<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><base href="x-msg://3171/"></head><div>. </div><div><font size="4">They depend upon the physical properties of space-time, this double looped photon model and the frequency of the photon. </font><span style="font-size: large; ">The other properties follow.</span><span style="font-size: large; "> </span></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size: large; ">Under this model, these properties are </span><span style="font-size: large; ">very specifically</span><font size="4"> defined. I append a copy of the properties of the electron this model either matches or predicts, as previously published. Note that experiment is the only arbiter of a theory, and even then its worth is its ability to make testable predictions. I have seven predictions I believe represent properties that are unknown but could be measured at some time in the future using existing technologies. This discussion group is all about point 17, the electron is totally electromagnetic in nature. I am prepared to let this model stand or fall on experimental observations. The earlier suggested experiment to measure the radius of electrons at varying accelerating voltages (in the vicinity of a few hundred keV to a few MeV (rather than GeV) would either confirm or dispute this model. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Further discussion on the merits or otherwise of models of the structure of photons and/or electrons should centre around the ability of a model to predict unknown properties that can be experimentally tested using existing technology. Experiment is the only arbiter of the accuracy or otherwise of any theoretical model. There are many other models of electrons about that can match </font><span style="font-size: large; ">some</span><span style="font-size: large; "> known electron properties. Yet another theory that can match known properties gives nothing to separate it from those theories. It is only when a model makes testable predictions of unknown properties, which are subsequently verified, that the model </span><span style="font-size: large; ">should</span><span style="font-size: large; "> be given </span><span style="font-size: large; ">precedence</span><span style="font-size: large; "> over other models. </span></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Cheers,</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Vivian Robinson</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font><div></div></div></body></html>