Master Theory (edition 3)

[przyk]

And you know, someway I'm doing the same Science works because scientific works are available through paid sources like journals only or with a very restricted access. The only difference is that I'm doing the same in a more direct own way.

That's not really comparable, actually. For starters, the subscription fee you pay to a journal goes straight to the journal. Authors of scientific papers aren't paid royalties or anything. We don't even get paid for doing review work. Second, reputable journals are peer reviewed, so there's an assurance that the work you're paying for is at least of a certain quality. Third, nowadays you can usually get hold of a copy of the work without having to pay for it. Most physicists and mathematicians put draft versions of their work on arXiv and/or will happily email you a copy if you ask for it. We do this because, by and large, we sincerely believe scientific knowledge should be made as freely and readily available as possible to anyone who wants it. There are even a few journals which make their articles freely available to anyone, and it's the author who pays a fee to get the work published. This is the case for New Journal of Physics for example. Failing all of that, universities typically hold subscriptions to the major journals, so you could usually arrange to get a copy of an article via your local university's library facilities.

Of course, this mostly applies to research papers and not textbooks. But here the difference is that textbooks are intended to organise existing research results and present them in a logical and more digestible form to readers who aren't already experts in a certain field. There's nothing in good physics textbooks that you won't find in a research paper somewhere (with the possible exception of stuff that predates academic publishing, like Newtonian mechanics). Even there, it's not unheard of for the authors of a physics textbook to make an electronic version of their work freely available online. Many lecturers who type up their lecture notes also make them available on their personal homepages.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You are very annoying (I don't know a better word to express my feeling in my limited english) in accusing dishonesty while I'm presenting what I really believe. And you know, someway I'm doing the same Science do because scientific works are available through paid sources like journals only or with a very restricted access. The only difference is that I'm doing the same in a more direct own way. And I give 90% of the manuscript freely available on the site for anyone have a very good idea what is presented before purchasing the complete versions. Usually scientific works offer just an abstract of few lines.
Shame on you!

Numerous things wrong there.

As przyk says, the vast majority of scientific work in physics and maths is now available on www.ArXiv.org free. Many researchers will not even use journals any more precisely because the journal profits from it by restricting access and not reimbursing the researchers for providing the material or reviewing papers. Just this month the UK government decided all publicly funded research must be freely available, the community has 2 years to comply. Even for journals which restrict access and charge they allow the authors to pass on their work if they please, such has hosting pdfs on their websites. For example, when I've published work I have to sign something confirming I give the journal exclusive publishing rights, so no other journal can publish it, but I retain my rights as the author (or co-author). Pretty much any academic will be willing to provide their work to an interested, competent party if asked nicely.

But there's another difference. Someone working in a reputable university department will have done a degree, a PhD and likely a number of post-doc places before getting a lecturing position. This is a trial by fire, where if ones research is poor or infrequent then you will not get your next position. It may not foster the best research environment (leads to the 'publish or perish' mentality) but it almost certainly means someone whose working in a university research group and who did their PhD decades ago will have a great many published works which have made some kind of decent impact on the community. Therefore someone from outside the community can be confident that their work has been evaluated and found worthwhile by other people in the field. This means that if they wanted to shell out $30 for a particular paper, whose abstract is the only thing the journal allows people to read freely, they can be confident there's something worthwhile there. The journal wants good papers to people will pay for the journal. If it's all crap they'll not get subscriptions or papers bought. Work thus appearing in a reputable journal is less likely to be inane nonsense made up by someone who couldn't pass high school physics. Now consider your work. It's never passed peer review. It cannot model anything in reality in any practical way. You display serious fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of science and the level of detail expected of someone doing research level physics. Given the lack of reasonable mathematics in your work I also suspect you lack the basic level of numeracy expected of even engineers, never mind physicists (no offence to engineers meant, just there's a sliding scale of mathematical complexity usually, particularly in theoretical physics!). You have provided us no reason to think you're worth paying money to and even presented us with plenty of reasons to think the opposite.

