Breakthrough in Physics

  • As a dedicated researcher you now have to find the physical meaning of what the formula suggests as obviously some connections are missing. Having a good solution is always a nice starting point for further investigations. But in real physics there is no way to apply the proposed unit corrections...

    True (units). Because the whole consept of "mass" is wrong since Newton and the invention of "Gravity".

    Mass is not a real thing, it's a measurement result. That's why the Watt balance / Kibble balance never succeeded to have proper results. They varied between morning and afternoon.

    Michelson-Morley experiment showed that speed of light is constant. If this (kind of) experiment is done for the mass, we will notice that mass is not constant and depends on our orientation on space. So my idea could even be proven on the lab. I haven't said this so loud before, because I could not find the math, and therefore it was also impossible to define any expectations. But now Mr. Preston Guynn has showed, that it's the center of the Galaxy which counts, and the math is also clearly available, so that now it would be reasonable to do such an experiments, as the interpretation of the results would not sunk in the debate of measurement problems like with "Watt balance".

    So, for a real physics we need to start to define everything without using the unit "kg".

    This is a problem for sure! I bet this will take another generation, because we can't even use the language we have learned.

    - Force?

    - Energy?

    - Power?

    If some one has interest about these units, I've take a (blind) shot on this direction here;


    And this is my paper about it;…ything_-THE_MATH_07102016

    But at the moment, I need to admit that these are wrong, and these are just numerology, Though the area moment of inertia could have been possible massless-explanation. It's not.

  • They varied between morning and afternoon.

    In NPP2.1.7 I derive the "exact" gravitation force from the SO(4) symmetry of mass and forces (Hydrogen case). The quotes are there because gravitation is mediated by the electron perturbative mass that is slightly dependent on the nuclear mass the electron is bound to. Thus in the morning you are closer to the sun with mostly protons based mass whereas during night the more dense earth is somewhat more dominant. Gravitation is the weakest EM force and gravitational mass has nowhere in the universe the same "mass"...

  • Wyttenbach,

    Have your theories published on a peer-reviewed, well respected, scientific journal ?

    The web is full of self-published pet theories that never become mainstream.

    A question on researchgate

    Is Theoretical Physics Wasting Our Best Living Minds On Nonsense?

    Riccardo C. Storti

    added an answer

    You've asked a very big question & in my opinion, the short answer is 'yes'. I say 'yes' because, believe it or not, being recognized in Physics is very much about 'wearing the right tie'. If you're not wearing 'the right tie', you won't get your ideas taken seriously. An example of this is String Theory; produces nothing tangible, cannot be verified & consumes resources. String Theory has legions of scientific fans because some people 'wearing the right tie' advertise it. Upcoming researchers seeking a career path, jump on the String Theory bandwagon because someone 'wearing the right tie' advertises it & it affords the young researcher a potential career path. Professional Physics is a difficult way to make a living, so when placements fill-up, you need to create new placements by inventing new areas.

    Another example of 'yes' is the mass-less Photon. Absolute ZERO anything has never been experimentally observed in any form & is a Physical impossibility to verify; yet the entire Physics community sticks to 0(kg) religiously (no science, just religious belief). Rather than devoting more resources to measuring its actual value, we throw resources at String Theory etc. The Particle Data Group assigns the Photon a Mass-Energy Threshold, but the broader scientific community ignores the whole problem. The significance of knowing this number is enormous, it could be the biggest thing in Physics & can help explain other concepts such as Dark Matter & Dark Energy.

    The primary reason I believe, that this fundamental & necessary question is not being addressed is because people 'wearing the right tie' have interests in other areas. Moreover, it is difficult to execute practical investigations of Photon Mass-Energy when doctrine stipulates that it's mass-less to begin with.

    So 'yes', our best minds are being wasted on nonsense."

