<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hodge,<div><br></div><div>It would still be best if you sent the article. I (finally) accessed some of your STOE articles but could not find mse42my.pdf. I am not exactly sure to what you are referring.</div><div><br></div><div>Some aspects of your work have commonality with mine. I use detectable photons as the basis of everything, you use hods. We are both trying to show that everything follows from that one particle. I prefer my approach because photons are detectable and have properties to which my work must comply. The wave functions in my article are their restriction. Like you I prefer Newtonian mechanics to relativity and quantum mechanics. There are many observations that confirm relativity and quantum mechanics that don't match Newtonian mechanics. My work must match those observations. </div><div><br></div><div>I have found that the toroidal (John W and Martin vdM) or rotating photon (Viv R) model of an electron is one in which an electron consists of a photon of the appropriate energy (≈ 0.511 MeV at rest) makes two revolutions in one wavelength. It is this that gives the electron spin (angular momentum) of half hbar. The E - mc^2 relationship between mass and energy is mass is the photon rotating twice within its wavelength. Unlock its angular momentum gives it energy E = mc^2. As the particle moves its structure means that it is automatically subject to the special relativity corrections of mass, length and time. I make mention of other properties, although as Richard G pointed out, my derivation of the magnetic moment of the electron was in error in that paper. I have now corrected that.</div><div><br></div><div>I suggest that all other particles, stable or otherwise, are composed of appropriate rotating photons and have derived the structure and properties of many of them based upon that model. If this is the structure of all matter, the special relativity corrections are due to the rotating photon being "stretched" as it moves. They are not some mathematically imposed restriction.</div><div><br></div><div>You will find that when you apply Newtonian mechanics to a photon with those waveforms and mass, you get Einstein's general theory of relativity for space outside matter, ie, gravity as we know it. The exception is that there is no singularity at the Schwarzschild radius and therefore no black holes. That doesn't prevent the existence of massive objects, which is all astronomers are detecting. It is the theoretical physicists who call them black holes. Astronomical measurements are still thousands of times less accurate than required to distinguish between my metric and the Schwarzschild metric. I am confident that when they do improve, my metric, with the gravitational singularity at the centre of mass and not at the Schwarzschild radius, will hold. </div><div><br></div><div>You will then recognise that gravity is not inverse square law. If you studied Newton's Principia you will see that he also worked out what would happen if gravity was stronger or weaker than inverse square law. His observations showed that the planets were following the trajectories predicted by the inverse square law calculations, leading to the conclusion that gravity is controlled by inverse square. However, not all observations follow the inverse square law. Conclusion - gravity is not inverse square. </div><div><br></div><div>The only reason the Big Bang theory was accepted was because early calculations showed that, if gravity was inverse square law, an infinite static universe would collapse in on itself through gravitational attraction. That clearly hasn't happened. Einstein tried to overcome it with his cosmological constant. His field equations only allowed for an expanding or collapsing universe. Since forwarding the Big Bang theory, they have done everything to match a new observation into that theory, ignoring the other possibility. If gravity isn't inverse square, other possibilities exist. </div><div><br></div><div>Again, using Newtonian mechanics to the structure of the photon I propose, shows that gravity is either inverse square law or stronger for space outside matter: Or inverse square law or weaker for space inside matter, something that applies to the structure of the universe as a whole. If you have a universe in which gravity is weaker than the inverse square law by an amount predicted from my photon's wave function, then an infinite static universe will not collapse under gravitational influence. Photons from distant galaxies will still be redshifted, as observed. Things like gravitational lensing still occur, although I am not convinced that everything forwarded as gravitational lensing is actually gravitational lensing. </div><div><br></div><div>Forget the Big Bang theory. Therefore no inflation (straight after the Big Bang). Dark matter is required to explain the more rapid rotation of galaxies. Based upon other aspects of inverse square law, galaxies and even clusters of galaxies would be expected to rotate about their centre of mass much faster than is determined from gravity alone. The detected components in galaxies will cause them to rotate significantly faster than predicted from either Newtonian or Relativistic gravity. That statement can be justified by experimental evidence (courtesy of Uncle Sam whose work is much appreciated at least by this author) beyond the mere detection of more rapidly rotating galaxies. Forget about dark matter.</div><div><br></div><div>As for dark energy, it is based upon the observation of apparently anomalous type 1a supernovae (SNe1a) intensities. In order to match the observed SNe1a intensities to my work I need our galaxy to be in a region of space with a density of about 10^-24 kg/m^3. This is about 1,000 times the density required under the Big Bang theory for the universe to exist in its current form some 23.8 billion years after the Big Bang. But there are many problems with that figure.</div><div><br></div><div>The odds of the universe having this structure 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang are about 1 : 10^60. (I doubt that any Big Bang proponent would risk his/her money when she/he had only 1 : 1000 chance of winning. If they are, I am prepared to wager against as many as are prepared to show their faith in low odds.) Yet they expect us to believe the whole universe exists because of 1 : 10^60 odds and we are the one universe in over 10^60 other universes in the multiverse. Talk about having lost touch with reality. Another feature is that a "quick" (i.e., long and involved) calculation will show that the density of the visible universe is higher than ≈ 10^-27 kg/m^3. Thirdly, for an expanding universe in which there is only light from up to 13.8 billion light years distance, there are far too many stars visible in the Hubble Extreme field images (again, thanks Uncle Sam). I am sure some of you can think of other observations as well.</div><div><br></div><div>Going back to dark energy. In order to match the observed SNe1a intensities, my model requires a local (< 10^8 LYs radius) density of just over 1 x 10^-24 kg/m^3, dropping down to a background average of ≈ 8 x 10^-26 kg/m^3. Or another effect I haven't yet included. Both of these figures are much higher than the "official" (i.e. matches their theory) value of ≈ 10^-27 kg/m^3. A brief look at the stars in our local region, ≈ 10^6 LYs radius, gives the number of sun mass stars, ≈ 200 x 10^9 for Milky Way, ≈ 300 x 10^9 Andromeda, and others, gives a star mass density approaching 10^-25 kg/m^3. Here is where astronomers are a little vague. The mass of galaxies is usually quoted in terms of number of stars of the same mass as our sun (luminous matter). They also add to that figure, the observation that the average galaxy has about ten times as much matter in a gas and dust cloud surrounding the galaxy (non luminous matter) as there is luminous matter. Adding the mass of the non luminous matter to the mass of the luminous matter, if it isn't already included, gets me close to 10^-24 kg/m^3. I admit I am not quite there. I am not out by as much as a factor of 24 times the observed mass of the universe and that is without dark matter to make the galaxies rotate faster than they should under gravity alone.</div><div><br></div><div>There are many other problems associated with the Big Bang theory. Just think about the additional mass a galaxy must have to a receding velocity that gives a redshift of 10. Perhaps you know a few more of them. </div><div><br></div><div>In summary, I believe the photon model just forwarded can be used with the rotating photon or toroidal electromagnetic field structure of matter and Newtonian mechanics give a continuity between quantum "weirdness" and special and general relativity. Much of what is called quantum "weirdness" can be explained by the structures of the photon and the particles composed of rotating or toroidal photons. Yes they need refinement, but we have to start somewhere. As I said, the object of my communication was to have a general discussion on the nature of light and particles. </div><div><br></div><div>I append my paper on the electron structure FYI. </div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Vivian Robinson</div><div><br></div><div></div></body></html>