Don't get me wrong, being paid to do research and then license results has it's place. It's how many private sector research institutions do their work, including the one I work for. But such companies live or die by their track records of producing results. Reputation is everything when getting contracts and reputation is built by producing real working results. You ask people to pay you when every single indicator shows you have nothing worth paying for. You are demonstrably under-informed, either deliberately or by apathy, about basic results and principles in science. You've spent pretty much a decade whining about your work online. A decade ago I was still in high school! I first saw you and your work probably more than 5 years ago and you seem to have accomplished nothing in that time. If in that time you'd gotten work published in reputable journals, you'd demonstrated you could produce viable, interesting, detailed, accurate work to challenge the mainstream then I'd have no issue with you writing a book about it all and charging. But to jump straight to charging people when you have demonstrated you are not to be trusted when it comes to scientific research is a disgrace.

 

[martillo]

You know, I think you are "viced" in academic procedures because is your daily environment. You must consider that some things can come in very unexpected ways. Just for example, Wright brothers were who invented the plane and they were bycicle fixers and not any well paid engineer or well instructed physicist. They did it in their own way.
More related to new theories, "to make it work" means ideas or propositions to be recognized. Someones succeded may be in a short period of time while in other cases took lot of time for the work to be recognized even after death sometimes passing lot of disregarding criticism before. Probably many continued stubbornly their work as much as they could in spite of that.
I continue believing in my ideas and so continue forward on them in spite of your disregarding criticisms which I didn't find conclusive nor definitive following my reasoning. There's nothing dishonest in my work nor in my way of presenting it. There's nothing dishonest in publishing one's ideas in a payable book if one really believe they are true and mainly in my case where 90% is available freely on my site to avoid any kind of deceiving surprises. People like you will not buy it. Only those who really believe there could be something worthable in it after seeing 90% of it could decide to buy it. Is a fair way. There's nothing wrong on me getting this way.

And I think I'm leaving this discussion because this is Masterov's thread about his ideas not mine.

 

[przyk]

You know, I think you are "viced" in academic procedures because is your daily environment.

No, our environment means that we have a much better overview of where science is at and why things are currently the way they are. Consequently, when we look at the ideas on a website like yours, there's a lot of stuff we're measuring those ideas against that you don't consider. We can very reasonably look at the same ideas as you and have a different opinion of them, just because we are taking a lot of things into account that you are not.

Simple example: I told you before that, for my master's thesis two years ago, I worked with an experimental group which performed a certain quantum optics experiment, specifically a Bell experiment with frequency-entangled photons. Bell experiments are fairly routine nowadays. They measure a feature of quantum physics - quantum nonlocality - that is arguably even more "mysterious" from a classical perspective than double-slit interference is. Yet that topic is not addressed in any way on your website. The problem is that instead of actually explaining the whole of quantum physics, you chose to look at only a few historical experiments (like double slit interference) which are not representative of all the quantum behaviour we observe. The explanations you give for those special cases (like particle trains) won't work for more general quantum behaviour. There is no way in which the idea of particle trains helps to understand quantum nonlocality, for instance. From the perspective of the experimental group I worked with, quantum physics works every time, while nothing on your website would remotely be of any use to them.

You should especially note that I didn't have to go scouring through the research literature to find something that wasn't addressed at all on your website. It's the first, most obvious example to me because it is something I actually worked on. Most working physicists will have a similar experience, regarding their own work, when they see your website. You say you have new ideas that could do away with existing theories like relativity and quantum physics, but your website doesn't address 99.9% of the reason we're using those theories in the first place.

That is the reason we're not very impressed with your work. It's got nothing to do with it coming in an "unexpected way".

 

[martillo]

And you are loosing your mind with "particles' entanglement"? This is not adressed in my theory because I consider it just a "stupid" Einstein-Bohr speculation that has not any sense. I'm sorry about you (if this spellling has sense) but what a waste of intelligence. I consider you intelligent but you got lost in a "dead end way" to say it someway.

 

[AlexG]

In other words przyk, you actually went to school and learned something, as opposed to flaunting your ignorance on science web sites. :spank:

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You know, I think you are "viced" in academic procedures because is your daily environment.

I didn't say I was in academia, I work in the private sector and the team I'm the head of makes a specific effort not to fall into the same rut which academics often fall into when it comes to sticking to one area they become more and more familiar with to the exclusion of other things.

You must consider that some things can come in very unexpected ways.

I'm well aware of that. But when someone comes along with "I have a completely different take on this" then they're going to need to justify themselves. In science they also need to demonstrate they are consistent with known facts, ie experimental data, if they claim to have something pertaining to it. Your claims have just been off the cuff, without any justification and in contradiction to many basic phenomena in physics.

