Where physics took a wrong turn

What is with the Alice in Wonderland state of physics? It may explain
the results of some experiments, but none of it makes any intuitive
sense. Furthermore, it seems that in the last 100 years, we have not
made any substantial progress. We are nowhere close to being able to
figure out some fundamental problems like what gravity is. Pretty much,
the same theories that were worked out 100 years ago are the still the
same ones being used today.

Now it could be that the apparent lack of progress is because we have
totally figured everything out and there is nothing more significant to
be learned. Or, physics has ground to a halt because it has taken some
really bad turns and we are at a dead end.

From what I have researched, I am finding that physics has indeed taken
some really bad turns which have completely hindered any further
significant progress in the field. I'm not talking about some minor
error that requires a slight adjustment, I'm talking about 'Earth is
the center of the universe' type of wrong. In fact, I'd say that almost
everything that serious physists take as dogma over the past 100 years
is wrong. The only reason why it
succeeds as much as is does is because it is almost completely
backwards.

Just like scientists used to think the Earth was the center of the
universe, current physics has got the frame of reference for how things
work completely wrong. And just like the theory that the Earth was the
center of the universe, this backwardness allowed the scientists of the
day to accurately predict the movement of the stars, but in a way that
didn't make any intuitive sense. They had to invent things like
'epicycles' to explain the retrograde movement of the planets and had
charts showing how the planets moved in corkscrew patterns for no
apparent reason.

Of course, the theory must be correct, it makes correct predictions
they would exclaim. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make any
intuitive sense, it must be so. And so current physics similarly
exclaims that their theories must be correct because they make such
accurate predictions.

As is with the case of the Earth centered universe, current physics can
make accurate predictions because they are basing the results on a real
phenomenon, but are looking at it from a completely wrong angle. They
get the right answer for the wrong reasons. So where did physics take a
wrong turn, let me count the ways:

Wrong turn #1 - There is no aether

This has got to be the biggest and most fatal error of physics to
prematurely reject the hypothesis that all of space is filled with a
substance. If I am right, this will go down as even a bigger blunder
than the Earth centered universe. This has totally halted significant
development of electromagnetic theory by removing the medium by which
waves are carried through space.

Now if there is no aether, then there is nothing for waves to travel on
and therfore no waves are really possible. This means that everything
has to be particles. All interactions now have to happen through
particle exchange through the void of space. So light is particles,
gravity is particles, strong force is particles and so on.

However, the view is absurd. How can two objects exchanging particles
possibly cause an attractive force? It is often described as two
basketball players exchanging a ball which each other and the faster
they do the exchange, the more attracted are the two players. How
rediculous! Any such exchange would cause a repulsion, not an
attraction. There is no way this particle exchange can work! How can
serious physisists possibly take this
seriously? This makes NO intuitive or logical sense.

We get into other problems because we observe a lot a wave phenomenon,
so we say light can be both wave or particle depending on the
experiment. Now how logical is this argument - something completely
changes its nature depending on how we are looking at it.It is sheer
lunacy to think subatomic particles care what we are doing in the
macroscopic world and change their behavior to suit us.

We get into all of these problems because we refuse to believe in an
aether. If we believe in an aether, then the world is a very simple
place. All interactions happen via waves propagated in the aether.
There are no particle exchanges required to transmit forces. It has
been shown that phased wave interactions can create attractive and
repulsive forces - objects emitting in phase waves repel, while out of
phase attract. There is no spooky 'action at a distance'. The only way
particle A can affect particle C is if goes through particle B. A most
sensible chain of cause and affect.

The only serious experiment indicating particle nature of light is the
photoelectric effect. However, I feel this can be easily explained if
you think that light is generated in specific wave packet quanta. This
would have the exact same effect as if a fixed sized particle hit a
surface - but it is created by a strictly wave phenomenon. By far the
larger experimental evidence shows that light is a wave. We only need
the medium (the aether) to make it
work.

