It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Disproving Relativity?!

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:57 AM
I'm no scientist, and I certainly can't comment on the verasity of this guy's claims.

For one, I'm somewhat skeptical. But this man claims to have discovered a way to explain everything in the universe, correcting all the problems with the Theory of Relativity.

And he's applied for a U.S. patent.

Anyone want to venture comment on his theory?

Ross Model of the Universe

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:03 AM
If he had a paper that you could read without having to go through the way it's presented there at the UPO, it would be easier to critique. Other than that (I haven't read it properly yet) I can't say anything about his claim.

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:13 AM
Im no scientist either but im facinated by quantum physics.....My question is why do you need to apply for a patent? Is there some product or service or money to be made off the so called theory of everything? Has his theory been peer reviewed in any scientific journals?

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 10:34 AM
Well seeing as General Relativity has been proven to be at least 99.95% right, I hardly think that it requires an entire rewrite.

An international research team led by Prof. Michael Kramer of the University of Manchester's Jodrell Bank Observatory, UK, has used three years of observations of the "double pulsar", a unique pair of natural stellar clocks which they discovered in 2003, to prove that Einstein's theory of general relativity - the theory of gravity that displaced Newton's - is correct to within a staggering 0.05%. Their results are published on the14th September in the journal Science and are based on measurements of an effect called the Shapiro Delay.

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 11:29 AM
DeadBoi well pointed out.

I am no expert on physics but do know my stuff for want of a better phrase. I have just skimmed this patent. It is interesting and the main premise of his Patent and new model is based on the assumption that

Everything in the universe is made from one basic thing. one type of energy.

Now I find this intriguing and it fits in well with many of the things that we are finding out in science, especially the tricky questions that arise from Quantum physics and superimposition etc. I tend to go along with this idea, ultimately I believe we will find one fundamental energy/vibration whatever that is joining us all and part of one big whole.

However where he seems to have fallen down is that he is looking at this from a classical empirical point of view, postulating separate entities of this energy or "Tronnies" which just means he is reclassifying and pairing down current descript ional names for what we measure and observe. their is nothing new there just he is like saying if you go to Crufts that it is wrong to specify separate breeds of dog, lets just call them all dogs. there are no separate species dogs are doges apes are apes etc, not taking into account or explaining as far as I can see the difference in the nature of what we have been observing or experiencing.

That being that he also seems to be as said following the "new age" as some would call it new view of the universe and what underlies it all, but does not take into account at any stage what has been proven the act of Observation on the wave function/particle. This is truly the basis of any truth to his theory but he ignores it, a puzzling contradiction IMHO.

In addition

My discovery that neutrinos (my neutrinos, neutrino photons, not the prior art neutrinos) "carry" gravity makes most of the complicated features of General Relativity unnecessary if not wrong. Certainly, masses do not curve space. Space is merely the emptiness between things--it is nothing, you can't curve it. Space is also infinite in all three dimensions and there are only three dimensions: up and down, left and right and forward and backwards. Time is not a forth dimension; time is a measurable period between events. Time is absolute and is not affected in the least bit by how fast one is moving.

Well im afraid matey you might be onto something in the general premise of your ideas that there is one all encompassing whole or force that connects everything in the universe to everything else, but in the real measurable observable world the above statement has been proven to be wrong by experiments with caesium clocks on the Shuttle measured against ones on the ground.

Case closed even though I wont spend the time trying to get up to his mathematical ability to look at his math for right or wrong, this very statement is IMHo the death mark of the rest of his theory. Also his not taking into account the observer uncertainty principle in enough detail for his model.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 11:45 AM
Great points Elf

He also states on string theory:

I do not understand string theory; however, I do understand that many very smart people believe in it because it produces results that are consistent with experimental results. The End of the Universe

If he does not understand string theory then how does not know that string theory could be a better or more complete theory than his?

