Gravity and Electromagnetism Unified via Negative Mass Field

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Взаимодействие с другими людьми Вы написали - "Is this your own original theory? It is fine if it is but you should preface your description with a disclaimer to that effect.

i can't understand your response, of course. If you can't respond in a way I can understand to my english response to your original english post, please stop posting here. Especially in such a know it all style.

Erm, please don't discourage our Russian friend from posting. Cherepanov2020 , do you have a mathematical model of your conclusions? Is it an algorithm?

Взаимодействие с другими людьмиВзаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from DnG

Если бы вы использовали другой путь, это было бы все равно, что принять текущую сейсмическую активность как прямой взгляд на инкубационную боль, поскольку гравитационная волна радио "осьминог может передавать" информацию.

Лучше всего преодолеть взгляд на разрыв поколений Anno Domini в 2020 году и начать с истинной науки.

понимаете, о чем я ... это звучит глупо.

Вы - имея ввиду современное поколение физиков, общаетесь с удивительным человеком... Я физик ядерщик, которого , как и многих из Вас учили по "старой физике", в НИЯУ МИФИ с 1972 по 1978 год... Я делал свой дипломный проект по теме лазеров ядерной накачки... 12 лет отработал оператором и начальником смены (с 1983 года) научно-исследовательского реактора ИРТ-МИФИ... Странная метаморфоза произошла со мной - человеком, который получил оценку "отлично" на экзамене по "квантовой физике" и который через 40 лет понял, что квантовой физики в природе нет... Как это случилось ? Очень просто... Квантовая физика развалилась ровно в тот момент когда я разобрался в ошибках Нильса Бора, которые нашёл Канарёв Ф.М., и я понял ТО. что электроны не имеют вращательного движения вокруг ядра атома.... Это был 2017 год... А в 2018 году я понял ТО, что математики насильно посадили ЗАРЯД на протон и электрон - нет в природе электрических зарядов, нет электрического поля... И самое главное НЕТ КУЛОНОВСКОГО БАРЬЕРА в природе, а есть барьер вторичного магнитного поля или ЧЕГО-ТО такого физику ЧЕГО мы пока не понимаем... Но... Но ещё раньше - в 1999 году, занимаясь гравитационной гимнастикой у своего УЧИТЕЛЯ - Самодумова Анатолия Ивановича, я оторвал от земли 1250 кг...

Об этом моя статья -

«Ещё раз о фотонной в вполне .... doc» - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/tNkY/S4qiU9j4x

«Ещё раз о фотонной в вполне .... doc» - https://drive.google.com/file/…80IsgZvF/view?usp=sharing

Я не поленился и перевёл оригинальные трактаты Кулона, перевёл статью 1899 года немецкого физика Шребера -

Физик Чарльз Кулон и Кавендиш, 15 сентября 2020 г. - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4MUd/Ao4WCYyFq

Физик Чарльз Кулон и Кавендиш, 15 сентября 2020 г. - https://drive.google.com/file/…65DWsrpu/view?usp=sharing

АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ СОВРЕМЕННОЙ ФИЗИКИ, 1993-2020 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/43mg/5i64hswxz

АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ СОВРЕМЕННОЙ ФИЗИКИ, 1993-2020 - https://drive.google.com/file/…krPt51mE/view?usp=sharing

И передо мной открылась совсем другая картина мира...

DEUXIÈME MÉMOIRE. - «Вторая Памятка Кулона», 1785 год - https://drive.google.com/file/…WBiu0I_k/view?usp=sharing

DEUXIÈME MÉMOIRE. - «Вторая Памятка Кулона», 1785 год - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5BjX/53n16KZqW

DEUXIÈME MÉMOIRE. - http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/fpage.…21-1/126/90/416/0079/0316

«3-я Памятка» Кулона - « TROISIEME MEMOIRE », 1785 год - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2PQR/ZmiskSvXh

«3-я Памятка» Кулона - « TROISIEME MEMOIRE », 1785 год - https://drive.google.com/file/…PQAcr0IV/view?usp=sharing

ПОВЕРХНОСТЬ ДВУХ ЭЛЕКТРОПРОВОДЯЩИХ СФЕР - https://drive.google.com/file/…La-Nz2Gj/view?usp=sharing