    Otto E. Rossler

    "My answer to the great question posed here is: It is even worse. The sub-strand of theoretical physics named “cosmology” ignores Zwicky 1929 ever since. Physics therefore is no longer a scientific discipline but has become a superstition adorned by ten Nobel medals as a “Big Bang” theory. This is a vintage for historians of the future while the physics profession is betting everyone's life on the BB via CERN's LHC experiment. Can the dear reader see a way how to spare all life being bet against Zwicky 1929? Zwicky was proven true by the new fundamental science of Cryodynamics, sister of Thermodynamics, not long ago as no one denies in view of the technological bonanza that is implied. The current situation therefore amounts to a return to Giordano Bruno 1600 but not with one man's life being sacrificed but all life. But that cannot be: Science on skid row including Stockholm for 9 decades?? Indeed not a single media person shows any interest. Only CERN itself displays dignity: It refuses to renew its 11 years old planetary safety report LSAG but this is to no avail because no media person inquires into the why. And the LSAG carries no date so the public can’t spot the for 11 years lacking planetary safety report. Nor can Trump or Xi and the emperor and the pope and Israel. “Dying for the Big Bang with an odds of ten percent” is the parole -- ever since Einstein’s friend Fritz Zwicky started to overtax the planetary IQ. Thank you, dear colleague, for your most original scientific question!"

    • Official Post

    I do not think Wyttenbach wears the right tie. He does have 2 papers at Researchgate though. BTW, Rossi has a paper there also, and....if you have not already heard, he has over 26,000 "reads". :)

    Wytten does have a few of the big names in LENR as Followers, and has successfully put his LENR theory to the test against experimental results. That makes him someone who should be taken seriously.

  • Wyttenbach,

    Have your theories published on a peer-reviewed, well respected, scientific journal ?

    If you mention Mills as an author and use math SM people don't understand/know (SO(4)) you get kicked out before a reviewer can read it...

    In fact the US dominated publication system has imposed an1984 like mind terror that started with killing people/"alternate knowledge" in Wikipedia/arxiv first. If you are not an approved member/scholar of what I call mafia then you have to find alternate way for publishing.

    80 years ago a model did attract people if it could exactly describe experiments and physical facts. Today you have to exactly repeat the nonsense people talk since 50 years. (even worse you have to confirm that they are correct...)

    Unluckily my new model matches extremely well with the experiment. Even more unluckily all the factors and metrics are given by known math (quaternions, SO(4)). But there is no match with SM...

    I know that after some time there will be no way around than looking at a new method and if there already exists one it will be very helpful.

    I will sum up the found facts and possibly publish a book.

  • I understand what you mean, however these arguments are similar to those proposed by risible tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists, i.e. exist a global Mafia (that is behind 9/11, massive migration, drug-trade, false-flags, etc. ) that controls mainstream media and politics

  • Dear Sirs,

    There is no "conspiracy's". It's just lack of better knowledge. I mean the physics has reached the level, where it's almost complete. And Standard Model just is so widely discussed that is used as a reference. It's obviously not very easy to abandon this model with something which is less complete, as the possibility of this model not being even able to reach the completeness of Standard Model must be low. etc. etc.

    So instead of debating something like above, though it might be interesting, the major problem is not "wrong tie" or anything like that. The only thing we need is to keep working out the problems and produce better answers. I have already tried this once;…f_Physics_3032016_version

    And I was quite happy already when I wrote this few years ago. Now after Mr. Preston Guynn has provided the math I was missing, this kind of paper could be worked out even more properly.

    But before this can happen, we need to be able to abandon our own "conspiracy of understanding. "

    I think the major problem is the belief, that from atomic mass difference could be some energy source. That just cant be true if the whole mass is created by some galactic rotation & precession which are better known as "gravitational force". Every proton and electron have a certain energy, but that's it.

    ... I think...

    But what needs to be done? Just a better model must be created, and then will happen was planck has said;

    • Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.

    A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

  • As for scientific conspiracies, it might interest you to read about the 'Jasons' a top secret group of US scientists who act as 'gatekeepers' for the development of advanced technologies.

