ = λ/1431 so  most entrons can easily fit inside and atom and there are many entrons inside of atoms.  There are even entrons inside of the nuclei of atoms.  When entrons escape from atoms or their nuclei they do so as photons.  A photon is an entron traveling in a circle at twice the speed of light and forward at the speed of light as I have explained before. 

Gamma ray photons are entrons released from the nuclei of atoms and visible light photons are mostly entrons released from the electrons orbiting the nucleus  of atoms.  

I should not do this since your comments have been so nasty; however, believe it or not I appreciate them, since it gives me a chance explain details of my  theory publically to a  serious skeptic.  So I make the same offer to you that I have made to others.  I will mail you a copy of my book free of charge if you will let me have your address.  If you don’t want to publish your address, you can call me at 858-646-5488 and leave your address on my voice recorder.   I won’t  even ask you to agree to read it although I would hope you would.

John Ross



My theory describes the internal structure of electrons, photons, protons, atomic nuclei, magnetism, gravity, what preceded the Big Bang, universe contraction, inflation and  anti-gravity.  In the (you would say very unlikely) event that it turns out that I am correct and existing theories are wrong, I don’t think I will be denied the Nobel prize because I haven’t explained Mercury’s precession.

I believe Albert Einstein misinterpreted the Michelson-Morley experiment.  That experiment proved that the measured speed of light was always constant.  It did not prove that the actual speed of light is always constant.  I believe light travels in Coulomb grids  and our earth has a Coulomb grid that it carries with it as it moves through the Coulomb grid of the solar system and the solar system has a Coulomb grid that moves with it as it  moves our galaxy, etc.  See my discussion at page 45.

Do you understand how Albert Einstein explained the advance of Mercury’s perihelion?  I certainly don’t.  Although I have no reason to believe that My theory would not also explain the advance.  I believe my theory explains gravity much better than Albert Einstein did.  You are right that I have more to work with than Einstein.  About 100 years of science.

John R


John Clark

I plan to save your e-mails and maybe I will read some of them to the audience if and when it turns out that I am correct and am awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics.  

By the way, none of the brilliant scientists have tried to convince me that I am wrong.  They're all skeptical but the have all encouraged me to make predictions that can be tested.  In my book I make 101 predictions.  A large number of them can be tested.  

My offer to send you a free copy of my book still stands.  Maybe you can prove that some of my predictions are incorrect - based on observations, not existing theories. 

John Ross 


My understanding is that positronium is an electron and a positron orbiting together.  Both of these particles are self-propelled so as long as they have enough speed they can orbit.  If they somehow lose their speeds or otherwise get very close together they will annihilate each other and gamma rays will be released.  (A neutrino photon will also be released according to my theory.)  Entrons on the other hand are extremely stable.  Each one is one plus tronnie and one minus tronnie, each self propelled in the same circle at pi/2 times the speed of light by their combined attractive and repulsive Coulomb forces.  They don’t radiate energy because they have no energy to radiate.  There is one entron in each photon.  Photons from faraway galaxies travel billions of years to earth.  Some are absorbed in astronomer’s eyes, as they gaze at the galaxy, as visible light entrons to provide a small amount of energy to an electron or maybe a proton in the astronomer’s retina.



The Coulomb force between the two tronnies in the entron, if they were stationary would be F = k QQ/r squared.  But when we integrate the force around the circle the integrated force becomes F(I) = k QQ/r.  The attractive and repulsive integrated forces in the diametrical are exactly equal.  I do the math to prove this in Chapter VI (page 50).  This is the most important feature of my model of our Universe.  It almost seems unreal to me sometimes that these two charges of plus e and minus e can be as close as 0.9339 X 10-18 m to each other for billions of years and remain stable.  If the tronnies were stationary and that close the force between them would be 256 million newtons (about 29 thousand tons)!  But they are not stationary, they are traveling faster than the speed of light in this tiny circle.  This also sounds unbelievable.  This is probably why no one has in the past proposed my solution.

But we know science presents some strange things.  I am working of a patent application right now dealing with frequency tripling where a 1064 nm photon is combined with a 532 nm photon to produce a 355 nm photon laser beam.  I think this is equally amazing, but these lasers have been of the market for quite a few years.

John R   


I don’t smoke, but I did not expect a cigar anyway.

I believe Chapter I is a fair assessment of current scientific thinking.  (If I honestly believe something but am not certain of, I believe use of the phrase “I believe“ is appropriate.) Many scientists are skeptical of many features of the standard model and relativity, including one of your heroes, Richard Feynman. Chapter II is just a summary of my thinking.  Details will come.

Thanks for giving it your attention.  I really appreciate it.

John R


No I haven’t done any math regarding perturbations.  I believe tronnies in general (maybe always) travel in perfect circles so there are no perturbations.  This probably also applies to electrons and positrons.  There are perturbations in atoms and perturbations in atomic nuclei and radiation is released in the form of photons each of which consists of one entron. 