ПОВЕРХНОСТЬ ДВУХ ЭЛЕКТРОПРОВОДЯЩИХ СФЕР - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/36jS/5fWpDQ6Ta

SUBFACE DEUX SPHÈRES CONDUCTRICES ÉLECTRISÉES -

http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/fpage.…21-1/381/90/416/0079/0316

Переписка с Игорем Николаевичем Степановым от 22 июня 2020 года - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4h1j/54HyDgNC9

Переписка с Игорем Николаевичем Степановым от 22 июня 2020 года - https://drive.google.com/file/…QXo7AcNN/view?usp=sharing

Ниже фото 1999 года... Я отрываю от земли 900 кг...

Quote from Dr Richard

Erm, please don't discourage our Russian friend from posting. Cherepanov2020 , do you have a mathematical model of your conclusions? Is it an algorithm?

Давайте не будем торопиться... Ещё в 2015 году я также как и Вы ничего не знал о НОВОЙ физике... Слово "новая" условное... Это та же старая физика , в которой исправлены ошибки и заблуждения физиков прошлого... Не торопитесь с выводами... Внимательно изучите статьи и книги Канарёва Ф.М. -

ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF MODERN PHYSICS , 1993-2020 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/43mg/5i64hswxz

ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF MODERN PHYSICS , 1993-2020 – https://drive.google.com/file/…krPt51mE/view?usp=sharing

Я нашёл ошибки и у Канарёва...

Глубокие заблуждения Нильса Бора изложены мною в моих статьях - «История заблуждения старых физиков, 25 сентября 2018 года.doc» - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Mwxa/y4hgXQCA3

и «Чего не ведают лжеучёные всего мира, 2 октября 2018 года.doc» - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/HJcC/SxeYUq5nD

«О фатальных заблуждениях математиков в физике элементарных частиц, 11 октября 2018 года.doc» - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/8Dx3/4gCuoemrD

«Фатальные заблуждения Канарева, Шевелева, Черняка, Окуня и Храпко, 24 ноября 2018 года.doc» - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/5GLN/d1aYKtCmh

As it turned out - and this is logical, I was not the only one who considered the fallacy of the Coulomb Law ... Here are the articles by Grigory Shpenkov, whose delusions about the CHARGE are obvious to me -

Philosophy of Content: Form and Coulomb's Law, 1998 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2EqK/4sNVXGUvy

Philosophy of Content: Form and Coulomb's Law, 1998 - https://drive.google.com/file/…u7FFi4Yt/view?usp=sharing

G. P. Shpenkov and L. G. Kreidik, 2002- What the Electric Charge is - https://shpenkov.com/pdf/Elec-Charge.pdf

Grigory Shpenkov - The Nature of Gravity, 03/14/2017 - https://shpenkov.com/pdf/GravityNature.pdf

“In the objective system of units CGS (cm, g, s), k was taken as a dimensionless unit, k = 1, which led to the absurd dimension of the charge q, expressed in fractional powers in units of length and mass ([q] = g^1/2 cm ^3/2 s^-1). "

Physicist Charles Coulomb and Cavendish, 15 September 2020 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4MUd/Ao4WCYyFq

Physicist Charles Coulomb and Cavendish, 15 September 2020 – https://drive.google.com/file/…65DWsrpu/view?usp=sharing

Quote from Cherepanov2020

“In the objective system of units CGS (cm, g, s), k was taken as a dimensionless unit, k = 1, which led to the absurd dimension of the charge q, expressed in fractional powers in units of length and mass ([q] = g1/2 cm 3/2 s-1). "

Yes indeed absurd. The unit of charge is g^1/2m^1/2

Взаимодействие с другими людьмиВзаимодействие с другими людьми

Quote from Wyttenbach

Я все еще жду фотона с отрицательной энергией ...

Может быть, однажды стоит попробовать найти эксперимент, подтверждающий вашу модель!