Since we think that the aether doesn't exist, we make no attempt to
detect it directly or to determine its properties or how it could be
manipulated. Instead, we spend billions trying to detect particle force
carriers and can only guess at the particles shooting out of these
collisions. Seems we've spent billions on accelerators, and what do
they have to show for it - a few pictures of squiggly lines - perhaps a
newly discovered particle here or there. We're never going to be able
to figure out how to neutralize gravity with science like this. We are
barking up the wrong tree - there are no exchange particles, we should
be studying the subatomic interactions of electromagnetic waves through
the aether.

Wrong turn #2 - The Michaelson/Morely MMX experiment disproved the
existence of the aether.

Always cited as the premier reason why we don't believe in the aether
is the MMX experiment. This results of the experiment have been grossly
misunderstood. If you read the original paper, they do not conclude
that the aether doesn't exist - only that it is moving much slower than
the orbital speed of the Earth. The experiment, did in fact
return a small positive result and the authors suggested further
research. This further research was conducted by Daton Miller who
concluded that the aether could be detected. Daton Miller was a
professor of physics and would not be likely to make experimental
errors or wrongly deduce that his result was not within experimental
error. His experiment which was carried out over 20 years under a much
better environment was completely ignored in favor of the new 'whiz
bang' relativity theory of Einstein apparently that didn't require an
aether.

Bottom line, the MMX experiment did not disprove the existence of the
aether - although everyone thinks it did. At best, it indicated that
the aether (if it exists) moves relatively slowly on the surface of the
Earth. This would be like trying to disprove the existence of air by
measuring the airspeed while you were inside of an airplane. You say
that you expect the airspeed to be 100 mph, because you know the
airplane is going 100 mph. You measure nothing inside the airplane,
therefore you disprove the existence of air. Of course, this makes no
logical sense at all and neither does the MMX experiment.

Wrong turn #3 - The Rutherford atomic model

We are all familiar with the model of the atom as an extremely compact
nucleus containing protons/neutrons surrounded by a cloud of electrons.
The reason why we think this is because of the Rutherford experiment of
bombarding helium nucleus against a very thin film of gold. Rutherford
concluded that the nucleus of the atom had to contain all of the
positive charge and had to be incredibly small. Well everyone just fell
in loves with this theory
since it reminded us of how the planets orbit the sun. Cute, but
fatally wrong. The experiment done by Rutherford is an extremely
indirect method of probing the atom and he made a number of assumptions
that fundamentally did not need to be true. His intial assumption was
that the atom was the 'plum pudding' model of an amorphous blob that
wouldn't put up much resistance to a helium atom. I'd say he proved
that that isn't the case, but he did not rule out other possible
structures that could reproduce the scattering pattern that he observed
from his experiments. All his experiments could show was that the area
that had to be solid was extremely small, but that isn't to say that he
proved it all had to be in the same place. It could have been spread
out into even smaller dots. My own experimental calulations show that
the scattering pattern could be repoduced by an octagonal shaped atom
and assuming that the atom is solid only along the atoms axis.

The reason why the interpretation of this experiment is so fatal is
because it has totally hindered the development of an atomic model that
makes any physical sense. For example, it makes no sense that all of
the protons could be crammed together in compact nucleus. So what does
this mean? It means we have to come up with some new "strong" force to
keep it together. In reality, this strong force doesn't exist and
doesn't need to exist and the evidence
for it is rather weak and circumstantial. Due to the dimesions
involved, we will never be able to directy measure the "strong" force.
But yet we spend untold millions looking for it

Something else that doesn't make sense is how chemical bonds could form
from blobs of electron clouds. How does each electron know to stay in
its energy level and how do the chemical bonds know to recognize only
the electrons from a specific energy level. It doesn't seem possible.
It would seem to be an incredibly chaotic situation where it is a
wonder why anyting bonds with anything at all. And how do the p, s, and
d orbitals form with their balloon and doughnut and dumbell
configurations form? This simply defies any explanation. Yet we are
stuck with this because we totally believe in the Rutherford atomic
model. If you want more evidence of what atoms really look like, we
have much more precise methods such as scanning tunneling microscopes.
If you look at some of the latest pictures of the surface of a silicon
crystal, these atoms do no look like blobs. In fact, they look like
hard little lego bricks. Current quantum atomic theory can in no way
explain how such a sharp feature could occur. This is a far better
picture of an atom than Rutherford could ever dream of. What are we to
believe - an indrect 100 year old experiment, or our own eyes looking
at a direct scan of an atom.