You were getting hot on your idea regarding binding energy and mass.  If you look at Table XII in Chapter XIII you will see that a significant portion of all atoms except iron-56 is captured gamma ray entrons.  In the pass this portion has been thought of a binding energy.  This entron mass in the difference between the total mass of naked protons and naked electrons in the atom and the actual measured mass of the atom.  These entrons, one plus tronnie and one minus tronnie, reduce the speed on light particles such as naked protons and naked alpha particles so these particles can more easily stick together.  In the big atoms and maybe some of the smaller atoms the entron probably help bind the atoms together.  Notice In Table V in Chapter V that gamma ray entrons are a little smaller than atomic nuclei.  When these gamma ray entrons  are released from the nuclei as gamma ray photons, the mass of the nuclei decreases by an amount equal to the gamma ray mass-energy. 

John R


Interesting question!

Each of the two tronnies are always in their ground state.  They each are a point of charge.  That is all they ever are.  They have no energy no mass.  

However when two of them combine in an entron, then they together are a quantum of energy-mass (with no net charge).  Tne entron’s diameter uniquely determines its mass-energy.  It is a quantity of energy-mass.  It is a quantum.  Its mass-energy can be anything between 9.28  X 108 eV (1.65 X10-27 kg) to about 1 X 10-8 eV (1.78 X 10-42 kg).  (There may be a gap between the highest energy gamma ray entron about 10 X 106 eV and the neutrino entron, 9.28  X 108 eV.)

The entron is a quantum of energy, so in a sense it doesn’t have a ground state.  The entron is what takes an electron from its ground state to an excited state.  For example, when an electron is in its ground state, it is self-propelled at a speed of 2.19 X 106 meters per second and is usually orbiting a nucleus (schronized with other electrons at the same speed) as a part of an atom.  If a ground state electron captures a green light entron with an energy of 2.29 eV the ground state electron becomes an excited electron.  It is slowed down to a little less than 2.19 X 106 m/s and therefore moves to a higher orbit in the atom.  The atom then is not stable and the excited electron will eventually dump its 2.29 eV entron which flies off (radiates) at the speed of light as a 2.29 eV green light photon.  And the electron returns to its ground state.  It is then a tiny bit lighter (4.08 X 10-36 kg lighter).

A 13.6 eV entron captured by a ground state electron will slow the electron down to about zero speed and the electron will be extremely unstable and will leave its atom.  Entrons with energies greater than 13.6 eV will drive electrons in directions opposite their natural direction.  The higher the energy of the entron the faster the electon will be driven.  But the entron adds mass to the electron so there is a speed limit on electrons driven by entrons and extremely high-energy entrons drive electrons in circles. 



You are right in that in one circle there are an infinite number of repulsive forces on each tronnie from itself.  If you integrate those forces around the circle, the integrated force is F(I) = kQQ/r rather than F = kQQ/r squared.  The integrated force comes out in units of joules instead of newtons.  Check my math on page 50 (see the attached).

John R



The tronnie is a point focus of Coulomb force waves.  The waves come from all directions at the speed of light to a focus at the point that is the  tronnie.  Then the Coulomb waves expand out from the tronnie in all directions at the speed of light repelling itself and other like tronnies.  The tronnnie caries the Coulomb force with it as it travels in a circle at its speed of about 1.5708 c.  This may sound a bit strange, but it is no stranger than an electron which carries the Coulomb force and travels at a very high speed, usually in a circle.  In my model the electron is three circling tronnies two minus and one plus.  In the old physics the electron is a single charge of minus e, which would mean that it carries the Coulomb force and that the Coulomb force waves expand out in all directions at the speed of light.  I don’t see much difference.

I believe the particles are driven by high voltage which means that the particles are driven by entrons.  High energy entrons will increase the mass of the particles.  I am not sure what is meant by time dilation.  I don’t think the particles carry wrist watches with them.


There was not a single thought experiment that led to my theory.  The development of my theory was in general a lot of individual ideas most of which led to dead ends.  Remember what we have now is Version 8, and I have been working on this thing for more than 13 years.  There are a huge number of errors inversions 1 through 7.  As far as I know there are no errors in Version 8 (except for a few typos and grammar issues), but I expect there may be a few significant ones that I don’t know of.  If and when I am aware of an error I will do my best to correct it.  In several places I have guessed at the truth, but in those cases I have tried to make clear that it was a guess.  For example, in Chapter XXV, Life and Death of Universes, I have guessed that our Universe is the 47th universe.  I did this by assuming that the first universe was about the size of a single galaxy and that the sizes of universes double with each cycle.


The electron is not a point particle.

The tronnie is a point particle.  Three tronnies make an electron.

When two tronnies combine to make an entron, each tronnie is repelling itself and attracting each other with Couomb forces that depend on the diameter of their circle which is stable.  If we integrate the Coluomb forces around the circumference of the circle the integrated force (newtons) becomes joules which is equivalent to mass.

My guess is that when I do calculate Mercury’s precession with my theory, I will get an answer similar to Albert’s.  His theory was that large masses curve space.  I say space is nothing – it can’t be curved.  Gravity is produced by high fluxes of neutrino photons which help create and travel in Coulomb grids which are definitely curved by large masses.    



No one knows anything about entrons except people that have read what I have written.  So you won’t see anything about them in the “popular” literature.  (Although earlier this week I sent a copy of my book to Scientific American.)  I am the person that first figured out that entrons exist.  Each entron is two tronnies attracting each other and repelling themselves in a tiny circle. An entron is the energy-mass component of every photon in our Universe.    