Не надо ничего измышлять подобного... Фантазии ... Зачем они нам... Мы ведь занимаемся физикой... Это у математиков энергия может быть отрицательной... Им это простительно - они пользуются математическим формализмом... Но... Но не надо пускать математиков в нашу любимую физику с их фантастическими измышлениями - они таким образом уводят нас от истины и заводят физику в тупик ! Физики ввели понятие "энергия" = "работа" для математического анализа своих экспериментов, а не для физического анализа... И это логично - энергия не должна и не может характеризовать ни одно физическое явление !!! Поэтому "отрицательная энергия" это это БЛЕФ... Есть СИЛА и тогда начинается ДВИЖЕНИЕ... Нет СИЛЫ и нет движения тела массой "m" ... Нет Движения и нет энергии !!! В парадигме "физхимии микромира" фотон имеет массу... Но и этого мало... Фотон стартует с нулевой скорости, благодаря СИЛЕ, которая генерируется его 6 -ю магнитными полями... Фотон ускоряется и достигает скорости света... Не надо ждать фотона с отрицательной энергией, если Вы физик - её нет в природе... Ниже модель фотона Канарёва Ф.М. -

All nuclear mass is rotating at light speed. If you free some flux lines as a photon the speed is the same as on a nuclear orbit!

Quote from Wyttenbach

All nuclear mass is rotating at light speed. If you free some flux lines as a photon the speed is the same as on a nuclear orbit!

Thank you for this remark ... That is why the inertial rotation of the magnetic substance - the elements of the ether, which I called yoctomagnetics - are the rotating magnetic rings of the photon - this is exactly the rotation - the inertial rotation generates the FORCE that moves the photon in space ...

Quote from Wyttenbach

All nuclear mass is rotating at light speed. If you free some flux lines as a photon the speed is the same as on a nuclear orbit!

Here is an excerpt from my article "The History of the Delusion of Old Physicists, September 24, 2018.doc" - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/CUkC/baeFqURCR on this matter, p. 248 -

Bohr writes -

“To interpret the phenomenon of linear spectra of elements on the basis of the above view of the structure of the atom, we are forced to assume that the radiation of an atomic system occurs in such a way that ordinary concepts are not able to interpret the process in detail and do not provide a way to determine the frequency of oscillations of radiation.

We will see, however, that there is a possibility of a simple explanation of the general empirical laws of the frequencies of spectral lines, if we assume that the following law of nature is valid for any radiation of an atomic system:

during the entire duration of the radiation process, the latter has the same frequency ν, determined by this condition

frequency

hν = E '- E' ', (4)

where Ε ’and E’ ’are the energy of the system before and after radiation. Taking this law as a basis, we conclude that the spectra do not give us a picture of the motion of particles in an atom, as is accepted in the usual theory of radiation, and only allow us to judge the changes in energy during certain possible processes in an atom of the above type. "

Above, I have already given an analysis of Niels Bohr's delusions and once again draw your attention to the fact that both Ε ’and E’ are not the total energy of the system before and after radiation !!! And the system, as you understand, is the electron ... And in 1920 Niels Bohr could not even assume that the electron is a rotating system, i.e. his substance has at least the shape of a ring and as a maximum has the shape of a hollow torus - he did not know about the magnetic moment of the electron ... And it turns out that all his mathematical calculations are incorrect, since they lack magnetic interactions of the electron with the proton ... And his phrase - “ The choice of a negative sign is determined by the fact that the energy of an atom is most simply characterized by the work required to remove an electron ... "does not stand up to any criticism ... from the point of view of modern knowledge of physics ... Never and under no circumstances can energy be negative - this is what unconditional defamation of physicists, which was committed by Niels Bohr, and physicists liked it ... Why did no one pull him down? And why, until his death in 1960, did he not revise his reasoning and his delusions?

And on page 19 - “Above I gave Bohr's reasoning - ∆E = E1 - E2

The binding energy E1 of an electron of a hydrogen atom with a proton at the moment of its stay at the first energy level is equal to the ionization energy Ei, that is, E1 = Ei = 13.60 eV. When an electron absorbs a photon with an energy of 10.20 eV and passes to the second energy level, its binding energy with the nucleus decreases and becomes equal to 3.40 eV. This means that when the energies of 13.60 eV and 10.20 eV are added, the result should be obtained

E2 = E1 + ∆E = 13.60 + 10.20 = 3.40

but, it is absurd. How did Niels Bohr get out of this situation? He did it very simply. Arbitrarily rewrote the specified formula as follows

-13.60 + 10.20 = -3.40 (1)

and explained his actions by the fact that the minuses that appeared are the result of the negative charge of the electron, and thus introduced the concept of negative energy. Clever, isn't it? This is defamation ...

