The church of SM physics

  • If you accept that gravity is an easy derived EM force then you ultimately can stop all research on GR and many other fields like string theory or CERN.


    So do you really think they will allow to kill themselves??

    Yes. I think a paper deriving gravity from EM force would be published if it was well written and well reasoned.


    What did the editor offer as an explanation for not sending your manuscript out for review.

  • I think a paper deriving gravity from EM force

    I don't think it would get past the first read,

    , given the thousands of research physicists ..mathematicians.. professors who

    make a living off QFT and other quantum nonsense..since 1926,,

    more than seven decades of nonsense,

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.08053.pdf


    "The fact that QFT does not have (as we will see) one clear and universal set of axioms likely shows that the
    physical understanding is still lacking.

    Hence, we argue, it is a challenge both for physicists and for mathematicians to define QFT.

    Home: Quantum Mechanics I, 2014: TIFR

  • https://www.google.com/search?…&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 The best thing is a Google review, and all the other magazines are just stupidity and everything is hidden under this technique. Do as I do, my first articles on the Internet on the first page and everyone will know everything...

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:

  • , given the thousands of research physicists ..mathematicians.. professors who

    The SO(4) physics model would destroy the live of several 100'000 physicists in most areas of today's interest.


    - General relativity

    - Quantum gravity

    - String theory

    - Particle physics

    - Nuclear physics

    - Almost all explorative particle experiments


    NIST would have to correct the fake QED corrections made for the 4-He mass and other fudged constants made to fit QED..


    The more you reason about the crap invented by fake genius lake Dirac the more desperate you become about the true intentions behind science.

    The biggest shame is using the 4 potential for particles. Only complete ignorantes lacking basic knowledge can construct physics from such simplistic math.

    A particle has no stable 4-potential because the moment B field freely rotates !! Of course you can not gauge the particle 4-potential because the charge source for the moment field is not the same as the external charge. So classic gauge transformations fail.

  • The SO(4) physics model would destroy the live of several 100'000 physicists in most areas of today's interest.

    ...

    So far, what I have understood is that when you submitted a manuscript on your SO(4) theory to a peer reviewed journal, it did not move forward as you hoped.


    Setting aside your reasoning as to motivations ... you must have received some communication from some editor at the journal as to why your manuscript was returned to you without review. What did the editors say?

  • The SO(4) physics model

    Its allowed on the fringes though..as a fictitious model for the hydrogen atom..


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Its allowed on the fringes though..

    You can use SO(4) also to map the SO(3)xSU(2)xU(1) SM physics to a more consistent space. But also the lady just uses 3D,t not 4D,t2 or, 5D,t.

    If you use only 3 rotations of SO(4) you leave the minimal Lagrangian if you map the flux on a manifold as we can see from the proton calculations that show a 9/8 torus relation.

    OF course with the requirement to have a stable, homogeneous non crossing flux! What is not possible on SO(3)! or SU(2)

  • Isn't there any way to get invitations or apply for a lecture or as a speaker on those various conferences related to these topics?

    Well, in general you need to keep paying to attend and submitting abstracts. A slow and patient business and it is not easy if you are not from a company or a university. For theoreticians they like a university.

  • Well, in general you need to keep paying to attend and submitting abstracts. A slow and patient business and it is not easy if you are not from a company or a university. For theoreticians they like a university.

    zorud , being “in the fringe” (more correctly, on the bleeding edge) of science is never easy, ideas that are self coherent and allow to make useful predictions, but challenge the predominant paradigm are, even on these days in which we value evidence above all, met with resistance. Have we not learnt anything after 33 years of studying a paradigm challenging field that has just begun to be accepted as potential valid science?

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • There should be ways to spread the word on your theory, other than just waiting for a publication in a major science media...?

    Did you ever try to teach a trained SM monkey ??

    Try to explain him the following::


    You cannot describe a particle with a single 4 potential and even less using the classic Coulomb gauge as usually one just leaves left out the strongest field - the one generated by the internal charge = magnetic momentum. The magnetic momentum is never stable and directed !!! Also do the two charges (the momentum generating one and the externally visible) not overlap what disallows gauging.

    So basically current SM physics (about mass and particles) is fringe nonsense.

  • Did you ever try to teach a trained SM monkey ??

    Try to explain him the following::


    You cannot describe a particle with a single 4 potential and even less using the classic Coulomb gauge as usually one just leaves left out the strongest field - the one generated by the internal charge = magnetic momentum. The magnetic momentum is never stable and directed !!! Also do the two charges (the momentum generating one and the externally visible) not overlap what disallows gauging.

    So basically current SM physics (about mass and particles) is fringe nonsense.

    I never tried. But I am sure, I would fail as well, if I officially call out loud that all stuff related to current mainstream SM physics is nonsense and believers or "trained" in that are monkeys... Maybe a start can be to provide sustainable evidence that the the current model fails to explain specific experimental findings, while your theory shows a much better and more accurate model for this? As an alternative or improvement... Just saying...It is a pity that such stuff seems to be discussed more or less in this forum only. And those who never read here will never know...

  • I never tried. But I am sure, I would fail as well, if I officially call out loud that all stuff related to current mainstream SM physics is nonsense and believers or "trained" in that are monkeys... Maybe a start can be to provide sustainable evidence that the the current model fails to explain specific experimental findings, while your theory shows a much better and more accurate model for this? As an alternative or improvement... Just saying...It is a pity that such stuff seems to be discussed more or less in this forum only. And those who never read here will never know...

    It is often the case that the people more capable of seeing through the holes of a paradigm are also relatively less capable of succeeding in making others see those same holes. It is never an easy task. Well documented by Thomas Kuhn in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • It is often the case that the people more capable of seeing through the holes of a paradigm are also relatively less capable of succeeding in making others see those same holes.

    Mills already measured the H*-H* potential (between 495 and 496 eV) in 2013 (linked the paper in the LEC thread) . But he added his Hydrino crap upfront and so nobody did read/see his findings.

    This finding is one of the experimental refutations of SM. Also Sardins neutron diffraction experiment that shows the nuclear charge is toroidal or B.Schaeffer that shows the nuclear force = magnetic force.


    There are many more...


    But the physics sect is well organized and tries as hard as possible to survive in front of the feeding bowl. These folks try to hide behind complex math (in reality its simple) and explain critics should be made on this level, what is totally absurd.

    Dirac ( a mathematician with no clue of physics) had no real knowledge (experiments were poor) about the electron/proton structure when he invented his crappy formula. So we can only blame him for blindly accepting the nonsense invented by his ancestors.

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.