The reason why the proton is about 1836 times as massive as the electron is because the proton in its natural state is comprised of an electron (that has captured the neutrino entron portion of a neutrino  photon,which has a mass of 1.65 X 10-27 kg) plus two positrons.  The nucleus of hydrogen atoms is a little more massive because it has captured 8.37 MeV of gamma ray photons which are incorporated into the nucleus as neutrino entrons.  Some of these gamma ray entrons are released as gamma ray photons in fusion reactions.  The neutrino entron is released as a neutrino photon when protons are destroyed by combining with anti-protons in Black Holes to provide galactic gravity.  Neutrons are very unstable because they are a proton and an electron plus 9.1585 MeV of gamma ray entrons.  Some of these gamma ray entrons are releases as gamma ray photons when the neutron decays to an electron and a proton. 



Thanks Brent!!!

I was actually pretty good in high school algebra.  That was a long time ago. 

John R


I will spend some time this weekend on time dilation.  Yes, I have thought about the muon experiments.  I will have to work on this issue some more.  I just do not believe time passes more slowly when you go fast.  I think there must be another explanation of why so many muons make it to the earth surface. 

Coulomb’s Law applies to static charges.  In this case the charge is not stationary.  It is traveling in a circle at pi/2 times c.  The Coulomb force has to be integrated around the circle.  The integrated force ends up with energy/mass units.

John Ross


I tried and tried to make the entron work using F = kQQ/r2 but it just wouldn’t work.  I must have worked on it for several months. One day I tried F = kQQ/r and the forces balanced to a thousand decimal places.  I showed one of my genius friends and he said something like, ”That is just the Law of Sines”.  I have never been able to find the Law of Sines.  But I think what I stumbled on is just a fundamental property of a circle.  If a force is inversely proportional to the distance from a point on a circle to any other point on the circle then the component of the force in the diametrical is equal for all of the lines.

My question is: Is this known?  Is it the Law of Sines?

John R



Some of you seem to think the relativity theories and the Standard Model are fact.  Last time I looked they were still regarded as theories.  I know  there is lots of evidence that support these theories.  There is just as much (maybe more) evidence to support my theory.  A lot has been learned in the past 100 years that Albert Einstein was not aware of when he did his work.  So in that respect I have an advantage over him.

As a simple example Coulomb’s Law supports the most important feature of my theory.  Coulomb’s Law requires  that all charged particles must be point particles or made from point particles.  My theory explains that electrons and positrons are each comprised of three tronnies (two minus and one plus and two plus and one minus).  Tronnies have a charge of plus e or minus e.  Protons are comprised of eleven tronnies (six plus and five minus).   Photons are comprised of one entron which is comprised of two tronnies.  My theory provides a detailed description of pair production and electron-positron annihilation consistent with experimental evidence.

Your statement that my theory has been proven wrong several times is incorrect.  No portion of this version of my theory has ever been proven wrong.  If there were any portion of my theory that had been proven wrong, I assure you I would be making plans to fix it.  But I have seen no such proof.  This version is Version 8. There were lots of errors in versions 1-7 but they have all been corrected.  The basic feature that I started with is still correct, that is that protons comprised of electrons and positrons.  Do any of you believe that there are an equal number of electrons and positrons in our Universe?  Remember electrons and positrons are created in pairs and destroyed in pairs.  (Where are the missing positrons?)

I have also offered to send a free book to several of the people in this group, but only LizR has requested one.   



Thank you, whoever it was that wrote the long paragraph.  It reminds me of the only lawyer joke that I can remember.  “Why do they bury Lawyers 8 feet deep.”  “Because down deep they are not too bad.”

I did learn the Law of Sines and I re-learned it over the weekend.  My new knowledge has added support for my theory.  One of my genius friends is checking my math.  I will post the results when I get them.  

You are right.  I have been buggering along for 13 years and expect to continue doing so until I find something basically wrong with my theory that I can’t fix or until I receive the Nobel prize.



I don’t have a prediction of the half-life of a neutron in motion.  I do know that their half life is short and their speed is very fast when they are released in fission processes.  

Remember this crackpot spent his first five years after graduation working at the world’s first commercial nuclear power plant as a test engineer.  I was in charge of physics testing.  And I taught Nuclear Reactor Physics at a school run by Duquesne Light for reactor operators.

John R. 


What I believe is that time does not slow down when you go fast.

John Ross





There are an equal number of electrons and positrons in our Universe.  Each proton includes two positrons and only one electron.  So the number of electrons outside of protons is equal to the number of positrons outside of protons plus half of the number of positrons inside protons.  I think I did that right.  My point is that the missing positrons are the extra positrons in the protons.

You asked why aren’t there an equal number of positrons and anti-protons.   An anti-proton is comprised of two electrons plus a high energy positron that has captured a neutrino entron with a mass of 1.65 X 10-27 kg, exactly opposite the proton.  Therefore, each anti-proton created removes two electrons but only one positron from the population of electrons and positrons .  So there may be an equal number of positrons and anti-protons.  This is a very good question.  I’ll have to think about it some more. 

What I am fairly certain of (I would normally say “believe”) is that the number of electrons and positrons in our Universe is equal, but some of each are contained in protons and anti-protons.  The number of plus and minus tronnies in our Universe is also equal.  The number of protons and anti-protons are not equal.  