And in this formula, therefore, he has a "minus" - E = mv2 / r - e2 / r2

And what is the real reason for the appearance of minuses in formula (1)? The real reason is that all the energies presented in formula (1) are only parts of the total energy of the electron, which had to be subtracted from its total energy Ee and formula (1) becomes

Ee - 13.60 + 10.20 = Ee - 3.40 (2)

Now it is clearly seen that the energy of an electron in an atom is a positive value, and equation (156) reflects the change only in the binding energies of an electron during its energy transitions, and the minuses before the values of 13.60 and 3.40 mean not the negative energy, but the process of energy subtraction, spent on the bond of an electron with a proton. Understand THIS ... How strange, but indirectly, further proof leads us to the fact that the negative potential electric energy of the electron - "- e2 / r2", is absent ...

“Negative” energy is also an undeniable theoretical virus in physics. Energy characterizes the movement of bodies - there is no movement and there is no energy, therefore energy is always positive - do not believe mathematicians, they can "twist" something that completely distorts our physics ... "

"

The binding energy E1 of an electron of a hydrogen atom with a proton at the moment of its stay at the first energy level is equal to the ionization energy Ei, that is, E1 = Ei = 13.60 eV. When an electron absorbs a photon with an energy of 10.20 eV and passes to the second energy level, its binding energy with the nucleus decreases and becomes equal to 3.40 eV. This means that when the energies of 13.60 eV and 10.20 eV are added, the result should be obtained

13.60 + 10.20 = 3.40

but, it is absurd. How did Niels Bohr get out of this situation? He did it very simply. Arbitrarily rewrote the specified formula as follows

-13.60 + 10.20 = -3.40 (1)

and explained his actions by the fact that the minuses that appeared are the result of the negativity of the electron charge. Clever, isn't it?

And what is the real reason for the appearance of minuses in formula (1)? The real reason is that all the energies presented in formula (1) are only parts of the total energy of the electron, which had to be subtracted from its total energy Ee and formula (1) becomes

Ee - 13.60 + 10.20 = Ee - 3.40 (2)

Now it is clearly seen that the energy of an electron in an atom is a positive value, and equation (156) reflects the change only in the binding energies of an electron during its energy transitions, and the minuses before the values of 13.60 and 3.40 mean not the negative energy, but the process of energy subtraction, spent on the bond of an electron with a proton. Comprehend THIS ...

Let us write down similar relations for the transition of an electron from the first to the third and fourth energy levels.

Ee - 13.60 + 12.09 = Ee - 1.51 (3)

Ee - 13.60 + 12.75 = Ee - 0.85 (4)

From relations (2), (3) and (4) follows the law of formation of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom -

Ee - Ei + Ef = Ee - E1 / n2 → Ef = Ei - E1 / n2, (5)

where: Ef = hvf is the energy of the absorbed or emitted photon; Ei is the ionization energy equal to the energy of such a photon, after absorption of which the electron loses its bond with the nucleus and becomes free; E1 - the binding energy of the electron with the atomic nucleus, corresponding to the first energy level is also equal to the photon energy.

For a hydrogen atom, E1 = Ei = hv1 = hvf. Taking this into account, the mathematical model (5) can be written as follows

hvf = hvi - hv1 / n2 → vf = vi - v1 / n2 (6)

We have obtained a mathematical model of the law of formation of the spectrum of the hydrogen atom, which includes only the frequencies of absorbed or emitted photons, that is, the frequency of rotation of photons relative to their axes. And where is the frequency of rotation of an electron around the nucleus of an atom? There is no it. There is no rotational motion of the electron around the atomic nucleus!

"

I repeat it once more: The Bohr potential is the magentic resonance energy of the electron:

E_Bohr = m_e* α²! ( m_e in eV!) . No Bohr radius needed and no orbiting electron...

Quote from Wyttenbach

I repeat it once more: The Bohr potential is the magentic resonance energy of the electron:

E_Bohr = m_e* α²! ( m_e in eV!) . No Bohr radius needed and no orbiting electron...