    They advise the government about what R&D programs to support. I think mainly in physics and weapons. I do not think they have any influence over government spending in things like biology, medical research or at the CDC. They have no influence at all over private industrial research, where no one has heard of them. They have no influence in other countries. So I wouldn't call them "gatekeepers." They have limited power. The gate they keep can easily be gotten around. They have been strongly opposed to cold fusion. Perhaps they managed to torpedo some of the funding. Many other people and organizations are also opposed to cold fusion, so perhaps these others did all the torpedoing. I wouldn't know.

  • And I was quite happy already when I wrote this few years ago. Now after Mr. Preston Guynn has provided the math I was missing, this kind of paper could be worked out even more properly.

    Do you really think ? Eq 15,16 are e.g. derived by given mass ratio thus they must match no new insight... And what about the proton radius he claims to calculate? Can you give any experiment where it has been approximately measured?

  • It's obviously not very easy to abandon this model

    Explaining the anomalies that flawed SM can't explain .... by a mirror universe…erse/ar-AADRMiM?li=AA4Zor

    why not just use Ptolemaic epicycles.. the end is nigh for SM

    The theory of mirror matter predicts a hidden sector made up of a copy of the Standard Model particles and interactions but with opposite parity.

    If mirror matter interacts with ordinary matter, there could be experimentally accessible implications in the form of neutral particle oscillations.

    Direct searches for neutron oscillations into mirror neutrons in a controlled magnetic field have previously been performed using ultracold neutrons in storage/disappearance measurements, with some inconclusive results consistent with characteristic oscillation time of

    10~s. Here we describe a proposed disappearance and regeneration experiment in which the neutron oscillates to and from a mirror neutron state.

    An experiment performed using the existing General Purpose-Small Angle Neutron Scattering instrument at the High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory could have the sensitivity to exclude up to 15~s in 1 week of beamtime and at low cost.

  • Do you really think ? Eq 15,16 are e.g. derived by given mass ratio thus they must match no new insight... And what about the proton radius he claims to calculate? Can you give any experiment where it has been approximately measured?

    Well, Mass ist the measurement,where explaining mathematik has been missing. The power of this work of Guynn is that it shows that mass (gravitational force) comes from galactic rotation. We have enough measurements for "gravity" but no explaining physical theory ...

    edit; the radius fits perfectly to my insights. But to open eyes; what id the radius of Earth? would it be possible to have some other values by just changing definitions? This radius of guynn explains measured stuff with high accuracy.

    ...Like Euler radius for turbines...

  • Is There A Simpler Perspective On Some Fundamental Laws Of Physics?

    By analyzing the relationship between the Maxwell and Dirac equations, they show that the “four-component Dirac spinor field” is nothing else than electromagnetic energy-momentum, whose dynamics is described by the Dirac equation. Subsequently, they derive from the model all the essential features of the electron: its mass exactly corresponds to its electromagnetic energy, its charge surface is on a sphere at the classical electron radius, its zitterbewegung (ZBW) radius is the reduced Compton radius (in the rest frame), we derive its relativistic increase of mass, show that its charge surface retains its spherical shape under any Lorentz boost, and obtain its correct magnetic moment and ZBW frequency as well.

    In other words, the book explains how electromagnetic fields comprise the electron mass. This resolves the mystery of what the electron mass is “made of” (widely discussed here: Clifford Algebra and Maxwell-Dirac theory)

  • Masse is energy, energy is mass E= mc2

    Ok? Wow!

    What new stuff this would "simpler perspective" would imply?

    The short answer is always the same: I dunno!

    It's should be clear to all now, that significant new advances in physics can come exclusively from large, well funded, organization as CERN or very large international projects as ITER. It's important to discover always new particles and new laws that enrich more and more our knowledge database. SM is at moment the most advanced and consequently complex model available for understanding physical reality.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.