Just for example, Wright brothers were who invented the plane and they were bycicle fixers and not any well paid engineer or well instructed physicist. They did it in their own way.

There's a difference between inventing something like a plane and coming up with scientific models. The design of a plane can come in many different forms, provided it flies. The specific method is open to choice. In science the behaviour of a physical system is the ultimate arbiter. If your claims do not gel with the experimental facts then you're wrong, there's no room for opinion in that regard.

More related to new theories, "to make it work" means ideas or propositions to be recognized. Someones succeded may be in a short period of time while in other cases took lot of time for the work to be recognized even after death sometimes passing lot of disregarding criticism before. Probably many continued stubbornly their work as much as they could in spite of that.

Again, there's a difference between "No one has proven me wrong" and "I'm not going to check whether anyone has proven me wrong". You obviously didn't check whether your assertions were consistent with experimental facts. There's also a difference between someone's claims being rejected due to bias in the reviewer and someone's work being rejected because it fails to meet even the most basic standards of evidence and reason. You fall firmly in the latter category. You claimed your work could explain the particle accelerator results, yet when pressed you either assert qualitative things which are false or you provide such laughably shallow explanations with nothing but the most token of nods towards quantitative formulations. Clearly you're aware that mathematics is needed in a physical model but I get the impression you don't know enough so you can only put in the most superficial of expressions into your work and even these you don't really derive from basic principles, you just assert or take from other places.

If Hawking submitted your 'work' to a journal he would be rejected without a second thought. Well, there would be a second thought and that would be "God, what happened to Hawking to make him do such terrible work?!". You need to stop making excuses for your lack of accomplishment in this stuff and start facing reality. Compare your 'work' to even pedestrian publications in particle physics and the complete lack of substance in your work becomes obvious. The inability of your work to model anything is your fault, not anyone else's. Your lack of familiarity with even the most basic phenomena relevant to your claims is your fault. There is a minimum bar of quality and competency researchers expect of work before they will consider putting down what they are doing and changing to work on this new work. You have failed to meet any criteria pertinent to that.

I continue believing in my ideas and so continue forward on them in spite of your disregarding criticisms which I didn't find conclusive nor definitive following my reasoning.

Of the criticisms I've given you've only managed to respond to about half of them and even those responses were weak or themselves invalid. For example, you've failed to explain why your claims are not inconsistent with bremsstrahlung observations or detector signal strengths. And that's even if I granted you your assertion that your work has something to say about particle accelerator phenomena. As you've shown, you cannot actually construct a viable model of anything relating to these phenomena, you have no quantitative predictions. As such you have no reason to think the arm wavey principles your 'work' is based on will lead to anything viable. The crank method of "Make superficial assertions, claim is correct, ask someone else to fill in the maths" is fundamentally flawed. Einstein got time and space dilations and the mass-energy-momentum relationship via a methodical step by step derivation from clearly stated postulates. If he had just asserted "Mass and energy are related!" he would have been correct but it wouldn't be good science because he wouldn't be showing precisely how they are related or how he reached such a result. In scientific research the journey is often as important, sometimes even more so, than the destination and hacks always jump to lofty conclusions without doing the bit in the middle. This completely undermines the conclusions they, you, make.

You can continue to make such assertions, no doubt you will, but you not only have zero reason to believe them, you have reasons not to.

There's nothing dishonest in my work nor in my way of presenting it. There's nothing dishonest in publishing one's ideas in a payable book if one really believe they are true and mainly in my case where 90% is available freely on my site to avoid any kind of deceiving surprises.

There are plenty of people who believe they can do astral projection or speak with 50,000 year old dead people from Atlantis or are the reincarnation of Elvis. Having faith in your convictions doesn't make your convictions more valid. In your case you're claiming to be doing some new approach to science. If you were doing it for noble reasons, ie to help further science, you'd write up your work in a presentable manner, send it to a journal, get it published, garner attention, present and discuss your work with people who are familiar with the relevant areas of science and then financial reward would follow. Charging right out of the blocks smacks of being a snake oil salesman, conning people who don't know any better.

 

[martillo]

In other words przyk, you actually went to school and learned something, as opposed to flaunting your ignorance on science web sites.