I present to you my article ... Will it help you? I don’t know ... But I know for sure - it forces us to rethink a lot in physics –

Correspondence with Igor Nikolaevich Stepanov dated June 22, 2020 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/1mSx/2ti91GWkP

Correspondence with Igor Nikolaevich Stepanov dated June 22, 2020 – https://drive.google.com/file/…5ADwlehP/view?usp=sharing

Many, including Albert Einstein, have suggested a relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force. Such a connection would explain the role of the speed of light as a universal speed limit. It has been proposed that particles result from the balance of forces and energy minimums. For example if the electromagnetic force produces energy as the electron radius decreases but is balanced by an increase in energy required for neutrino states as the neutrino radius decreases. I have proposed and have show the math for these quantum states which create a localized gravity, (space contracts and time dilates see my patent application now abandoned). The data and analysis in my patent application prove that large amounts transmutation of elements occurs with cold fusion of deuterium and oxygen driven by the above proposed relationship. The reaction equation and stoichiometry were established with a high degree of certainty.

Those of you with more math skills than I, might consider further development of force/energy balance I have suggested above.

The standard model is based on local observations, current time and current relationships of forces, as compared to early big bang history before the lost of weak force symmetry. Hence, in the local version of the standard model, gravity seems to have very little effect and nucleosynthesis of heavy elements only occurs in massive stars. The fault here is that relativistic effects can occur on small scale, if much energy is transferred through a small area. It is no wonder that EVOs, HHO gas flames and electric arcs can cause transmutation via relativistic effects. It seems weird based on the local version of the standard model that a small object whose weight is in the range of 500 to 1000 molecular weight can transform elements like it was a massive star. But not so if a more generalized standard model considers a more active role for neutrinos like before local conditions were imposed. Hence, these mini-stars likely arise because a local rate of energy transfer restored reversibility of weak interactions and created localized gravity.

Hot fusion is the norm of a local version of the standard model. In that model hot fusion produces hot radiation (fusion results are mostly determined by the electromagnetic force.) In contrast, in these mini-stars, relativity affects outcomes. Cold fusion produces cold radiation. Rather than high energy particle and high energy electromagnetic radiation, only a very small fraction of mass lost during transmutation show up as heat. The radiation is cold in the sense that it has mass and can be brought nearly to a stop. To complete a more generalized version of standard model it would be nice to know what cold radiation is.

For those of you I lost, cold radiation is referred by many names. In this forum is mostly called strange radiation. The following link is a good way to get into some of the literature.

Bob Grigne's talk - https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/pl…c4323ddd&_x_zm_rhtaid=891

This talk echoes my understanding of the physics of free electrons - they are small magnets ... An electron has its own magnetic moment, has its own magnetic poles and its own magnetic field.

It will be interesting for you to listen to Bob Grigner from 11 minutes to 12 minutes 16 seconds ... The magnetic properties of electrons allow them to create clusters of electrons ... Moreover, the "electric current" is nothing more than a cluster of free electrons that pump energy in the form of photons from one electron to another - this is how electrical energy is transmitted through the wires ... but ... but at the same time, there is practically no drift of the free electrons themselves ...

Physicist Charles Coulomb and Cavendish, 15 September 2020 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4MUd/Ao4WCYyFq

Physicist Charles Coulomb and Cavendish, 15 September 2020 – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vBeRJDpISIo5eLOpJD_CliBN65DWsrpu/view?usp=sharing

Correspondence with Igor Nikolaevich Stepanov dated June 22, 2020 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/1mSx/2ti91GWkP

Correspondence with Igor Nikolaevich Stepanov dated June 22, 2020 – https://drive.google.com/file/…5ADwlehP/view?usp=sharing

Quote from Cherepanov2020

It will be interesting for you to listen to Bob Grigner from 11 minutes to 12 minutes 16 seconds ... The magnetic properties of electrons allow them to create clusters of electrons

Yes EVOs are made from electrons but the charge of the electrons disappears. So the electrons are no longer electrons? What is the only thing electrons can change into according to the standard model? Was does the video you reference imply at 14:44? The answer in both case neutrinos, a toroid of cold neutrinos.