My own research shows that an atomic model built out of alternating
protons and electrons which form an octagonal shaped atom can reproduce
the scatter results and the apparent electron energy levels observed in
real atoms. This model requires no "strong" force and chemical
reactions are logically formed by natural docking ports created by the
exposed vertice of the atoms. Note that this isn't a random 'plum
pudding' model. Atoms take on a specific octagonal shape as they grow
larger. It is interesting to note that most large atoms like gold, form
octagonal crystals and the macroscopic crystal shape reflects the
subatomic shape of the individual atoms. It makes perfect sense. Atoms
are space filling and the electrons and protons are evenly spaced
througout the atom in a balanced network. The electrons do not orbit
outside of anything, in fact, they do not in any way form a cloud
around the atom. They are embedded within - which brings us to the next
wrong turn.

Wrong turn #4 - The Bohr interpretation of the hydrogen spectrum

Bohr's original interpretation of the motion of an electron around the
atom was that it was orbiting the nucleus. Even the modern quantum
mechanical explanation has the electron surrounding the nucleus in some
sort of undefined cloud. However, the whole idea that an electron is in
any kind of motion around the nucleus is completely wrong. In reality,
when an atom is in the ground (or unexcited) state, the electrons all
fall back into the nucleus of the atom (which is large) and stay there
in a static position. The only time they leave the atom is if they are
given enough energy from the outside to be ejected from the atom. This
happens when you do spectrum experiments where you zap hydrogen gas
with enough electricity to make it glow. What is happening at this
point is that the electrons are being kicked out of the hydrogen atoms
and are bouncing around the protons like little bouncy balls in some
totally
random pattern. There is no orbit, and there is no cloud either. The
only reason why quantum mechanics succeed is because it is based on
harmonic motion - which is the type of motion that the 'bouncy'
electron balls are taking.

The reason why specific spectrum of light is produced is a result of
the aether which defines the minimum amount that an electron can move
in space. Just like a block of sugar in a box of sugar cubes can only
take specific positions in the box, the electrons can only take fixed
positions away from the proton. This controls the the specific amount
of energy that an electron can take when it returns back to the
nucleus. It appears that when the electron drops and then bounces back
up, this is when the energy from its fall is released. The higher the
fall, the more energy is released in the form of higher wavelength
electromagnetic energy. Since the height of the drop can only come in
fixed increments, this also fixes the frequencies which can be released
and this is what we observe in the hydrogen spectrum experiments.

These are just some of the wrong turns that physics has taken. There
are mo

Wrong turn #5 - Gravity is a different force than the electrostatic
force - it is not.
wrong turn #6 - The Earth's magnetic field is not caused by internal
forces, but by the weather
Wrong turn #7 - The big bang theory - can't explain the bubble
structure of the universe or dark energy/matter.
Wrong turn #8 - The orientation of the magnetic field around magnets -
got this backwards.
Wrong turn #9 - Almost everything Einstein said from a model
perspective, right math, wrong model.
Wrong turn #10 - The source of global warming and the predicted result
- ice age, not flooding
Wrong turn #11 - Quarks do not exist - everything is made up of
positrons/electron combinations

I may describe these in a future post, but for now, four wrong turns
should be enough for now. Most of what I have stated is described in
detail in my theory of everything which can be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html

fhutoe

wrote:

Wrong turn #1 - There is no aether
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html


Well done. Interesting read.
Best wishes in further research.




Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

wrote:
Where physics took a wrong turn

Off to an excellent start. Already exposing the deep amount of
ignorance you maintain internally by such an asinine statement!