I don't consider him ignorant anyway. I consider him wasting his time in a wrong paradigm. Particles interact through their fields of forces (electric, magnetic, gravitational,nuclear) and interaction exist while their fields reach each other. There's not any other interaction.
Other wrong Einstein's speculation I consider is about the unification of the fields of forces. The forces do not unify. They represent the interaction between particles decomposed in different components which act simultaneously but cannot be reduced to an expression of a single force. Is like to think that the elementary particles could be reduced to a solely single one. They cannot. Trying it is in vain and wrong.

 

[martillo]

I will only comment the following:

Having faith in your convictions doesn't make your convictions more valid.

No but you can't accuse me being dishonest.

If you were doing it for noble reasons, ie to help further science, you'd write up your work in a presentable manner, send it to a journal, get it published, garner attention, present and discuss your work with people who are familiar with the relevant areas of science and then financial reward would follow.

That's your way you would do it not mine. I decide my own way. You claim for scientific work made following the scientific method. I don't. I don't pretend to be the scientist you pretend to be. I think I made a discovery and I express it on my way and present it for scientific evaluation and further development in my way. You don't like it? Fine. May be otherones would appreciate it.

Charging right out of the blocks smacks of being a snake oil salesman, conning people who don't know any better.

Wrong analogy. The work is 90% available for free on the web site.

 

[przyk]

And you are loosing your mind with "particles' entanglement"? This is not adressed in my theory because I consider it just a "stupid" Einstein-Bohr speculation that has not any sense. I'm sorry about you (if this spellling has sense) but what a waste of intelligence. I consider you intelligent but you got lost in a "dead end way" to say it someway.

It's not specutation. It's possible to make measurements on entangled states that produce joint statistical outcomes of a nonlocal nature. Many experiments since the 1980s have been performed which detect such nonlocal correlations. If you don't want to deal with this and other such observed quantum behaviour, kindly leave physics to the people who are willing to take it into consideration.

You might like to know, by the way, that it is Einstein who first pointed out this nonlocal aspect as an argument against quantum physics. He did this in a now famous paper coathored by Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen in 1935 (Bohr wasn't involved). In the 1960s, John Bell showed quite convincingly that these correlations predicted by quantum physics really were of a nonlocal character (instead of, say, just looking that way because of the way quantum physics was formulated), and now a number of Bell tests have been performed since the 1980s, demonstrating these correlations experimentally.

 

[martillo]

It's not specutation. It's possible to make measurements on entangled states that produce joint statistical outcomes of a nonlocal nature. Many experiments since the 1980s have been performed which detect such nonlocal correlations. If you don't want to deal with this and other such observed quantum behaviour, kindly leave physics to the people who are willing to take it into consideration.

You might like to know, by the way, that it is Einstein who first pointed out this nonlocal aspect as an argument against quantum physics. He did this in a now famous paper coathored by Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen in 1935 (Bohr wasn't involved). In the 1960s, John Bell showed quite convincingly that these correlations predicted by quantum physics really were of a nonlocal character (instead of, say, just looking that way because of the way quantum physics was formulated), and now a number of Bell tests have been performed since the 1980s, demonstrating these correlations experimentally.

You know, I have made new interpretations for well known experiments with a new point of view what gived a totally different explanation for them (Kaufmann, Fizeau, Sagnac, Feynman, Hertz, Mercury precession... to cite some, all being able to be seen at the web site). Other explanations not considered before sometimes are possible. May be there are other possible explanations for those statistical correlations. May be I have no expertisse, time and resources to give them now but that don't means they could not exist. This is one of the reason I'm looking for physicists to consider my work as a startpoint for a new Physics Theory (I claim this at the main page). I gave new interpretations to the experiments I could analyze showing how a different approach could be taken but I'm not a super-human and analyze all the experiments done along the Physics' history particularly the large amount of data developed in the very productive last decades. Otherones must work for the theory be completed. Don't expect everything from me. As I said I'm not a super-human, just a common one with new ideas.
But I would like to know at this time which other "observed quantum behaviors" you think would be needed to be explained by the new theory for it to be taken as a really possible new theory. Can you post about them?

 

[przyk]

Other explanations not considered before sometimes are possible.

Other explanations for individual experiments are almost always possible, especially if you only care about explaining the results qualitatively. The hard part in theoretical physics isn't inventing explanations for individual experiments. The real challenge is explaining the results of many experiments with just one theory that is as simple as possible and gets the numbers right.

