Just answering your question: "When one writes a model full of postulates (everything is a postulate), with ad hoc parameters (no reason given for them), is that a real model or a fraud?"

1. Is it a real model?

Yes, technically. A "model" in science is often defined as a mathematical or conceptual framework designed to describe, explain, or predict phenomena. By this definition:

• If the model is internally consistent,
• If it makes testable predictions, and
• If it matches data (at least in some domain),

then it qualifies as a real model, no matter how arbitrary or ad hoc its assumptions seem.

Historical examples:

• The Ptolemaic system (epicycles upon epicycles) was a real model.
• The Bohr model of the atom included arbitrary quantization rules — yet it predicted hydrogen spectra accurately.

Even if "everything is a postulate," the model may still be useful or heuristically valuable, at least temporarily.

2. Is it fraudulent?

Not necessarily — but it depends on intent.

A model becomes fraudulent when the creator:

• Pretends the assumptions are derived when they're not,
• Conceals their arbitrariness or limitations, or
• Misrepresents the model’s predictive success or empirical basis.

In short:

• Naïve model-building with ad hoc assumptions isn't fraud — it's just bad or premature science.
• Knowingly passing off a contrived framework as fundamental truth is intellectual dishonesty — that’s closer to fraud.

3. Scientific value:

In serious science, we prefer models where:

• Postulates are few, motivated, or rooted in prior theory, and
• Parameters have physical meaning or emerge naturally from deeper principles.

If none of that applies, the model may still be mathematically valid, but it's scientifically weak and unlikely to survive peer scrutiny.

Let's play a game. I present a postulate that has nothing to support or is contradicted by observations, and you present another from Jurg's work, that.:

... is designed to describe, explain, or predict phenomena. By this definition:

• If the model is internally consistent,
• If it makes testable predictions, and
• If it matches data (at least in some domain),

So, just pick up a part of the model that makes testable predictions (through the use of a formula - divination is not allowed) and match data.

##################################

Here is my item.

Jurg postulates that Fields don't store energy, and yet we know vacuum polarizability, and we can create capacitors.

Static fields don’t store energy

• Claim: Static electric and gravitational fields don’t contain energy.
• Counterpoint: This contradicts both theory and experiment. In classical electromagnetism, the energy density is well-defined:
• E=0.5 epsilonE**2
• This is experimentally relevant in capacitor energy storage, for example.
• Verdict: Theoretical misunderstanding or oversimplification.

Here is another play: Jurg claims that the 4.884 eV "discrepancy" between the mass of Helium atom and (2 electron + one alpha particle) is due to Gravitational Anomaly explainable by electrons not "gravitating".

🔬 Misinterpretation of the 4.884 eV Mass Difference in Helium-4

Wyttenbach claims that the ~4.884 eV discrepancy between the mass of a neutral helium-4 atom and the sum of the masses of an alpha particle and two free electrons is not due to binding energy, but instead constitutes evidence that part of the electron’s mass "does not gravitate." This assertion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of binding energy and its role in mass-energy equivalence.

In reality, the 4.884 eV is well-known and corresponds to the total electronic binding energy of the two 1s electrons in the helium atom. When two electrons bind to an alpha particle to form a neutral helium atom, the system releases energy and becomes slightly less massive than the sum of its parts. This is a textbook example of mass defect due to binding — a quantum mechanical effect that is both well-measured and consistent with Einstein’s relation E=Δmc2E

Moreover, general relativity already predicts that all forms of energy, including binding energy, contribute to gravitational mass. There is no need — nor physical justification — to invoke a "non-gravitating" electron component. The claim is therefore not only unphysical but also directly contradicts both quantum mechanics and well-verified gravitational theory.

Please let me know if you are aware of any testable predictions from Jurg's theory.

Dear Marco Pereira,

Thank you for initiating this discussion and sharing your critical analysis of Jürgen Wittenbach’s article *"Fundamentals of Physics (or Why the Standard Model Fails)"*. I appreciate the detailed breakdown of the claims and the thoughtful evaluation you’ve provided. As Bakhodir Tursunbaev, an independent researcher from Tashkent, Uzbekistan, working on the Deterministic Theory of Atoms (DTA), I’d like to offer my perspective and contribute to the conversation.