In Black Holes there is a relatively large number of free positrons and a large number of neutrino entrons due to the destruction of protons in the Black Holes.  There is also a large number of free electrons.  Therefore in Black Holes you have all you need to make anti-protons,  So large numbers of anti-protons are made in Black Holes.  So after they are made, they combine with a proton and both the proton and the anti-proton are destroyed releasing all of the electrons and positrons in both particles.  Two neutrino entrons are also released.  Most of these neutrino entrons are released from the Black Hole to produce the gravity of its galaxy.  Some combine with electrons and positrons to produce either protons or anti-protons.  Each anti-proton produced will result in the destruction of another proton and anti-proton.  I calculate that if the Black Hole in the center of the Milky Way galaxy consumes the equivalent of an earth-size planet per day the resulting neutrino photon flux at our earth would be about 68,000 neutrino photons/m2 second.  See Chapter XX.  



John Clark,

Thanks for your May 30 post.

It looks like we are fairly close on time but not on space.  Here are my basic thoughts on space.  Pardon me if I am repeating myself.

Space is total nothingness.  It can’t be curved.  I suppose it could be expanded.  If you move to a bigger house, you will have more space.

The Ross Model proposes a shell for our Universe.  It is a cold plasma shell comprised of mostly electrons and positrons.  It may be many light years thick.  On the inside of the shell are 100 to 400 galaxies.  I don’t know what is beyond the shell, but I could guess.  The shell is currently expanding  due to photon pressure from all of the  stars in all of the galaxies, which means that the volume of our Universe is expanding.  Reflections from the shell and  low temperature radiation from the shell gives us our cosmic background radiation.  Our shell is like an integrating sphere. 

Faraway galaxies are all moving away from each other due to photon pressure from the same stars.  The pressure is small per square meter but the cross section of galaxies is very large.  Plus the pressure is continuous providing an accelerating force that increases the velocity of the galaxies every second for billions of years. The velocities of faraway galaxies may approach or exceed the speed of light.  This is anti-gravity.

Nearby galaxies are being attracted to each other.  This is the result of gravity.  According to the Ross Model gravity is the result of destruction of protons and anti-protons in Black Holes.  This releases a neutrino entron with each destruction.  Neutrino entrons exit the Black Holes as neutrino photons.  Neutrino photons are about 1,000 times more energetic than gamma ray photons.  Most neutrino photons illuminating stars, planets and moons pass right through providing a backward force directed toward the source of the neutrino photon.  A few are temporally stopped and later released giving stars, planets and moons their gravity.  I have calculated that the destruction of one earth-size planet in the Milky Way’s Black Hole would produce a neutrino photon flux at our solar system of about 68,000 neutrino photons per meter squared-second.  The flux at nearby galaxies would be much less but I believe it is enough to overcome the photon pressure between nearby galaxies.  Low-energy photons pass through large distances of intergalactic space more efficiently than neutrino photons.  So at very large distances low-energy photons trump the neutrino photons.  

Since my model proposes that tronnies are  point particles occupying no space and that everything in our Universe is made from tronnies or things made from tronnies, our Universe and everything in it must be 100 percent empty space.  But every tronnie, based on its charge, is continuously producing Coulomb force waves that expand continuously.  This means that our Universe is filled 100 percent with Coulomb waves.  These are all traveling at the speed of light in all direction.  The result is a huge number (probably infinite) of Coulomb grids.  Photons travel in Coulomb grids.  Each major thing in our Universe with all of its charged particles creates its own Coulomb grid.  Our Universe has a Coulomb grid.  Each galaxy has a Coulomb grid.  Each star and its planets have one.  Planets and moons each have a Coulomb grid.  As all of these things move through our Universe at a variety of speeds they carry their grids along with them.  Photons travel at the speed of light through Coulomb grids.  Large masses can definitely produce a curvature in the mass’s Coulomb grid. 

So if we define “space” as Coulomb grids, then my model may not be much different than general relativity  

John Ross 



Thanks for the comments.

Let me try one more time to explain what I think about time dilation.  I believe that if we try to measure how fast time is passing in a reference that is moving very fast with respect to our reference frame, we will get a different answer than someone measuring how fast time is passing in the fast moving reference frame.

What I also believe is that time is absolute and passes at the same speed everywhere in our Universe.  In other words we could measure how much time has passed since the Big Bang, we would all get the same answer.  I read somewhere that the Big Bang occurred 13.72 billion years ago and that the number was accurate to 4 decimal places.  I understand some galaxies are moving away from us very fast maybe at speeds close to the speed of light.  Would the people in those galaxies make the same estimate as we do?  If so that would indicate to me that the passage of time is the same everywhere in our Universe.

I also concede that atomic clocks run at different speeds in fast moving satellites than they do on earth.  There may be some explanation for the discrepancy other than that time is actually passing faster or slower in the satellites.  For example my understanding is that atomic clocks are based on the frequency of light emitted from certain atomic transitions.  Maybe the frequency changes at very high relative speeds or at different gravitational forces or different radial acceleration or there could be other answers.  

In any case, I realize I could be wrong.

Space doesn’t keep things apart.