May be there are other possible explanations for those statistical correlations.

In this case, not easily. There's actually a result (Bell's theorem) that shows that a very large category of classical-type theories (Bell called them "locally causal" theories) are incapable of explaining the sort of nonlocal correlations we see in Bell experiments. The basic idea behind it is that if you see correlations in the properties of two distant particles, you want to explain it in terms of the two particles having interacted in the past or having a common origin or source. Bell showed that there are limits to the correlations that this type of theory can explain, and quantum physics is measurably outside of those limits.

I gave new interpretations to the experiments I could analyze showing how a different approach could be taken but I'm not a super-human and analyze all the experiments done along the Physics' history particularly the large amount of data developed in the very productive last decades.

I couldn't do it either. Nobody could. There are more experimental results available than anyone could analyse in a single human lifetime, and new results are being published all the time at a rate faster than anyone working alone could hope to keep up with.

But there's a solution to this that is as old as physics itself: leverage existing theories. Let's use quantum physics as an example. For the many experiments that have been performed in this area (and I'm sure it's in the thousands, if not tens of thousands or more), experimenters haven't just been reporting their results. They've also compared their results with what quantum physics predicts, and found that they're in agreement every time within a certain error margin. The result of all this work is that we know that quantum physics is, if nothing else, a nice compact summary of all these thousands of experimental results you need to explain. So if you want to replace quantum physics with a better theory, you don't need to analyse all the experiments that support it. You just need to know quantum physics itself, and have a general idea of which experimental regimes it has been tested in. Then all you have to do is show mathematically that your new theory recovers the mathematical structure of quantum physics as an approximation in the same experimental regimes. That's the way any sane physicist would do it.

That, by the way, is why we keep hammering in how big a problem it is that you don't know quantum physics. It's because we already understand you're not a superhuman who can analyse the whole history of experimental physics. We're not either, and the only practical way to show you have a better theory than the ones we already have is to understand the theories we already have and show that you can recover them as approximations. I'm not pretending this is easy. It's hard work that would take an intelligent person at least a few years of dedicated study. But it's dedicated study that every physics graduate has been able to do. You don't have to be superhuman.

But I would like to know at this time which other "observed quantum behaviors" you think would be needed to be explained by the new theory for it to be taken as a really possible new theory. Can you post about them?

Too many to list, and I don't even know most of them. To get an idea of the problem, imagine someone asked you to list all the observed experimental behaviour that supported Newtonian physics. The situation with quantum physics is similar: we've observed so much that the importance of individual experiments has faded. What's emerged is a general confidence, based on experience, that quantum physics will "work" (i.e. make the right predictions) any time we throw it at a problem within its domain of applicability. The best way to gain familiarity with quantum behaviour is to study quantum physics, just like the best way to gain familiarity with classical behaviour is to learn Newtonian physics. And like I said, if you're serious about showing you have a better idea, you will need to do that anyway.

 

[martillo]

That, by the way, is why we keep hammering in how big a problem it is that you don't know quantum physics. It's because we already understand you're not a superhuman who can analyse the whole history of experimental physics. We're not either, and the only practical way to show you have a better theory than the ones we already have is to understand the theories we already have and show that you can recover them as approximations. I'm not pretending this is easy. It's hard work that would take an intelligent person at least a few years of dedicated study. But it's dedicated study that every physics graduate has been able to do. You don't have to be superhuman.

Or... may be someone with a good background in Quantum Physics that could become interested in my work could do something about. I only can wait for that. I'm not able to follow your suggestion.

 

[przyk]

Or... may be someone with a good background in Quantum Physics that could become interested in my work could do something about.

The problem is that nobody is going to do that without good reason to believe the ideas on your website actually work as a replacement for mainstream theories. Nobody, not even you, knows that.

Remember that there are plenty of other websites just like yours started by people like you who have their own idea about how physics should be done. Any sufficiently senior physicist is also likely to regularly be receiving letters and emails from such people, and you don't distinguish yourself from them in any way. We have no reason to believe any of these alternative approaches work, or that yours is particularly worthy of attention over all the others. In most cases we can also see basic misunderstandings in these people's grasp of modern and even classical physics, and we see glaring omissions or reasons the ideas probably wouldn't work in general that are obvious to theoretical physicists but not obvious to amateurs.

