A note to the professional scientists

I look forward to review from professional scientists. I have never had my scientific journal papers published before. Physical Review has rejected them without review. (Granted, I uh sometimes uh cnat rite alll thatwell! But, jeesh!;)

However, my own mental tally lists around a thousand physical details that supports my physics and not one that disproves it. In almost every journal paper or scientific article I read, I can see how the writer is hindered by not understanding time or how the Ball-of-Light Particle Model would help explain a scientific observation that seems at odds with traditional physics.

Every now and then, I read about how some new scientific experiment or astronomical observation "proves Einstein's Theory of Relativity"! These articles always make me smile -- because no experiment or observation "proves" Relativity, they only "support" it. One way of explaining why these experiments or observations do not prove Relativity is because another theory could be developed that is similar to Relativity that these very experiments and observations also support! That is just such the case with the Ball-of-Light Particle Model. I believe, every substantial experiment and observation that has supported Special Relativity also supports the Speed-of-Light Definition of Time. I believe, every substantial experiment and observation that has supported General Relativity also supports the Ball-of-Light Particle Model. Now what is needed is the battle between the theories. Which is better, Einstein's or mine? (I really can't believe I just wrote that, but it has to be said.)

To the professional scientist, I challenge you to find the weak link in these ideas.

However, even though I provide tests, experiments and predictions for the Ball-of-Light Particle Model, don't start trying to disprove my physics by disproving my predictions. (I would be surprised if many scientists don't someday understand my theories better than I, and do a better job at predicting with them.)

To the professional scientist, start with these two thoughts: Imagine that all motions are fractions of the speed of light (i.e., the ratio between the distance an object travels divided by the distance light travels) Then imagine how the electric and magnetic fields would behave on the surface of a sphere.

How would you interpret the cross product of these fields?
Review the "Poynting Vector." What are the units in this equation? Notice how the ideas of electromagnetism are on one side of the equation, and the idea of mass is on the other side of the equation.
How would these fields behave if the sphere had a constant quantity of motion in the universe? (And what law of physics does that derive?)
How would these fields behave if the sphere were accelerated with respect to the universe? (And what law of physics does that derive?)
How would these fields behave if they were harmonic? (How would that relate to the Strong force?)
How would these fields behave if they were not harmonic? (How would that relate to the Weak force?)
How would these fields behave -- using traditional electromagnetic induction -- if two such spheres moved past each other? How would these fields behave if two such spheres collide? (And what law of physics does that derive?)

When you can imagine such spheres in your mind, your mind can not let go of the image. They are just too beautiful! They are too symmetric (See Table A). They explain all of physics. Your mind can not go back to the old confusion.

"A mind once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions."

Unknown