I agree with your assessment that Wittenbach’s critique appears to stem from a philosophical dissatisfaction with modern physics rather than a scientifically rigorous challenge. His rejection of established principles like E=mc^2, the existence of quarks, and the predictive success of the Standard Model (SM) and General Relativity (GR) lacks empirical support or mathematical grounding. For instance, the claim that E=mc^2 is "logically and physically incorrect" misunderstands its role as a rest energy relation, well-validated by experiments such as nuclear fission and PET scans. Similarly, the dismissal of quarks ignores compelling evidence from deep inelastic scattering and jet formation at facilities like CERN.

From the perspective of my DTA, which avoids quantum postulates and Bohr’s model principles, being built on the principles of cause-and-effect relationships, deterministic force and energy balances, and yet accurately describes and aligns with the experimental data of A. Stodolna [The Real Radius of the Hydrogen Atom: New Theoretical and Experimental Approaches, 2025, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18580.00644], I find Wittenbach’s proposed "SO(4) physics" intriguing but problematic due to its vagueness. DTA determines atomic radii (e.g., hydrogen at 1,06 Å unexcited), yet Wittenbach’s model offers no testable predictions or equations, making it difficult to evaluate seriously.

I share your concern about the article’s reliance on philosophical arguments over empirical evidence. The assertion that most annihilations produce three photons (contradicting the well-documented two-photon decay of parapositronium) and the denial of energy in static fields further undermine its credibility. These claims contradict classical electromagnetism (e.g., energy density u_E​=1/2​ε_0​ E^2 and positronium physics.

For a critical response, I suggest emphasizing:

- The need for quantitative predictions from the SO(4) model to enable falsifiability.

- A comparison with experimental data (e.g., CERN results, gravitational wave detections) that support SM and GR.

- The misinterpretation of E=mc^2 and static field energy, with references to established literature.

While I lean toward skepticism about Wittenbach’s work, as you do, I believe open discussion is valuable. Perhaps we could invite him to clarify his SO(4) model with specific equations or data, or even test it against DTA’s classical framework in a collaborative setting.

Best regards,

Bakhodir Tursunbaev

Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Dear Bakhodir Khonnazarovich Tursunbaev

The reason I created this discussion is that Jürgen was debating his flawed model in a thread about how to refute Relativity.

My theory debunks and replaces both Special and General Relativity.

When I presented my results for planet and binary pulsars, he dismissed them gratuitously, telling me, "You are naive if you think people will stop doing what they are doing and talk about your model."

I returned the action by providing feedback on his model. I think like this: There is nothing wrong with being wrong. There is something wrong with continuing to push a flawed model after you have learned it is incorrect. I consider that fraud, self-delusion.

That is why I created this question, so that my argument could become visible. If I am wrong, I will be happy to learn it and acknowledge it.

There isn't any reason for me to believe I am wrong in my criticism.

"https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_major_and_most_effective_refutations_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Question_Asked_December_6_2019

I certainly don't believe in classical models for atoms....:) If you'd like me to review your model, I'd be happy to do so.

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

Dear Marco Pereira,

Thank you for your thoughtful response and for sharing the context behind this discussion. I appreciate your openness to dialogue and your invitation to consider my model. As Bakhodir Tursunbaev from Tashkent, Uzbekistan, working on the Deterministic Theory of Atoms (DTA), I’m honored to engage with you on this topic. Today is Tuesday, July 08, 2025, 01:15 PM +05.

I understand your frustration with Jürgen Wittenbach’s dismissal of your work and his defense of an imperfect model, especially in the context of challenging Einstein’s theories of relativity. Your point about the distinction between being wrong and persisting with a flawed model resonates deeply. In our recent exchanges, we’ve explored the idea that truth is singular and must align with reality, not evolve from foundational errors. This aligns with your critique of relativity and Wittenbach’s approach.