In your case you have basic misunderstandings regarding relativity (last time I checked you still listed two paradoxes with relativity that aren't paradoxes at all), electromagnetism (waves don't have to be plane waves, and we've understood the relation between radiating waves and sources since the late 19th century), and even Newtonian physics (F = dp/dt *is* true for a single particle or closed system, and anyway there's a relativistic version of F = ma in terms of the four-force and four-acceleration). I can also see reasons your ideas won't work in more general situations than you've considered, some of which I've described in previous threads.

There are also reasons that ditching mainstream theories isn't as desirable as you might think in some cases. Special relativity is an example of this: STR imposes a symmetry (Lorentz invariance) on modern theories which greatly simplifies analysing and understanding them. We've largely ruled out the possibility of any similarly simple alternative to relativity, and throwing it out altogether would significantly complicate modern physics. So we're not going to throw out relativity unless we've got damn good evidence it's wrong. This is true in general for symmetries in physics. To get an idea, imagine throwing out the idea of rotational symmetry (no preferred direction or orientation) in physics and how that would complicate things. Like with relativity, that's something we're not going to throw out unless we really have to.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Or... may be someone with a good background in Quantum Physics that could become interested in my work could do something about.

Someone like that is someone like myself or Przyk. It's taken us the better part of a decade to get up to speed on a working level with quantum mechanics and be able to do research of our own. That's a significant investment of time and effort but we did it because quantum mechanics has been demonstrated time and again to be a useful model of physical phenomena and thus a good tool to have access to. If someone wants us to stop working on quantum mechanics, to stop using it and move onto a completely different model then they are going to have to provide us with a good reason to do so. Saying "My work can explain that" and then being unable to demonstrate it is not a good reason. Demonstrating you're unfamiliar with basic experimental results is not a good reason. Showing you haven't bothered to learn any quantum mechanics and you have a terrible grasp of the scientific method is not a good reason.

People know quantum mechanics is extremely good at modelling a huge spread of phenomena, as pryzk has said. Even if it isn't perfectly absolutely exact it is still extremely useful, much as Newtonian mechanics is something every competent physicist should be familiar with even though we know it's not perfect. Asking people to basically bin a decade or more of their work, which has and continues to produce fruit, is asking a hell of a lot and you have utterl failed to provide any rational person with any reason to do that.

Hacks on this forum like to talk about how they want to get the mainstream to listen to them but people like myself, Prom, pryzk are the mainstream. We're the people who do the research, write the papers, do the experiments, review journal submissions, even teach undergraduates. The standards we have are no different to any other person in the mainstream science community and we don't expect anything from you we wouldn't expect from one another or some famous physicist. You need to convince people like us and you utterly fail.

 

[martillo]

But I think you alphanumeric and przyk didn't analyzed the theory properly enough. You just gave some minutes to think about some subjects (not to mention most of them were just my considerations against relativity theory and not the theory itself) before posting your answers. But is not about the first impresion it can cause in a graduated physicist highly costumed on the mainstream theories and hardly convinced they are right and that the problems they present would be a matter of just some adjustments. You have too much predisposition against any new possible totally different theory mainly if it comes from a non physicist one. Is not so easy. The possible new theory needs much more attention that you gave because some things should be elaborated deeper than is presented in the manuscript. For example to explain some phenomena not considered by me at this time. For example some things related to experiments in accelerators as we talked briefly and with I'm not well familiarized enough. You quickly answered that my new aproach cannot explain them not giving any chance but without considering it properly I think. I think is possible it could. May be I could not give you the right arguments right now. This does not mean they don't exist. May be just is not up to me finding them.
At this point you ask for me to convince you while I'm asking for some physicists to develop my work further (even performing proposed feasible experiments) to be able to convince people like you.
Summaryzing, you ask for a trail while I'm following other trail. May be the trails could cross at some time. I know you think they won't, of course.

 

[przyk]

But I think you alphanumeric and przyk didn't analyzed the theory properly enough.

We've looked at it enought to know that your coverage of what mainstream physics already explains is abysmal and often much less detailed. We've looked at it enough to see that in many cases you claim certain results or properties without any kind of derivation. For example, there used to be a page on your website where you simply asserted it was an experimental fact that atoms had discrete energy levels. Compare that with quantum physics: not only does quantum mechanics allow you to predict the energy levels of simple atoms, but it can also correctly predict how environmental influences (e.g. an external electric or magnetic field) or internal properties (e.g. the nucleus's magnetic dipole or electric quadrupole moment) affect those energy levels. It can correctly predict how an atom's energy state will change over time if a laser is fired at it (confirmed experimentally in the observation of Rabi oscillations and Ramsey fringes, the latter of which is used in the design of atomic clocks).