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:27 PM

[0191] Neils Bohr long ago recognized that electron orbits of the hydrogen atom are stable only if the angular momentum of the electron, mvr, was an integral multiple of h/2 .pi. or mvr=nh/2 .pi.. He said if the electron were in any other orbit the orbiting electron would radiate energy quickly and spiral into the nucleus. Under the Ross Model of the hydrogen atom ground state electrons (electrons with no captured entrons, have kinetic energy 1/2 mv2 of 13.5 eV (corresponding to its naked speed of 2.18.times.10.sup.6 m/s) and cannot lose energy by radiation since they are naked and have no entrons to radiate.

Ross makes the same assumption that Bohr made: that electrons are particles and thus have an angular momentum, as they orbit a nucleus, as if they were like planets orbiting a star. (Ross repeatedly refers to a electrons "circling a nucleus".)

The smallest form of an element that can be recognised as that element is actually a molecule, not a single atom. For instance, pure oxygen is O2. Ozone is O3. There is no O1 because electrons exist as a wave, with crests and valleys, not a point particle travelling in a circle. Electrons' waves are better described as a figure-8, and require two nuclei in order to be captured as part of a molecule.

Ross' attempt to get rid of the angular momentum problem is about 80 years late.

Some of his ideas are interesting, such as that the Coulomb force is the basic and only force. But his ideas about gravity are just weird. He claims that his model "brings logic back to physics", but writes this:

The Coulomb forces of the two tronnies in each neutrino photon produce a reverse force on the charges in the stars and planets and everything else in the galaxy they pass through. This reverse force is directed back toward the source of the neutrino photons keeping these objects in their orbits in the galaxy. A small portion of the galaxy is sacrificed, actually pushed into the black hole, providing additional protons to be consumed to provide more neutrino photons to supply the galaxy its gravity. A portion of the neutrino photons from the black hole are temporally stopped in galactic objects (especially big ones) and later released in random directions giving the objects such as our sun, the planets including our earth and its moon their gravity. For all objects releasing neutrino photons the neutrino photon flux decreases as the inverse square of the distance from the object. This explains the object's gravity decreasing as the inverse square as explained by Isaac Newton.

If A) the gravity of a black hole at the center of our galaxy is produced by the "reverse force" of neutrinos eminating from that black hole and, B) the effect is inverse to the square of the distance from the black hole, then it would only be logical that a star with A) the same mass as our sun and, B) is half the distance from the black hole as our sun, then that star would have four times the gravity as our sun.

I'm guessing that it'll hold true that a body's gravitational effect is proportionate to it's mass, not it's proximity to the center of it's galaxy.

He restates and expands this further:

Gravity results from the Coulomb force fields emanating from neutrinos as the neutrinos pass at the speed of light through matter. These Coulomb force fields travel rearward and sideways along the trail of the neutrinos. The sideways components cancel, but the rearward components add pushing the matter through which they are passing back toward the source of the neutrinos. Thus, neutrinos from the sun passing through the earth provide the "gravity" holding the earth in its orbit around the sun.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, Ross supposes that gravity comes from neutrinos (massless photons/entrons) that come from the destruction of protons in black holes. These somehow escape the black hole and are redirected by stars and out to their planets. Unless the planets are producing their own neutrinos by destroying protons, the outer planets would have much less gravity than the inner planets from solar neutrinos.

My hair hurts.

Again with this:

[0206] "OK", a reader might ask, "Where does the earth get its gravity attracting me to its surface?" The answer is that a significant portion of neutrinos from the sun are scattered from protons and maybe electrons in the earth and some are absorbed then later released in all directions. So (except for the neutrinos passing through the earth from the sun and other neutrino sources) the total of the matter penetrating photons coming out from the earth is relatively uniform in all directions. These matter-penetrating photons apply a reverse force to the charged elements inside our bodies thus pushing us toward the center of the earth.

In a mass like the earth an equilibrium will be reached in which the number of neutrinos absorbed in all of the protons and electrons in the earth reaches a constant level which means that the earth is also a major source of neutrinos that are emitted in all directions. This source is (according to this feature of the Ross Model) the carrier of the earth's gravity.