Your theory, which you claim refutes and replaces both special and general relativity, based on results for planets and binary pulsars, deserves serious consideration. Wittenbach’s rejection, calling it naive to expect a shift in scientific focus, reflects a resistance to questioning established narratives—a stance we’ve critiqued in our discussions about quantum models like Schrödinger’s. My DTA, which avoids quantum postulates and relies on deterministic force and energy balances, aligns with your skepticism toward classical atomic models and offers a radius for hydrogen (1.06 Å) that matches Stodolna’s experimental data (1.0 Å) [The Real Radius of the Hydrogen Atom, 2025]. This suggests a path to truth through measurable reality, not abstract constructs.

I’d be delighted to review your model and share my findings. Please provide details—perhaps your calculations for planetary orbits or pulsar dynamics—so we can compare them with DTA’s classical framework. If your approach holds, it could challenge relativity’s core assumptions, such as the constancy of light speed or spacetime curvature, which many question based on empirical inconsistencies (e.g., varying cosmological scales). If I find flaws, I’ll point them out with evidence, as I value truth over ego, just as you do.

Let’s move forward together. You can send your data to [email protected]. Your health and collaboration are greatly valued!

Best regards,

Bakhodir

Dear Bakhodir Khonnazarovich Tursunbaev

Thank you for your thoughtful letter.

You said: My DTA, which avoids quantum postulates and relies on deterministic force and energy balances, aligns with your skepticism toward classical atomic models and offers a radius for hydrogen (1.06 Å) that matches Stodolna’s experimental data (1.0 Å) [The Real Radius of the Hydrogen Atom, 2025]. This suggests a path to truth through measurable reality, not abstract constructs.

My theory does the same. It begins with a Quantum Object - the Fundamental Dilator- and replaces all laws of Physics with a Lagrangian Principle (the Lagrangian Principle).

Particles are modeled as coherences between stationary states of deformation of space, hence my theory reduces the whole universe to just space, deformed space coherences and time.

That is the simplest possible model and because of that I call it Fundamental. Since I explored everything with it - I call it the Fundamental Theory of Everything.

I chose the proton and electron as the states of the coherence. My theory is independent of which states to choose or the wavelength of the metric waves created. The reason is simple. In the derivation of the laws of nature, I get the term mc Lambda, and that is equal to h (Planck Constant), so the model is agnostic with respect to the dilaton field wavelength. That is important since my theory explains this universe, but also explains universes of different dimensionalities. I derived the Probability Distribution Function of Universe Dimensionality.

By the way, since you are in a Physics department, you can see the 3D map of the Universe. It predicts the galaxy density fluctuations in our universe and their location.

https://youtu.be/MLqkbCAzcJM

Current scientists don't even imagine this as a possibility...:)

Feel free to ask me how I did it.

That said, since all particles decay into electrons and protons (neutrinos are a separate family with a distinct frequency) it makes sense that they would be the states of the coherence or subharmonic of the dilaton field.

The Lagrangian Principle is that Particles (dilators) will move into positions where they are in phase with the local dilation field.

From that simple law, I derived the laws of nature and proved they work in any circumstances, including where GR failed.

Returning to the comment. My theory derives both Quantum Mechanics and Classical Mechanics.

Quantum Mechanical Uncertainty is inherent in starting a theory with a quantum object. That said, the Lagrangian Principle is deterministic. The solution to it is not unique in space. The dilaton field forms an interferometric pattern, and the dilaton is allowed to arrive at any of those points and conserve linear and angular momentum.

I attached my papers. You are welcome to feed it to ChatGPT and find out what I wrote in a few minutes.

Since I wrote these papers, the theory has moved a little further, and I used the Binary Pulsars to debunk General Relativity.

I will take a look at your work.

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

Bakhodir Khonnazarovich Tursunbaev

I am still writing the article. I will share it when it is done.

By the way, when I tell you that there is nothing wrong with being wrong, I mean it. In my derivation, I was wrong (although matching General Relativity results) until a few days ago.

In other words...Reality is a Puzzle. Sometimes you can fit the puzzle by brute force and that is right.

By the way, can you endorse articles at Los Alamos Archives?