We could also reasonably counter that you haven't analysed the theories we already have properly enough. You're completely silent on the fact that you want people to look at your own work, but you're not interested in looking at work past physicists did that is generally accepted. You don't just want a fair hearing. Your whole attitude is based on the expectation that you deserve special attention.

not to mention most of them were just my considerations against relativity theory and not the theory itself

You argue that relativity is flawed when it is not. That's important because it shows your website is poorly motivated in the first place: why replace or reject relativity when there's nothing wrong with it, especially given how useful it has been, particularly in the development of modern field theory and in experimental high energy physics?

But is not about the first impresion it can cause in a graduated physicist highly costumed on the mainstream theories and hardly convinced they are right and that the problems they present would be a matter of just some adjustments. You have too much predisposition against any new possible totally different theory mainly if it comes from a non physicist one.

You're making self serving assumptions here. If a physicist isn't impressed with your website, then maybe as far as you know it could be because they're narrow minded. That's one explanation. But it could also be because they know a lot of things from experience that you don't, that tell them your ideas are unlikely to work in general. Because you yourself don't understand mainstream physics, you are incapable of telling which is really the case, and assuming everyone who isn't impressed with you must be too narrow minded only breeds the potential for self delusion. You just make yourself completely unreachable.

In inviting experienced physicists to look at your work, you have to accept that what we have to say may not be what you want to hear.

You quickly answered that my new aproach cannot explain them not giving any chance but without considering it properly I think. I think is possible it could.

You're saying that without properly considering the behaviour in question. I can see your website and I know quantum behaviour. I'm making a judgement based on actual experience with quantum behaviour. You, on the other hand, are arguing based on little more than faith.

May be I could not give you the right arguments right now. This does not mean they don't exist.

But it means we have no reason to believe they exist. Even there, when we look at your ideas, we're not only considering whether your ideas simply would or wouldn't work. We're also anticipating how many special assumptions and how much special pleading you're likely to need along the way. You don't explain something general like interference in quantum physics for example. You only give an explanation for one special case of it (double slit interference) that won't naturally apply to general cases of interference. And like I said, there's the occasional good general argument like Bell's theorem that indicates your ideas will probably not work in some cases.

 

[martillo]

I will wait for otherones that could get interested.
Some few books were purchased...

 

[Masterov]

Yes. Stop.
Relax:

First lesson
(story, fantasy, if want it...)​

-- Can you travel back in time?

-- No, Master.

-- Want to learn?

-- Yes, but it is not possible. Traveling in space is simple, but in time ... This miracle is possible in fantasies only, in fairy tales, and is need a "Time Machine" for it.

-- Yeah? The tale is that all? And where were you yesterday?

-- Well ... Yesterday ... Yesterday we met to you. In the park. It was like a miracle. It's probably some kind of trick? Hypnosis? Yes? ...

-- Yesterday you were in Yesterday, now you're in Today, and tomorrow will be in Tomorrow. Do you still insist, that are not able to travel back in time?

Pause...

-- No, I can do it!

-- But a minute ago you did not known how to do it.

-- No, I was able! Just do not know about it. I did not understood it.

-- But you called it as impossible, as a miracle, which is possible only in fantasies, in fairy tales, and this would require a time machine even there. You yourself said so, and you obviously made ??a mistake somewhere, right? Or - not a miracle, or the world is unreal, or something else wrong ...

-- Stop! Have mercy, Master ... I have to go through this. Give me time.


We walked in silence along the concrete embankment of Volga, and maybe - Oka. These two (by European standards) huge rivers merge into one at this point, and the right bank, in fairness, it belongs to the Oka and the left - the Volga. I thought of this first lesson, because everything is more or less important in my life began then. I was stunned. One simple, obvious question, and in my head "grenade exploded." And it was only the beginning.

 

[Masterov]

-- You said that just to travel in space. Let fly to the moon. Let bathe there in an ice-hole. Is it too much for you to do that?

-- I did mean not it... By the way, on the moon there is no water. How can there be a "ice-hole"?