This is from wiki:

An integrating sphere (also known as an Ulbricht sphere) is an optical component consisting of a hollow spherical cavity with its interior covered with a diffuse white reflective coating, with small holes for entrance and exit ports. Its relevant property is a uniform scattering or diffusing effect. Light rays incident on any point on the inner surface are, by multiple scattering reflections, distributed equally to all other points. The effects of the original direction of light are minimized. An integrating sphere may be thought of as a diffuser which preserves power but destroys spatial information. It is typically used with some light source and a detector for optical power measurement. A similar device is the focusing or Coblentz sphere, which differs in that it has a mirror-like (specular) inner surface rather than a diffuse inner surface.





You are right about 100 to 400 billion.

I admit my calculation was very rough.  But the photon pressure does not have to be great if you are talking about something the size of a galaxy and it continues pressing for billions of years.  I would like to see a more precise calculation of the photon pressure from the entire universe on a single galaxy especially one near the edge of our Universe.  I know that photons from our sun turns the tail of comets away from the sun. 

Neutrino photons are a 1,000 times smaller than gamma ray photons which can pass some distance through steel.  They are traveling at the speed of light.  Neutrino photons are so small that they rarely impact any charged particle.  Charged particles do not feel the Coulomb forces from neutrino photons until the neutrino photon has passed by, but the charged particles feel the Coulomb forces spreading out behind the neutrino photon once the neutrino photon is gone.  It’s kind of like the shock wave from a jet.

It takes a long time for a Black Hole to digest a star.  First the Black Hole has to create anti-protons and then the anti-protons have to mate up with the protons.  Then the neutrino photons have to make their way from near the center of the Black Hole to the surface before they can take off through the galaxy.  I understand it takes visible light energy (entrons) to travel from the core of our sun to the surface. 

Light travels at the speed of light through Coulomb grids.  The Coulomb grid travel at the same speed as the galaxy it is associated with.  The Coulomb grid associated with a galaxy near the edge of our Universe is probably receding from you and me at near the speed of light, I understand, maybe faster.  

Einstein thought that massive objects curved space and that photons travel through space.  I say that space is nothing, it can’t be curved, but Coulomb grids are definitely curved.  Our sun’s Coulomb grid is curved and our earth’s grid is curved.  And I also say photons travel not through space but, through Coulomb grids.  So my guess is that I would get the same answer as Einstein for Mercury’s path.  

I love your questions!

John R 



If you identify a volume and remove everything within it, you would be left with empty space in the volume.  That is what I mean by empty space and you could not curve that space.  But I can agree that Coulomb force waves completely fill all of the space within our Universe.  If the volume I’m talking about were surrounded by an aluminum sphere, the electrons in the aluminum would be continuously producing Coulomb forces which would be expanding at the speed of light through the volume of the otherwise empty sphere.

Let me skip to your last point.  What do you mean by:  There is no Coulomb force?  Did you ever comb your hair on a dry day?

I don’t believe in virtual photons.  I do believe in entrons which is the energy-mass portion of each real photon.  The gamma ray photon that exits the nucleus of Co-60 is a gamma ray entron inside the nucleus.  That gamma ray photon can be absorbed inside the nucleus of another atom and it can exist there again as a gamma ray entron.  The ratio of each photon’s wavelength to the diameter of its entron is 1431, gamma ray entrons can fit in nuclei.

I like my description of Black Holes better than yours.  We know that   the Black Hole at the center of our galaxy somehow controls to paths of about 100 billion stars and their planetary systems.  We also know that our Black Hole is consuming portions of our galaxy.  So what is happening?  I say the Black Hole is destroying protons and anti-protons to release their neutrino entrons in the form of neutrino photons that provide the gravity of our galaxy.  The neutrino photon has and energy mass of 9.28 X 108 eV (1.65 X 10-27 kg) almost equal to the masses of the each proton and anti-proton.  This is major conversion of mass to energy.  It is almost 100 percent.  Fission and fusion pale by comparison.  But think about it.  You need a lot of energy to hold a galaxy together.

My model predicts that a Monster Black Hole will develop near the center of our Universe sometime in the future and when our Universe is about 50 billion years old, the Monster Black Hole will grow massive enough to produce gravitational attraction to the galaxies at the edges of our Universe.  At that time our Universe will begin to contract with all galaxies headed toward the monster.   Then for about 50 billion years all galaxies will be accelerated continuously.  Their velocities will increase faster and faster and faster until most are consumed by the monster.  Galaxies from near the edge of our Universe will reach velocities many thousand times the speed of light.  The Monster Black Hole will then explode in a Big Bang explosion which will be the death of our Universe and the birth of our successor universe.  At the time of the explosion some galaxies will not have yet reached the region of the Monster Black Hole, so they will merely pass through it in all directions at velocities many thousand times the speed of light to lead an inflation period of our successor universe.    

A triangle drawn on a sphere will be curved.  Curving space makes no sense to me.  Curving Coulomb grids is natural since Coulomb grids are a product of charged particles that everything is made of.  Every charged particle in our Universe is continuously producing Coulomb forces that travel at the speed of light.  I admit to a little repetition. 