To my mind this entire theory stems from Ross' attempt to identify the nature of gravity. He's redefining the source as energy from neutrinos that is absorbed and redirected by a body, rather than as the mass of the body itself.

I think it's a lot simpler than that. I've been working on a thesis for about 15 years that theorizes that gravity is to matter as the speed of light is to energy. Just as free energy expands through space in all directions as a light sphere, matter (coherent energy) "expands through space" just the same. But, since the energy of matter is "staying put", the space around the matter is "contracting" "into" the matter.

Space is not, as Ross wrote, "nothing" but "the distance between objects", it is defined by and, in a real sense, a part of, the matter in it. I wrote some stuff about that here: .

[edit on 21-9-2006 by Tuning Spork]

posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:59 PM
Tuning folk makes an excellent criticism of Ross's model. While he effectively explains electromagnetism, except for photon's particle/wave duality, his assumption that neutrinos, not regular neutrinos we have recently detected, but a more exotic form carry the force of gravity, but have no mass themselves is puzzling.

He also doesnt explain the curvature of spacetime predicted by Einstein and proven with Einstein crosses (quasars) that prove curvature, which is entirely left out of Ross's model. He also doesnt mention uncertainty principle and its effects, etc.. etc...

Needs lots of work, doesnt add up.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by etshrtslr

The main reason for applying for the patent is that patent applications are published world wide. It is very difficult to get a scientific journal to publish a theory of everything that proposes that Einstein and many other great scientists were basically incorrect.

John Ross

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 02:36 PM

Originally posted by behindthescenes
For one, I'm somewhat skeptical. But this man claims to have discovered a way to explain everything in the universe, correcting all the problems with the Theory of Relativity.

And he's applied for a U.S. patent.

Anyone want to venture comment on his theory?

Ross Model of the Universe

I can venture only to the point to say that the link you posted describes a patent application in the field of data processing. How does it relate to disproving relativity is a point which I shall not venture to approach.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by deadboi

Just because a theory predicts correct results does not mean the theory is correct even if the theory is 100 years old. If two theories both predict the correct result and one is 100 years old and illogical and the other is new and logical, which one should be believed?

John Ross

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by Raider

Neutrino photons have large masses each one has a mass-energy approximately equal to the mass of a proton. A proton is comprised of (1)a circling electron which has captured the entron portion of a neutrino photon and (2) two positrons which are circling through the electron's circle. When a proton is destroyed in a black hole that entron (which I call a neutrino entron) is released to carry a portion of the black hole's gravity out through the galaxy.

Empty space is nothing, you can not curve it.

The uncertainity principal is incorrect. The basic building blocks of the universe, tronnies, are point particles with a charge of +e or -e. The force that moves them and everything else in the universe is the Coulomb force which is exact down to infinately small dimensions. So the position and velocity of every tronnie should be exact infinitely precise values at all times. If there is a God, He knows the exact position and velocity of every tronnie in the universe at any point in time. There is a lot of ignorance in the universe but no basic uncertainity. I will admit that it is difficult (probably imposible) for us to know the position and velocity of tronnies since they are points with no mass or volume and travel at velocities never less than the speed of light. However, as I understand the uncertainity principal the speed and velocity of particles is suppose to be basically uncertain having nothing to do with our ablity to measure the speed and velocity.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by etshrtslr

The main reason for applying for the patent is that patent applications are published world wide. It is very difficult to get a scientific journal to publish a theory of everything that proposes that Einstein and many other great scientists were basically incorrect.

John Ross

Are you implying that the link the OP posted X%2CDETD.&s2=energy.DRTX%2CDETD.&OS=/free+AND+/energy&RS=/free+AND+/energy
actually supports the title and deals with the theory of relativity?

What is this? Some kind of funny way to kill boredom?

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:29 PM
I really dont think this particular theory holds anymore water than any of the others. I suggest waiting to see what they find at Cern LHC before putting my lot in with any particular theory. Until we have a much better description of mass and constituents (Higgs boson or whatever it may be).

