An atomistic theory of matter

[Atomsz]

The new atomistic theory of matter: ATOMSz

The ATOMSz is a quantum theory that quantizes the source of the fields and not the fields their self. The two kinds of elementary charges are as the sources of the fields conserved and as a consequence, the particle numbers are conserved. The ATOMSz is a quantum gravitation theory: the gravitational interaction is caused of elementary gravitational charges and is built in the particle physics. The electromagnetism and gravity is unified in one consistent field theory. The ATOMSz predicts for instance three kinds of neutrinos, each with two different masses, whereby the gravitational masses are zero. The violation of the UFF is in the range of per mill is also predicted. The nowadays used physics did not examine experimentally the UFF hypotheses with different composed bodies. The Planck’s constant h does quantize neither the energy nor the fields; it plays a role of a Lagrange multiplier in the equation of motions of the particles. The ATOMSz has solutions for the nowadays unsolved central problems of physics.

The physical scientific community does not check, it censors only the contents and remains on inconsistent scientific coventions.

 

[Atomsz]

A Memorandum has been sent to physical organizations, groups and researchers word wide, for instant to APS, DPG (German Physical Society), MTA Fizikai Osztály (Hungarian Academy of Science Physics Department) , CERN, ITER, etc. :


Scientific Memorandum in Physics
Gyula Imre Szász*gyulaszasz42@gmail.com


The Standard Model of Particle Physics and the General Theory of Relativity are inconsistent and are not fundamental theories. These standard theories are based on the quantization procedure of energy and fields and on two relativity theories; these are only a kind of scientific conventionalizm. Undeniable and irreconcilable discrepancies in physics are herein taken as an opportunity to develop a new Fundamental Theory: an Atomistic Theory of Matter (ATOM) which is intuitively, consistently and mathematically correct. This theory requires a new principle for the derivation of the equations of motion for particles and fields: the isopretic variation principle which did not have been used earlier in physics. The new principle is independent of coordinate systems, deals with four kinds of stable particles of arbitrary large velocities and uses a fundamental field consisting of the electromagnetic and the gravitational field (the Unified Field - UF). The non-conservative UF is generated by two kinds of elementary charges, propagates with the constant velocity c and is to be centralized as interaction of the particles. The UF is a quantum field theory; the sources of the field are quantized by the four stable particles: electron (e), positron (p), proton (P) and elton (E, is a negative charged proton) which carry two kinds of elementary Maxwell-charges - the known electrical and the new introduced gravitational charges. The precondition for the stable particles is that neither the position, nor the velocity is precisely known at any time. The equations of motion for the particles derived from the isopretic variation principle contain some constants, called as Lagrange multipliers: Planck’s constant h is a Lagrange multiplier and still describes the atomic shells. Below the regions of ground states of atomic shell, a second constant h 0 =h/387.7 is assigned to describe the nuclei, neutrinos and the unstable particles. For the interaction no singularities occur in very small space-time areas; the equations of motion prohibit the approach of particles very close to each other. The ATOM with the isopretic variation principle is, in contrast to the nowadays used energetic theory, a successful attempt at clarifying the unsolved central problems in physics. However, because the proposed existence of elementary gravitational charges, the oldest hypothesis of physics, the Universality of Free Fall (UFF), must be given up; the UFF is violated in order of several per mill. The acceptance of ATOM requires a paradigm shift in physics.

I don't want to write once again that all physical systems are non-closed systems and that the electromagnetism is a non-conservative interaction. Why is generally accepted that the energy is conserved and why is the quantization of energy assumed to be successful and leads to a desired result? Why is not developed a general theory for non-closed and non-conservative systems?

I don't want to write once again that all bodies have two different kinds of mass and only the gravitational mass is conserved. Why is the UFF experimentally not investigated with different composite bodies and why is the weak equivalence principle to be hold valid? Why is the inertial mass to be hold equivalent to the energy for the rest mass too?

I don't want to write once again that the laws of Nature are non-deterministic but causal. Why is only the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg accepted and not a much broader uncertainty principle?

I have explained all these central problems in physics already with their consequences and the references give detailed results to all these problems. A further discussion is superfluously and a waste of time.

References

The literature for the Memorandum is to be taken from the (self-)published works of the author because the reviewers of physical journals have rejected all his publications. A book is leading to the Atomistic Theory:

Physics of Elementary Processes; Basic Approach in Physics and Astronomy, Cerberus, Budapest (2005) ISBN: 963 219 791 7.