-- Who told you that there is no water on the moon?

-- Scientists.

-- Ah, those ...

-- But they were looking for, Master, and was not found.

-- Water exists on the Moon! It there a lot. More: to say right that on Moon is almost exist nothing - water only.

-- But this is impossible. The Americans landed on the moon, walked on its surface and brought back soil, and water was found. Water is not there! Teacher, you are mistaken!

-- What we see on the moon, it's ice, which covered with a layer of dust. The thickness of the ice - a few kilometers, and lower (under the ice) of about 500 km. water.

-- Master, I will listen to you, out of respect for your gray hair, but the debate on this topic I refuse!

-- Well, listen. Water on the moon you see yourself now. You'll see up one's ears.

If the moon were silicate sphere (just as Earth), then their average density (mass/volume) would be little different. You can easily see (taking advantage of the school handbook for physics), that the average density of the moon refers to the average density of Earth's something like 3/5. The difference is very great! This means that the Moon on 2/5 is easier than one would expect from the silica sphere. The radius of the moon should be at 250 km. less. This is First.

Pay attention to the small craters on the lunar surface. They are what they should be: a conical funnel with ditchbank. But the larger craters look else. Large craters resemble the ice-hole, which left behind a fisherman. Fisher drilled ice, water filled the hole and freezed. From the ice-hole was the ditchbank only.

Large meteorites have enough energy to through pierce the ice, but the small energy is not enough. Therefore, from the large craters were ditchbanks only, and a conical funnel (holes) in the center of large craters there. This is Second...

-- But Americans landed on the lunar surface. They could not help but notice that landed on the ice.

-- Do not interrupt me! ... Do not rush ... They noticed, but they did not understand. Desert stage of the rocket fell on the surface of the moon (during the launch of Americans from its surface), causing seismic vibrations. These seismic oscillations recorded seismic sensors, which the Americans set on the lunar surface. Strange not beginnings of the seismic vibrations, but strange the fact that they went around a few times around Moon's surface. The seismic vibrations must were damped, as Luna is silicate ball. Those (whom you call by scientists) are in perplexity on this event for several decades. But do not try to explain to them to prove that the stage of the rocket fell on the ice, like a pea on a water mattress. It is a cause of the vitality of surface vibrations. These people will not listen to you. Do not even try to convince someone who does not want to hear from you. Do not waste time in vain.

Are you wish more arguments? I have a lot of them.

-- No. I give up.

-- You are trying to argue with me, that you make me excuses, so our communication is drowning in details, such as: "Is there water on the moon, or - no?".
This question is interesting, and perhaps, for someone important... Of course important, but - private. You yourself will answer these and many other issues.
You will see: Martian continents, which are frozen into Martian oceans , you'll see geysers along the shores of these continents, snow drifts, dips and cracks in the Martian permafrost, see the movement of Martian ice, but - you do it yourself!.
I came here to help you become a magician. I can not transform you into a magician, I can only help you to become one of we.
I can not teach you how to travel in space and time, but I can help you learn it.
But first you must learn to discuss without arguing. Try to understand me, and not challenged.
You and I have not enough time, so we could spend it on little benefit disputes with each other.

-- But a magicians and a miracles are no exist! Well, ... except in fairy tales.

-- You argue with me again...
So you say that miracles do not happen?
What do you call a miracle?

-- Well, ... That's all they know. The miracle is ...

-- A miracle is an event. Agree?

-- Well, ... Yes. I agree.

-- A miracle is an event that ... Go on.

-- Which not happened formerly. Am I right, Master?

-- Yes.
If this event is repeated every day, after going to happen the first time, you're will be to call it as a miracle?

-- Yes, of course ... That is, no! It will become commonplace and cease to be a miracle

-- I.e. we call a miracle something that we have not yet had time to get used to?

-- Yes. I think so. I agree.

-- Everything in this world happens the first time formerly. The world in which you live, is full of miracles. They circle. You're used to them, you do not notice it. All doing so.
Try to understand it.
Become a kid again, who was born yesterday and saw all for the first time.
Doing oneself astonished by customary, as children do, and the world full of wonders, will be open for you.
This is important because that a miracles will become your skill soon.

-- Let's be a pause, Master? I need to think about.

We walked in silence on the sandy spit. Feet were drowned in the warm sand. It was the beginning of summer.

Masterov A.(2006)​