I'm not quite sure however why they would apply for a patent. I mean its not like an invention, well maybe an intellectual property perhaps..... oh well

I also would like to note that in your response Spork you say

"The smallest form of an element that can be recognized as that element is actually a molecule, not a single atom. For instance, pure oxygen is O2. Ozone is O3. There is no O1 because electrons exist as a wave, with crests and valleys, not a point particle traveling in a circle. Electrons' waves are better described as a figure-8, and require two nuclei in order to be captured as part of a molecule."

this however is not the case.... not all atoms occur naturally as diatomic atoms

"Elements that consist of diatomic molecules, under typical laboratory conditions of 1 bar and 25 oC, include hydrogen (H2), nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and the halogens: fluorine (F2), chlorine (Cl2), bromine (Br2), iodine (I2), and, perhaps, astatine (At2). Again note that many other diatomics are possible, such as metals heated to their gaseous states. Also, many diatomic molecules are unstable and highly reactive, such as diphosphorus. Many compounds are made of diatomic molecules, including CO and HBr."

Duality is a strange paradox for physics and to say with such certainty that it is understood by physicists and therefor constitutes a valid counterpoint to any other theory is somewhat misleading.

"The pilot-wave model, originally developed by Louis de Broglie and further developed by David Bohm in to the hidden variable theory proposes that there is no duality, but rather particles are guided, in a deterministic fashion, by a pilot wave (or "quantum potential") which will direct them to areas of constructive interference in preference to areas of destructive interference. "

At least one scientist proposes that the duality can be replaced by a "wave-only" view. Carver Mead's Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism (2000) analyzes the behavior of electrons and photons purely in terms of electron wave functions, and attributes the apparent particle-like behavior to quantization effects and eigenstates. According to reviewer David Haddon:[16]

Mead has cut the Gordian knot of quantum complementarity. He claims that atoms, with their neutrons, protons, and electrons, are not particles at all but pure waves of matter. Mead cites as the gross evidence of the exclusively wave nature of both light and matter the discovery between 1933 and 1996 of ten examples of pure wave phenomena, including the ubiquitous laser of CD players, the self-propagating electrical currents of superconductors, and the Bose–Einstein condensate of atoms.

The Many-worlds interpretation is sometimes presented as a waves-only theory, including by its orginator, Hugh Everett who referred to MWI as "the wave interpretation"

And Stander this is what he is talking about

USPTO Application #: 20060212280
Title: Ross model of the universe
Abstract: A process for describing everything in the universe. My preferred process is in the form of a model. It is the simplest yet model of the universe. I call my first preferred model the “The Ross Model of the Universe” or the “Ross Model”. Processes described and claimed herein can be used to describe and explain all elements of the universe. The model includes a single fundamental particle having no mass and no volume but having a charge of plus e or minus e (+or −1.602×10−19 Coulomb). I have named these particles, “tronnies”. The model proposes a single fundamental force in the universe (from which all other forces are derived). This force is the well known Coulomb force that is carried by the tronnies by virtue of their charges. The model includes a universal energy quantum that I have named “entron”. Entrons are comprised of two tronnies (a plus tronnie and a minus tronnie) and have no net charge but do have mass and energy. My preferred model can be used to describe photons, electrons, electricity, protons, neutrons, atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, heat, temperature, magnetism, gravity and everything else in the universe.
(end of abstract)

have you ever tried to look something up yourself? Sometimes links dont work as intended

[edit on 15-10-2008 by constantwonder]

[edit on 15-10-2008 by constantwonder]

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:49 PM
Many people, including myself, have created a theory of everything that explains everything... I have a few threads that explain some of the details.

Basically, everything is controlled by 0ne force, the "cosmic force". It's a theory that combines the 4 fundamental forces into 1 and explains everything exactly the same.

I have the same problem... its near impossible to explain something to people who don't want to change their mind. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks".

My theory allows me to do many magical things, and predict many things that current theories can not explain. This is the main reason why I believe the theory.