What is with the Alice in Wonderland state of physics? It may explain
the results of some experiments, but none of it makes any intuitive
sense. Furthermore, it seems that in the last 100 years, we have not
made any substantial progress. We are nowhere close to being able to
figure out some fundamental problems like what gravity is. Pretty much,
the same theories that were worked out 100 years ago are the still the
same ones being used today.

Yet more ignorance! Naturally, since you don't know jack abou ****, you
believe the standard model is a century old rather than about 30 years.
Since you don't know what you are talking about, it naturally makes
sense that you would complain that physics dosen't make 'intuitive'
sense.


Now it could be that the apparent lack of progress is because we have
totally figured everything out and there is nothing more significant to
be learned. Or, physics has ground to a halt because it has taken some
really bad turns and we are at a dead end.

Naturally physics has ground to a halt. Computers that are based on
transistors and built with nanometer scale processes are figments of my
vivid, vivid imagination. I'm also imagining modern chemistry and high
energy physics, too.


From what I have researched, I am finding that physics has indeed taken
some really bad turns which have completely hindered any further
significant progress in the field. I'm not talking about some minor
error that requires a slight adjustment, I'm talking about 'Earth is
the center of the universe' type of wrong. In fact, I'd say that almost
everything that serious physists take as dogma over the past 100 years
is wrong. The only reason why it
succeeds as much as is does is because it is almost completely
backwards.

Ah! So physics suceeds not because it is getting the answer right, but
because it is "so wrong it is right".

Naturally.


Just like scientists used to think the Earth was the center of the
universe, current physics has got the frame of reference for how things
work completely wrong. And just like the theory that the Earth was the
center of the universe, this backwardness allowed the scientists of the
day to accurately predict the movement of the stars, but in a way that
didn't make any intuitive sense. They had to invent things like
'epicycles' to explain the retrograde movement of the planets and had
charts showing how the planets moved in corkscrew patterns for no
apparent reason.

Notice that those theories are all wrong.


Of course, the theory must be correct, it makes correct predictions
they would exclaim. It doesn't matter that it doesn't make any
intuitive sense, it must be so. And so current physics similarly
exclaims that their theories must be correct because they make such
accurate predictions.

Duh. The criterions of a useful physical theory is actually singular
rather than plural: it must get the answer right. We don't use Newton
for predicting binary pulsar orbits because it is wrong, we use general
relativity because it is right.


As is with the case of the Earth centered universe, current physics can
make accurate predictions because they are basing the results on a real
phenomenon, but are looking at it from a completely wrong angle. They
get the right answer for the wrong reasons. So where did physics take a
wrong turn, let me count the ways:

Were you not a moron, it would be a short list. Were you actually
right, you would have a Nobel for each one. I wonder which is the
case.


Wrong turn #1 - There is no aether

*giggle*

Naturally the aether pops up. The ****er will simply NOT DIE.
Spontaneous generation is gone and never coming back, yet the aether
always has a grassroots campaign going for it even though it has no
modern experimental backing.


This has got to be the biggest and most fatal error of physics to
prematurely reject the hypothesis that all of space is filled with a
substance. If I am right, this will go down as even a bigger blunder
than the Earth centered universe. This has totally halted significant
development of electromagnetic theory by removing the medium by which
waves are carried through space.

Boo-****ing-hoo.


Now if there is no aether, then there is nothing for waves to travel on
and therfore no waves are really possible. This means that everything
has to be particles. All interactions now have to happen through
particle exchange through the void of space. So light is particles,
gravity is particles, strong force is particles and so on.

Hah. Pick up a modern physics book.

Please try to explain diffraction just by using particles. Greater
minds have tried and failed, but don't let it stop you! Oh, also be
sure to explain why particles exhibit wave-like behaviour.


However, the view is absurd. How can two objects exchanging particles
possibly cause an attractive force? It is often described as two
basketball players exchanging a ball which each other and the faster
they do the exchange, the more attracted are the two players. How
rediculous! Any such exchange would cause a repulsion, not an
attraction. There is no way this particle exchange can work! How can
serious physisists possibly take this
seriously? This makes NO intuitive or logical sense.