Several accomplishing articles are published on the website www.atomsz.com. Almost all Sections of the book are also available on the website. The most important articles are

The Atomistic Theory of Matter: Stable particles and a Unified Field,

Physikalische Evidenz; Experimentelle Bestätigung gegen empirische Behauptung,

Variationsprinzipien: klassische Massenpunkte und stabile Teilchen mit Feldern,

Paradigmenwechsel in der Physik.

 

[Atomsz]

Correspondence with DPG:

Sehr geehrter Herr Szász, 20.10.2015

Ihr Memorandum habe ich erhalten. Die DPG sieht sich allerdings nicht dafür zuständig, den wissenschaftlichen Diskurs autoritär zu steuern, indem sie eine von möglicherweise mehreren, sich widerstreitenden Theorien propagiert oder bewirbt.

Der wissenschaftliche Diskurs in der Physik wird auf Fachkongressen und in zahlreichen Fachjournalen geführt. Hier müssen sich neue Theorien bewähren und von der scientific community geprüft und dann akzeptiert oder verworfen werden. Sicherlich ist durch dieses Verfahren nicht mit hundertprozentiger Sicherheit garantiert, dass alle „richtigen“ Theorien sofort als solche erkannt werden und sich durchsetzen, und auch nicht, dass „falsche“ Theorien von vornherein als „falsch“ identifiziert werden. Es ist hier jedoch so, wie in dem bekannten Churchill-Zitat über die Demokratie: Dieses Verfahren mag ein schlechtes Verfahren sein, es ist aber eben von allen schlechten Verfahren doch das Beste, auf das die Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler bisher gekommen sind. In jedem Fall kann niemand sich wünschen, dass ein kleines Gremium (und sei es selbst die DPG) autoritär darüber entscheidet, dass ab sofort nur noch „Theorie X“ wissenschaftliche Geltung beanspruchen dürfte.

Vor diesem Hintergrund kann ich Ihnen zu meinem Bedauern nicht weiterhelfen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Georg Düchs , Vorstandsreferent , Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft e.V., Geschäftsstelle


Sehr geehrter Herr Düchs,

inhaltlich muss ich Ihrem Schreiben mit Nachdruck widersprechen. Was die DPG und die Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler für die „beste Physik“ halten, ist eine in dem 20. Jahrhundert entstandene, auf widersprüchliche Konventionen aufgebaute Sache. Die Konventionalisten haben es nur dadurch geschafft, soweit zu kommen, dass sie zu den Fachkongressen und in den Fachjournalen nur Beiträge zugelassen haben, die ihren Konventionen nicht wiedersprachen. Sie haben dabei nicht nur strenge Zensur ausgeübt, sondern sogar Messungen verboten, die ihre Konventionen eindeutig widerlegt hätten. Dadurch kann man das, was sie tun, nicht als eine Naturwissenschaft bezeichnen und das, was sie angeblich herausgefunden haben, nicht als physikalische Erkenntnisse bewerten. Die scientific community prüft nicht, sie zensiert nur.

Ich habe Sie nicht darum gebeten, die DPG-Autorität für die Atomistische Theorie der Materie einzusetzen und den wissenschaftlichen Diskurs autoritär so zu steuern, dass bei der sich wiederstreitenden Theorien eine für mich günstige Entscheidung hervorgebracht wird. Ich wollte der DPG jedoch die Augen öffnen, dass sie die oben beschriebene, prekäre Situation in der Physik erkennt und im Rahmen ihrer Kompetenzen etwas dagegen unternimmt. Es kann so nicht weitergehen. Jährlich werden Milliarden Steuergelder für etwas verpulvert, was keine Wissenschaft, was keine Physik ist. Und die ganze Menschheit wird wissentlich für dumm verkauft.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Gyula I. Szász

 

[Atomsz]

In how many papers the authors write our results show that Einstein was right. You can throw away all these papers than the results were not right.

 

[paddoboy]

In how many papers the authors write our results show that Einstein was right. You can throw away all these papers than the results were not right.

Says who? Says you? Einstein's theories still reign supreme my fellow, and no matter how many times you deny that fact, on an isolated science forum such as this, it will not change that reality.