My theory is an extension to current theory with a few modifications, so its not like current theory is 100% wrong, they just aren't 100% correct. It IS possible to explain a scientific experiment multiple ways, and it IS possible for multiple explanations to predict the same thing.


posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
The smallest form of an element that can be recognised as that element is actually a molecule, not a single atom. For instance, pure oxygen is O2. Ozone is O3. There is no O1 because electrons exist as a wave, with crests and valleys, not a point particle travelling in a circle. Electrons' waves are better described as a figure-8, and require two nuclei in order to be captured as part of a molecule.

Umm, O2 is NOT pure oxygen, that is dioxygen. Pure oxygen is the element known just as "O", which would be your "O1", but they don't call it "O1" they call it "O".

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 09:55 PM
Where is your paper? Can I read it.... the physics part not your personal "philosophical" additions or interpretations of said Theory. I need something good to read

posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 07:44 AM
Readers discussing the one-particle theory may be interested in a book I co-authored in 2001: "From Microbits to Everything: A New Unified View of Physics and Cosmology"., that unifies and explains all the forces. (My website is: There are indeed some top international scientists who have this book and I had been in contact with since the solution resolves many issues. However, our solution poses a dilemma and paradigm shift not least of which is the debunking of Einsteinian Relativity in the interpretation of what is happening in all those experiments. I have just made John Ross aware of that book and he is going to look into it; as am I going to scrutinize his work. It's good to see some critical and fresh thinking on this website!

posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 08:24 AM
I think one thing that gives me pause when I see the "disproves relativity" posts is that so far, nobody has been able to show mathematical models that predict behavior that we can observe. This is the real test of the "I have proved/disproved it"... to come up with a fair test of the model and test it and see if it's right.

Einstein made predictions about how light would be bent by gravity, for example, and a number of independent tests have verified his equations. These same equations have been used to predict the behavior of materials and were one of the bits of knowledge that eventually led to the development of semiconductors.

I can come up with equations that "integrate" all four forces... but my models can't answer things like "Does light have a rest mass in water simply because its speed decreases and a Lorentz factor can be associated with it?" (and how would you measure that mass, anyway, since mass is not the same thing as weight.)

It should be able to tackle (mathematically, and with predictive value) the questions asked by Lee Smolin in his book:

1) Combine general relativity and quantum gravity into a single theory that can claim to be the complete theory of nature.

2) Resolve the problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense.

3) Determine whether or not the various particles and forces can be unified in a theory that explains them all as manifestations of a single, fundamental theory.

4) Explain how the values of the free constants in the standard model of particle physics are chosen in nature.

5) Explain dark matter and dark energy. Or, if they don't exist, determine how and why gravity is modified on large scales. More generally, explain why the constants of the standard model of cosmology, including the dark energy, have the values they do.

Remember, the end result has to be math... math that predicts and explains things like non-Newtonian fluids and Bose-Einstein condensates and should predict what other substances become Bose-Einstein condensates or non-Newtonian fluids as well as accounting for all the values of the "fudge factors" used in many standard physics equations.

Word explanations and pictures and philosophy won't do. We need hard science that predicts things (these kinds of predictions lead us to new types of power, new ways of combining molecules, new industrial ceramics and plastics, new methods of communication and so forth.)

posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 08:38 AM
(addendum to the above)

If you want to test your theory out, try it against the "minimally supersymmetric standard mode"l, which has a minimum of 20 free constants and a maximum of at least 105.

(for those of you just browsing and not theorizing, here's the Wikipedia page on What That's All About: and there's a zillion points on the page that anyone "disproving Einstein" has to address, including the elusive Higgs boson and if it doesn't exist then explaining nonsymmetry for this case and still be consistent with the observed supersymmetry... and explaining just what's wrong with the Higgs Process and fixing the silly thing. That's the kind of work that has to be done to put someone's theory into the "Einstein class." It's really deep homework and not the sort of thing that most people can do.)

new topics

top topics


log in