Our theories are different.  I don’t claim to be an expert on the tau and the muon.  However, I believe they are both merely high-energy electrons, which is an electron that has  captured a high-energy entron. They are extremely unstable and I understand they decay to electrons.  The anti’s decay to positrons.  I don’t believe in the old-fashion neutrino.  My model predicts that every “thing’ in our universe must be made from tronnies.  I can’t think of how we could make the old fashion neutrino using tronnies.  My guess is (I really am guessing) that some of the “detections” of neutrinos is really detections of neutrino photons.  

John R.         


There is a theory of everything – my theory, “The Ross Model”.  You are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject, so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book.  And I predict you will be forced to agree with me.  

John Ross


It is very unlikely that we are at the center of our Universe.  You need to read about integrating spheres.  And you need to read Chapter XXII, “THE COLD PLASMA SHELL OF OUR UNIVERSE”.

What makes you think our Universe does not have a shell?  Does it go on forever in all direction?  Right now our Universe is expanding.  It is either going to expand forever or it will sometime in the future stop expanding.  Then what?  Then will it just stay that way or it will begin to contract.  I am not the first person that have suggested that universes expand then contract then expand, then contract in endless cycles.  You should also read Chapter XXV, “LIFE AND DEATHOF UNIVERSES”.  It is only 6 pages.  I have taken a guess that our Universe is Universe Number 47 in a series of universes, that the first universe was the size of a typical galaxy and that the mass-energy of universes doubles with each cycle.   What is your explanation of how our Universe got so big?



Often things crash together.  A body in motion stays in motion.

The photon pressure from far away galaxies is extremely small, but galaxies are very large.  Comets are not large. 

The shock wave has the shape of a cone traveling behind the neutrino photon.  The entron within the photon is traveling in a looping circle up to three times the speed of light and travels backward at speeds of up to the speed of light.  See FIG. 4.

In my model Black Holes do not crush things to a point.  That is nonsense. 

I’ll try to get to the Mercury path problem sometime.  

I have not studied the Casimir effect. I will take a look at it.




We are not at the center of the universe, at least I have no reason to believe we are.    

The shell in not the CMBR.  It is mostly cold electrons and positron traveling at their natural speed of about 2.19 X 106 m/s.

The photon pressure is very uneven.  For galaxies at the center of our Universe the photon pressures cancel.  But if we are near the edge of our galaxy and looked at a galaxy at the center of our Universe it would appear to be moving away from us.

My understanding of the CMBR it is cosmic microwave radiation.  And that it includes only radiation not in the microwave and radio frequencies.  Am I wrong?

My understanding of an integrating sphere is that the radiation in it is invariant with respect to direction.  Isn’t this true for the CMBR?



Everybody is free to take it or leave it.  However, I promise you that the integrated forces in the entron exactly cancel in the diametrical direction. So entrons can be stable for billions of years.  Entrons represent all of the mass of our Universe except for the mass or electrons and positrons which are produced in pair production by the combination of three entrons.

I have not done the calculations for the Coulomb forces acting in the alpha particle.  However, I know that 2 alpha particles combine to form the nucleus of Be-8 which is extremely unstable.  But:  

  1. 3 alpha particles combine to form carbon 12,
  2. 4 alpha particles combine to form oxygen 16,
  3. 5 alpha particles combine to form neon 20,
  4. 6 alpha particles combine to form mg 24,
  5. 7 alpha particles combine to form silicon 28,
  6. 8 alpha particles combine to form sulfur 32,
  7. 9 alpha particles combine to form argon 36,
  8. 10 alpha particles combine to form calcium 40, all of which are extremely stable.
  9. If you had a copy of my book you would see that the center portion of the alpha is comprised of four circling protons and two electrons are circling the path of the four protons, so the alpha particle is positive on the inside and negative on the outside.  (FIG 11 ON PAGE 97 is a drawing of an alpha particle.)  The result is that the combination of two alpha particles is extremely unstable, but the combinations of 3 through 10 alpha particles are all totally stable.  In these nuclei the four positive protons in the center of the alpha is attracted to the two electrons in outside portion of its neighbor alpha particle.  So, for example in the carbon-12 nucleus, at the right distances the attractive Coulomb forces in the three alpha particles exactly balance the repulsive coulomb forces, so carbon-12 is stable.  NO STRONG FORCE NEEDED! The electrons in the neighbor alpha particles are closer the protons than the protons in the neighbor alpha particles.  (Professor Coulomb taught us long ago that his force is inversely proportional to distance squared.)   

    More massive nuclei can be fabricated with alpha particles or combinations of the above nuclei, but electrons need to be added to cancel out some of the positive charges in the nuclei.  In Table X in Chapter XIII I show how to fabricate 52 additional atomic nuclei (all having zero spin (just like the helium nucleus) using only alpha particles and electrons!

    The main point of all of this is my realization that everything in our Universe is made from tronnies or things made from tronnies.  Three tronnies make and electron, three tronnies make a positron, two tronnies mane an entron.  A proton is made from an electron, two positrons and a very high energy entron.  The nucleus of a hydrogen contains additional gamma ray entrons which are released as fusion energy when four hydrogen atoms are combined to make a helium atom.  The helium nucleus also includes some gamma ray entrons some of which are released in the process of helium fusion to produce the nuclei listed above.

