To paraphrase Dick Feynman, It doesn't matter how pretty a model or theory is, if it doesn't agree with experiment it is wrong. Feynman's Nobel contribution, Quantum Electrodynamics, is often remarked to be the most accurate physical theory ever developed. The reason that we left classical physics was because the quantum and relativistic theories were a better description of nature as we found it than classical physics ever was. Following Feynman, I suggest that returning to classical physics would be a BIG mistake. Best wishes, D. Booth

David Eugene Booth

Dear David, I am so sorry that you did not understand me. What did I say about? Not only about method of describing but method of thinking. To describe world phenomena according to external parameters (to find y=(х)) is work of accountant. I would like to get into the BLACK BOX, find out the reasons for the laws in order to govern them (please look at the picture).

Newton and Einstein are formalists. They ask HOW, but not WHY. Result: now we know about nature of Gravity no more than 400 years ago. Their mass has an innate ability to attract, and planets and stars fly in the void.

I found the cause of gravity, developing the ideas of Descartes. I am happy to have completed the great work of Maxwell. An electromagnetic field is responsible not only for electricity, but also for gravity.

If you find some free time, take a look at my profile.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Valery, I appreciate what you are saying however science is about how., That is why God did it is a very acceptable answer to why? to some not in science anyway. Best, David

Dear Sydney,

Tanks a lot for your smart letter. But I do not quite agree with some of your thoughts. For example, you say:

"Newtonian gravity doesn’t transfer energy because it acts like a vector field."

This is not entirely true. Let the meteorite fly evenly in interplanetary space. In the gravitational field of the Earth, it accelerates. Consequently, the gravitational field transfers energy to it.

Another example. Higgs field not open experimentally. Mass is the quality of matter in the particle.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

I suggest physics started down the wrong path when it started to deviate from Newtonian model structure. For example, the Young's experiment was thought to imply light was only waves. Newton suggested it was a corpuscle directed by waves in an ether. QM has had little success in describing interference experiments (oh,sure it got the simple ones, but the more complex experiments reject he wave models). Newton suggested using the macro example of a stone in water to produce waves, If we use a wood float we could have something like the "walking drop" which was shown to produce interference effects.

Another more relevant to the previous discussion. Newton used a method of measuring position and time. The "mass" (gravity and inertial) were proportionality constants to give a transform/mapping of "force" which is purely a mathematical construct like the left side of the GR field equation. Newton did not use a more abstract construct of energy. IMHO we would be better and have a better understanding if we forget "energy" and stick to the mapping math manipulation of "force".

Thus a universal equation was developed in the STOE and applied to astrophysics, cosmology, interference, and Maxwell's Equations.

Dear John,

You have not read my question. I am talking about the need to recognize the electromagnetic field as an external medium, i.e. ether. But in your answer there is nothing about the field. I say that in Newton and Einstein mass has an innate ability to attract, and stars and planets fly in the void. I am a greater Cartesian than Descartes himself. When I introduce the world environment of the field, the whole picture of nature gets on its feet. I would like to know your opinion about this.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

David Eugene Booth :Do you mean Richard Feynman? If he of all people said: 'It doesn't matter how pretty a model or theory is, if it doesn't agree with experiment it is wrong' than his pretty Quark theory is wrong.

I came to understand that the most scientists on the one hand insist on the learned theories and on the other hand they are unable to analyse the experimental results, observations etc. unbiased. They rather belive such spiritual creations like quarks, black holes, dark matter and so on. The objective reality is not a result of godly or human ideas an last but not least a mathematical derivation. Recognition is a very rocky road.

The matter as the object of physics is completely uniform in its origin. There exist not dozens of different particles and quite a few forms of matter.

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

Dear Hans,

I've read your work "The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei. Available" with great interest. It is very clear written. You write for example:

"It would be more correct to use the terms „inverse particles“ and„inverse matter“ instead of „antiparticles“ and „antimatter“. The duality of all real particles is based solely on the duality of electron and positron." I agreed with you. And I'd like to see more about physical mechanism into particles.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Valeriy Pakulin

The suggestion was that we should re-start physics from Newton where Young's experiment should have been interpreted according to Newtonian postulates of matter (the photon) and waves in an ether (My plenum because I add a few characteristics to the ether). The conversion from force analysis to energy analysis only muddied the understanding while also serving to divert attention into more complex math (it people cannot increase understanding with postulates, make it more complex so people can appear smart).

If there are only 2 (the minimum number possible - 1 has a problem) components, one must be discrete the other continuous. Now we address your question. The continuous is suggested to be the magnetic field. A series of experimental papers shows how (using permanent magnets - I hold the fractal principle : Newtonian scale observations can be an analogy to the small) the magnetic field evolves to the gravitational field in the STOE. The vortexes caused by moving matter is reserved for the electric field. Gravity is still the divergence of the plenum as is GR.

Experiments have shown the Maxwell's equations as a group are incorrect. The Biot-Sevart Law is misinterpreted in modern science. There are 2 types of magnetic field(B). Although each equation that uses is OK, the B is not the same as implied by Maxwell. Several interference experiments have rejected the wave model of light. The STOE photon model describes them all. The photon consists of a column of hods (minimum, identical particle ). The electric field is these hods traveling with the same relative orientation as suggested by the Biot-Sevart rejection experiments. Hods travel at c. The vortex coulomb field travels at the speed of the (gravitational) waves in the plenum.

Hans-G. Hildebrandt Sorry but I believe that Murray Gell-Mann won the Nobel for Quarks not Feynman. Best wishes, David Booth

David Eugene Booth : Sorry, but I have confosed Feynman's Ideas about "Partons" and Gell-Mann's theoretical invention of "Quarks". As you know: Both trains of thought resp. both particles are nearly the same theoretical dubiousness.

Hans-G. Hildebrandt All I can say, sir, is that the Nobel committee seems to have disagreed with you at least twice. May the force be with you. David E. Booth