Compare that thought to

Which discusses Adamenko work, Which video I linked in my last post in this string. @ 9:08 note: analogous to gravitational collapse. @ 9:54 Self sustained transformation and @ 10:29 spontaneous self compression. This is not what one would call electromagnetic but rather it fits well with a description of mass having a very high gravity. All you need to get that point is to stop requiring an enormous amount of mass to accept gravitational effects. That's what I said above. That what w-wave based states (based on W particles) do : they create a local form of gravity that uses a very small mass to achieve what would otherwise require many solar masses. These w-wave based states use the neutrino via special relativity to do all the magic.

In most LENR reactors the metal develops NAE which contain a UDH cluster which are nanostars which create most elements from carbon to a Z of almost 60. See ICCF-7 "product characteristic and energetic in thin-film electrolysis experiments" Miley et al. and it associated paper by Hora. However, in a cluster developed in a gas reaction, an equation can be derived by mass balance and stoichiometry because only two overall reactions occur. See my profile for the patent application reference.

When the chemistry is deduced one finds in the case of a UDH cluster developed in a gas reaction that the nanostar first, transferred energy via neutrinos into giant nuclear resonance of the target, then the target causes photolysis of deuterium to produce a neutron and release a proton, the neutron is absorbed by the target (oxygen). After the target has absorbed two neutrons the giant resonance in the target and the projectile are large enough for the fusion of deuterium directly to oxygen-18, the resultant fluorine beta decays to neon. Note that one can explain fusion as a shielding factor created by giant nuclear resonance. If one could place the shielding factor into the equation to calculate the magnitude of the coulomb barrier, one would find the energy requirement is cold. Yes, I just explained cold fusion using the math of hot fusion. You can see the rest of the transmutation pathway in the patent application. The reaction pathway agrees with the reaction equation and stoichiometry. Everything that happens is a result of what one can reasonable expect that the w-waves do. In this case the star catalyzes a reaction rather than being the reaction as per a very massive star.

I think I shown a reasonable expectation that cold fusion is gravity based. Electromagnetism and gravity unity via w-waves.

Quote from DnG

the gravity wave / beta ,,

the post was old but relevant in todays search but ignored in the media for now.

its a complicated mess with the science as is but I don't think it will take that long to change out the current vocabulary to something sensible.

that's why I don't think its worth talking about just yet.

It's funny that we want to leave it alone but it's the only theory that currently can describe LENR-like phenomina, ball lightning and other things people attribute to coming from 'virtual particles and Higgs "phantoms. I would call this the tech of celestials. In reality it seems completely electroweak/magnetic in nature with gravity as an emergent property.

A point that needs to make disruption is that energy is related to mass and both emerge from electromagnetism. Things don't last forever without the interplay between mass and energy. Zero point energy is subtle pushing of human immortality without a give / take contract with the laws of God and the universe. If I can't touch the "octopus", which I think has a more dignified title ... though that one is correct in some respects, why does this website exist? All the truly low energy positive results and fruitful claims reflect this formula. It's a miracle of science, living electric hydrogen and creation. A gift.

Wouldn't the dense electron / proton conditions (low mass high gravity) of claimed "EVO's" exist in the picoscale electromagnetic bonding of atomic hydrogen inside larger conductive atoms? There maybe multiple ways of attaining similar results, but one where the nuclei are at resonant balancing point close to each other, influencing but intact is preferable. Maybe these unknown particles are high energy spin ning pico-hydrides or UDH clusters of finite energy. Makes more sense to me than tabletop singularities that can't exist without feeding on zeropoint energy, though I could be biased tbh. EVO's are a false name cause practical effects have little to do with the vacuum, unless you equate microscale grav bending that takes up EM energy as "vacuum".

Quote from LeBob

It's funny that we want to leave it alone but it's the only theory that currently can describe LENR-like phenomina, ball lightning and other things people attribute to coming from 'virtual particles and Higgs "phantoms.

What you mention are just fantasies: A valid theory must be able to exactly calculate measured data. From this point Higgs idea is the worst and most fringe idea ever accepted as theory.

This happened because because SM - the second biggest fantasy - had no clue how to explain the gluons mass. Not to talk about the brain tearing nonsense of the gluons invention...

Such things like Higgs happen when people never stop to develop a model that provably is wrong for describing dense mass.

So you should replace the word theory usually just simple with idea?! Or sample model.