    Tronnies are point particles having no volume and no mass.  Its only property is its charge which gives it the Coulomb force.  Two tronnies make an entron that has no net charge, BUT IT DOES HAVE MASS.  Electrons and positrons also are made from mass-less tronnies and they have mass.  Our entire Universe can be built using only electrons, positrons and entrons!  This is a wonderful revelation, since it demonstrates how an entire universe can be made from particles having no mass (nothing but charge).  And what is charge?  Charge is either plus e or minus e.  If you add them together you get zero!  So we have a theory that suggests that our entire Universe of 100 to 400 billion galaxies can be fabricated from the equivalent of nothing!

    If you think back in time long enough before there was anything anywhere you get to a point in time when there was nothing.  Somehow nothing turned into something and that something or some things ultimately turned into our Universe.  My theory suggests a logical answer for how this could have happened.  



    Much of my theory is described with math.  You need to read my book.



    Tronnies in entron travel in perfect circles.  Integrated forces between them and between each tronnie and itself exactly cancel in the diametrical direction.  These integrated force are k/r forces where k is constant and r is the distance Coulomb forces travel between the particles.  If the particles are traveling in perfect circles the distances traveled represent a chord on the circle.  

    I have recently discovered that the length of each chord of a circle is equal to the cosine of α times the diameter of the circle where α is the angle between the chord and a diameter drawn where the chord intersects the circumference of the circle.  This has probable been known for centuries, but in case it hasn’t been known, I call it “Ross’s Rule”.  

    My description of the entron (where each of the two tronnies circle on opposite sides of a perfect circle) is confirmed by this rule although when I made the description of the entron, I was not aware of the rule. 

    If the entron is not a perfect circle, then my rule may have a problem.  But in general entrons are very stable and not perturbed, but it is possible to perturbed an entron.  If the entron is perturbed I am notsure what would happen.  It probably depends of the perturbation.




    You need to read my book.  Its main purpose is to explain the existence of the universe and it does exactly that. 

    John R



    Thanks for your serious questions.  The answers are simple.

    John R.



    Science has made lots of progress without knowledge of my model of our Universe.  I suppose science will continue making progress without this knowledge.  Science made progress when almost everyone thought the earth was flat and the sun went around the earth.  The people who tried to change this thinking had to suffer a lot of criticism. 

    John R



    I have not tried Physics Review.  I did try The Journal Nature and Scientific American about 10 years ago without success.  I follow Daniel Boone’s philosophy, “Be sure you are right then go ahead.”

    John R 


    Primitive materialism is a neat concept.  I will have to think about it in the context of my model.

    I try to respond to all of your points.  In some cases I don’t understand your points.  What is RM?  And I don’t understand primitive materialism.  

    I think time is absolute and the same everywhere in our Universe and it is unrelated to space which is nothing and goes on forever.  Before there was anything there was nothing, i.e. just empty space.

    In general mass-energy is conserved, but it must be possible to create new mass-energy, otherwise our Universe could not have become so large.

    John R.  


    If there are only protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei, then you need the magical “Strong Force”.  If your neutrons are a proton and an electron then you don’t need the strong force.  I am sticking with my theory.




    Tronnies are each a point focus of Coulomb forces.  Coulomb forces spread out from this focus point in all directions at the speed of light.  The tronnies travel in circles at speeds of (π/2)c so each tronnie is always at the focus of its own Coulomb force waves directed along the diameter of its circle.  By the time the tronnie has completed one cycle its coulomb forces have completed 360 degrees.  In entrons the tronnies cycle at frequencies of about 1.5 billion cycles per second to about 160 trillion trillion cycles per second (160 X 1024 cyc/s). 

    I don’t know what they detected.  I don’t think they know.  My guess is they detected high-energy protons, maybe some high-energy anti-protons, high-energy electrons, high-energy positrons and high-energy entrons.  They may have detected some neutrino entrons, but these babies are very hard to detect.  I understand that they think they detected some neutrinos in an underground neutrino detector many miles from Cern.  These were probably neutrino photons. 

    I have not done the math to demonstrate all the forces acting within an alpha particle and between alpha particles.  I invite all readers to do the math.  Actually, the math may not be too complicated.  We know the exact path of the protons and the electrons within the alpha particle.  We can probably assume that in the carbon nucleus the alpha particles are approximately stationary, since carbon-12 has zero spin. 

    I don’t know how to do computer modeling.  Again I invite all readers that can do computer modeling based on my model.  If you are the first to prove I am right, you may be in for a big prize. 

    I don’t understand RM and virtual practice.

    I do not explain consciousness.




    All of the GPS satellites know exactly where they are relative to some position here on earth.  They are all in communication with each other and they know how fast a radio beam travels.  It would be a simple matter to regularly adjust their clock speeds so all of the clocks operate at the same speed as a master clock here on earth.  My guess is that is exactly what they do.  I doubt if it is possible to construct a clock that keeps time infinitely correctly.

    I think you have said before that if two theories explain the same thing, it is more likely than not that the simplest theory is correct.  I see no reason why time should pass more slowly if we go fast or quicker if we are in a reduced gravity.  

    Here is a question for you:  We on a distance galaxy are watching a separate galaxy one light-year from a Monster Black Hole and speeding toward it at a speed of c.  A baby has just been born in the speeding galaxy.  How old will the baby be when the galaxy is consumed by the Monster Black Hole?  Our galaxy is stationary with respect to the Monster Black Hole.  My answer is the simple answer. 