It doesn't have to.

But lets review, your qualifications are what?


We get into other problems because we observe a lot a wave phenomenon,
so we say light can be both wave or particle depending on the
experiment. Now how logical is this argument - something completely
changes its nature depending on how we are looking at it.It is sheer
lunacy to think subatomic particles care what we are doing in the
macroscopic world and change their behavior to suit us.

It is also illogical to put forth the argument that physicists believe
that nature gives a **** about us.


We get into all of these problems because we refuse to believe in an
aether. If we believe in an aether, then the world is a very simple
place. All interactions happen via waves propagated in the aether.
There are no particle exchanges required to transmit forces. It has
been shown that phased wave interactions can create attractive and
repulsive forces - objects emitting in phase waves repel, while out of
phase attract. There is no spooky 'action at a distance'. The only way
particle A can affect particle C is if goes through particle B. A most
sensible chain of cause and affect.

Great!

I suppose your theory of nuclear interactions is coming right up, then?
I'll let the nuclear physicists on this group tear that ****fest apart
because my interest is in gravitation rather than the really tiny.


The only serious experiment indicating particle nature of light is the
photoelectric effect. However, I feel this can be easily explained if
you think that light is generated in specific wave packet quanta. This
would have the exact same effect as if a fixed sized particle hit a
surface - but it is created by a strictly wave phenomenon. By far the
larger experimental evidence shows that light is a wave. We only need
the medium (the aether) to make it
work.

Of course! You are the first person to think of this! All those
physicists at the turn of the century were stupid!


Since we think that the aether doesn't exist, we make no attempt to
detect it directly or to determine its properties or how it could be
manipulated. Instead, we spend billions trying to detect particle force
carriers and can only guess at the particles shooting out of these
collisions. Seems we've spent billions on accelerators, and what do
they have to show for it - a few pictures of squiggly lines - perhaps a
newly discovered particle here or there. We're never going to be able
to figure out how to neutralize gravity with science like this. We are
barking up the wrong tree - there are no exchange particles, we should
be studying the subatomic interactions of electromagnetic waves through
the aether.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Priceless.


Wrong turn #2 - The Michaelson/Morely MMX experiment disproved the
existence of the aether.

Dude..

Do you even know what MMX means?

[snip stupidity]

God, you go on and on. It is a treastie of failure and ignorance.

These are just some of the wrong turns that physics has taken. There
are mo

Naturally.


Wrong turn #5 - Gravity is a different force than the electrostatic
force - it is not.

Comically wrong.

wrong turn #6 - The Earth's magnetic field is not caused by internal
forces, but by the weather

Incredibly wrong.

Wrong turn #7 - The big bang theory - can't explain the bubble
structure of the universe or dark energy/matter.

Not a wrong turn because the universe doesn't have any sort of "bubble
structure", nor does the BBT even attempt to explain dark energy and
dark matter.

Wrong turn #8 - The orientation of the magnetic field around magnets -
got this backwards.

Since you believe all of physics is wrong, it is natural you would
think the simple stuff is wrong too. Even if the simple stuff is a
definition for convinience.

Wrong turn #9 - Almost everything Einstein said from a model
perspective, right math, wrong model.

You have no idea what the math is, much less whether it is wrong or
not.

Wrong turn #10 - The source of global warming and the predicted result
- ice age, not flooding

Sure, why not?

Wrong turn #11 - Quarks do not exist - everything is made up of
positrons/electron combinations

Not even wrong.


I may describe these in a future post, but for now, four wrong turns
should be enough for now. Most of what I have stated is described in
detail in my theory of everything which can be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html

Utter ****e. The value of my computer was preceptibly diminished for
having viewed it.


fhutoe

On 7/7/06 06:38, in article
,
" wrote:

I may describe these in a future post, but for now, four wrong turns
should be enough for now. Most of what I have stated is described in
detail in my theory of everything which can be found at:

Another one! Join the end of the queue....

We look forward to your NEW physics

--

Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
Why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE
SCIENCE". Pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TomGee proves his physics education is beyond measure...
"I don't know that much math." - 2 April 2006
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - 10 May 2006
"There is no such thing as relativistic momentum" - July 2006
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Puddle**** tou are on my kill file. Good bye" - Vert admits he cannot
calculate \gamma for a photon and admits defeat - 2nd July 2006
PWNED
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Eric Gisse wrote:

but it doesn't matter because he has such
reading comprehension problems that
even when he *is* on the same page he
still isn't

On 8/7/06 01:37, in article ,
"mountain man" wrote:

No, you'll only have to discard the subjectivism associated
with such observations: the way the empirical results are
interpretted. Or does nature speak to you directly, in
human words, from the chair of physics at your favorite
physics.edu .... in american english?

This makes even less sense then the original screed.

PS not all of us are American.

--

Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
Why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE
SCIENCE". Pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TomGee proves his physics education is beyond measure...
"I don't know that much math." - 2 April 2006
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - 10 May 2006
"There is no such thing as relativistic momentum" - July 2006
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Puddle**** tou are on my kill file. Good bye" - Vert admits he cannot
calculate \gamma for a photon and admits defeat - 2nd July 2006
PWNED
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

"tadchem" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Where physics took a wrong turn

What is with the Alice in Wonderland state of physics? It may explain
the results of some experiments, but none of it makes any intuitive
sense.

I suppose we will have to discard a few thousand years of empirical
observations and rebuild the Universe so that it is consistent with
your personal intuition, then.

No, you'll only have to discard the subjectivism associated
with such observations: the way the empirical results are
interpretted. Or does nature speak to you directly, in
human words, from the chair of physics at your favorite
physics.edu .... in american english?



Pete Brown

wrote:
Where physics took a wrong turn

What is with the Alice in Wonderland state of physics? It may explain
the results of some experiments, but none of it makes any intuitive
sense. Furthermore, it seems that in the last 100 years, we have not
made any substantial progress. We are nowhere close to being able to
figure out some fundamental problems like what gravity is. Pretty much,
the same theories that were worked out 100 years ago are the still the
same ones being used today.

Now it could be that the apparent lack of progress is because we have
totally figured everything out and there is nothing more significant to
--------------------------------
hI franklin!

there are some items that i agree with you
there are some i dont

i dont think we need Aether we can do without it
and as you know the less the betetr
thopugh i dont agree withthe existing stupid amthematical expalnation
about the
attraction force done byexchange of photons
because photons move in straight line and cannot do any attraction
force
it is just a mathermatical solusion and we already realized that just
metheamtics
canno tbe the leader of physics .

th e mjchanism of any attraction force is still unknown
and the sooner all those parrots will get it the better !1
i agree with you that the existing model of the Atom and nucleus is not
all along solved and even a ttheis point parrot scientist are living
in a paradize of fools !!

i agree with your model (idea ?) of hhe 'octahedral shape of the nuc
and the Atom
do you know why ???
because it is my model !!

i agree with you that gravitation is far from solved

i agree that virtual photons without mass
is shear stupidity acompaned by a huge wast of human resourses
so bottm line :
veery much like a apradize of fools acompanied by crooks as well

yet not all of it is wrong there are lots of good scince but not
enough
not to mension tha the practical scince of electronics computers etc
is much beyond the retarding theoretic science

and is doing wonders and marvelously !!
the' theoretists ' should take them as hero worships and not vice versa
..!!

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------

wrote in message
oups.com...
Of course, the theory must be correct, it makes correct predictions
they would exclaim.

A theory is of little use unless it makes predictions. Perhaps you could
cite some of the predictions your theory makes?

CWatters wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Of course, the theory must be correct, it makes correct predictions
they would exclaim.

A theory is of little use unless it makes predictions. Perhaps you could
cite some of the predictions your theory makes?

wrote a ~prediction~

Wrong turn #5 - Gravity is a different force than
the electrostatic force - it is not.

Tajmar and de Matos seem to have some proof:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/cita...hysics/0107015

Sue...