    I agree that clock’s operate at different rates as space vehicles and high speed aircraft approach the speed of light or are located at different gravitational levels, but that does not prove that time passes at different rates.

    Would a faraway galaxy compute the time since the Big Bang as a time other than about 13.8 billion years?

    There are other logical explanations for muon’s longer life when traveling fast as compared to floating around a lab. 

    John R 



    You are correct about our Universe.  It is not infinite.  It has a shell around it.  However we don’t know what is beyond the shell.  There probability an infinity of space beyond our shell.

    Gravity is produced by neutrino photons produce by Black Holes with the destruction of protons and anti-protons.  The neutrino entron in the neutrino photons that reach the shell will be absorbed by an electron or a positron.  If it is absorbed by an electron it will increase the mass of the electron to almost the mass of a proton.  If the massive electron can quickly capture two positrons the result will be a stable proton.  If not the neutrino entron will be release as a neutrino photon with a 50 percent chance of heading back into the universe.  If the neutrino photon is absorbed by a positron an anti-proton could be produced which will be destroyed by combining with a proton.

    Your guess is as good as mine as to what’s beyond the shell.  The shell may be very thick and many universes could be combined in the shell like bubbles in a Pepsi.  If we have our own shell, it probable gets less and less dense with distance from the center of our Universe.  If there are other Universes out there, they probably have their own shell.

    The shell is mostly an approximately equal number of very cold electrons and positrons, all traveling randomly at 2.19 X 106 m/s.  They are going too fast to combine as positronium. 

    J Ross


    I don’t believe there are extra dimensions in our Universe.  There may be other universes outside of the shell of our Universe.  Or our shell may be thick enough to contain additional Universes.  Our shell is mostly an equal number of electrons and positrons that provide a perfect reflector of the cosmic background radiation, like the shell of an integrating sphere.

    The muon may be more stable when traveling fast as compared to floating somewhere in a lab.  Or it or its predecessor may be traveling faster than the speed of light.  If a muon normally travels at the speed of light, how fast would it travel if, in addition to its normal speed, it is subjected to the pull of earth’s gravity for a substantial period of time?



    The shell is expanding along with the rest of our Universe.  It is being inflated with photon pressure.  The cosmic background radiation is the same everywhere in our Universe, the same as if our Universe was a giant integrating sphere.

    The relevance is that muons could be traveling much faster than the speed of light, which would explain why more than the expected number reach sea level.



    Ground state electrons and positrons have no energy.  They are self propelled by their own internal Coulomb forces at 2.19 X 106 m/s.  That is why electrons don’t lose energy and fall into atomic nuclei.  They have no energy to lose.  Electrons can capture entrons to become an energetic electron.  For example if an electron capture a 6 volt entron, by being in a circuit with a 6-volt battery, it can lose that entron in the filament of a flash light to help heat the filament to the temperature of the surface of the sun.

    Ground state electron and positrons have a size of about 2 X 10-18 m, and they are traveling at 2.19 million meters per second.  Each of them are being repelled with their own Coulomb force which is always far greater than the attractive forces of their opposites.  So collisions are extremely rare.  

    If atoms are present with orbiting electrons positrons will be attracted to the relatively stationary orbiting electrons and you will have your annihilatiorn.  But atoms are not present in the shell.

    John R


    Every proton contains one electron and two positrons.  There is one electron for each proton.  There exists a relatively few  free positrons and there is a free electron to match each free positrons.  Electrons and positrons are created and destroyed only in pairs.  So there is exactly the same number of positrons in our Universe as electrons.  It is as simple as that.  There is no asymmetry in my theory.

    The Standard Model is much too complicated:

    There are no “three generations of particles”.   Everything in our Universe is made from tronnies.  Two tronnies make an entron.  Three tronnies make an electron and  three tronnies make a positron.  A proton is made from two positrons and one electron plus a very high energy entron and about 15 gamma ray entrons.  The gamma ray entrons are released in the course of fusion processes.  The very high energy entron is released in the course of proton-antiproton destruction that occurs in Black Holes.  This very high energy entron is the neutrino entron and it escapes the Black Holes as a neutrino photon (aka the graviton) to provide the gravity holding galaxies together.  Stable atoms are comprised of only protons, electrons and entrons.  Each photon is comprised of only one entron.  Molecules are comprised of atoms.  Gravity is provided by neutrino photons.  Everything else in our Universe is  made from molecules and atoms.  Muons are electrons and entrons or positrons and entrons.  There are no quarks or gluons.  There is no “strong force”.  Atomic nuclei are held together with Coulomb forces provided by the tronnies and the things made from tronnies.  All bosons are photons and all fermions including protons are combinations of electrons, positrons and entrons.  Photons have mass so their paths can be curved by gravity provided by neutrino photons (gravitons) escaping from massive articles.  The exclusion principle results from the fact that electrons are self-propelled at their natural speed of 2.19 X 106 m/s  and they orbit in synchronization and repel each other.   I don’t have the answer to Mercury’s path and the Bose-Einstein stuff but I am certain that my model will provide a simple explanation.  Do you have any reason to believe that it doesn’t?

    John Ross