 

[paddoboy]

A Memorandum has been sent to physical organizations, groups and researchers word wide, for instant to APS, DPG (German Physical Society), MTA Fizikai Osztály (Hungarian Academy of Science Physics Department) , CERN, ITER, etc. :


Scientific Memorandum in Physics
Gyula Imre Szász*gyulaszasz42@gmail.com


The Standard Model of Particle Physics and the General Theory of Relativity are inconsistent and are not fundamental theories. These standard theories are based on the quantization procedure of energy and fields and on two relativity theories; these are only a kind of scientific conventionalizm. Undeniable and irreconcilable discrepancies in physics are herein taken as an opportunity to develop a new Fundamental Theory: an Atomistic Theory of Matter (ATOM) which is intuitively, consistently and mathematically correct. This theory requires a new principle for the derivation of the equations of motion for particles and fields: the isopretic variation principle which did not have been used earlier in physics. The new principle is independent of coordinate systems, deals with four kinds of stable particles of arbitrary large velocities and uses a fundamental field consisting of the electromagnetic and the gravitational field (the Unified Field - UF). The non-conservative UF is generated by two kinds of elementary charges, propagates with the constant velocity c and is to be centralized as interaction of the particles. The UF is a quantum field theory; the sources of the field are quantized by the four stable particles: electron (e), positron (p), proton (P) and elton (E, is a negative charged proton) which carry two kinds of elementary Maxwell-charges - the known electrical and the new introduced gravitational charges. The precondition for the stable particles is that neither the position, nor the velocity is precisely known at any time. The equations of motion for the particles derived from the isopretic variation principle contain some constants, called as Lagrange multipliers: Planck’s constant h is a Lagrange multiplier and still describes the atomic shells. Below the regions of ground states of atomic shell, a second constant h 0 =h/387.7 is assigned to describe the nuclei, neutrinos and the unstable particles. For the interaction no singularities occur in very small space-time areas; the equations of motion prohibit the approach of particles very close to each other. The ATOM with the isopretic variation principle is, in contrast to the nowadays used energetic theory, a successful attempt at clarifying the unsolved central problems in physics. However, because the proposed existence of elementary gravitational charges, the oldest hypothesis of physics, the Universality of Free Fall (UFF), must be given up; the UFF is violated in order of several per mill. The acceptance of ATOM requires a paradigm shift in physics.

I don't want to write once again that all physical systems are non-closed systems and that the electromagnetism is a non-conservative interaction. Why is generally accepted that the energy is conserved and why is the quantization of energy assumed to be successful and leads to a desired result? Why is not developed a general theory for non-closed and non-conservative systems?

I don't want to write once again that all bodies have two different kinds of mass and only the gravitational mass is conserved. Why is the UFF experimentally not investigated with different composite bodies and why is the weak equivalence principle to be hold valid? Why is the inertial mass to be hold equivalent to the energy for the rest mass too?

I don't want to write once again that the laws of Nature are non-deterministic but causal. Why is only the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg accepted and not a much broader uncertainty principle?

I have explained all these central problems in physics already with their consequences and the references give detailed results to all these problems. A further discussion is superfluously and a waste of time.

References

The literature for the Memorandum is to be taken from the (self-)published works of the author because the reviewers of physical journals have rejected all his publications. A book is leading to the Atomistic Theory:

Physics of Elementary Processes; Basic Approach in Physics and Astronomy, Cerberus, Budapest (2005) ISBN: 963 219 791 7.

Several accomplishing articles are published on the website www.atomsz.com. Almost all Sections of the book are also available on the website. The most important articles are

The Atomistic Theory of Matter: Stable particles and a Unified Field,

Physikalische Evidenz; Experimentelle Bestätigung gegen empirische Behauptung,

Variationsprinzipien: klassische Massenpunkte und stabile Teilchen mit Feldern,

Paradigmenwechsel in der Physik.

That will make great toilet paper!

 

[Atomsz]

In how many papers the authors write our results show that Einstein was right. You can throw away all these papers than the results were not right.

Einstein has produced many conventions but very few science. The quantization of light with photons was only a convention. In "reality" the light is not quantized. The weak equivalence principle is wrong, the inertial and gravitational masses are different. The energy-mass equivalence does not hold, the elementary masses are not equivalent to energy. The gravity is not a deformation of space-time, the gravity is caused by elementary gravitational charges.
And so on, and so on ....

 

[origin]

What a waste of band width. I guess it is just best to ignore him....

 

[Atomsz]

Paradigms lost, John L. Casti (in German Verlust der Wahrheit):

Boltzmann hat als erster eine Theorie der Wärme formuliert, die auf der statistischen Betrachtung der Bewegung von Atomen beruht; der statistischen Thermodynamik.

Naturgemäß mußte er dazu Atome als real existierende kleinste Bausteine der Materie annehmen. Die Probleme, die er damit hatte, und die ihn in den Selbstmord trieben, schildert der nächste Absatz, der in loser Übersetzung aus dem Buch "Paradigms lost" von John L. Casti entnommen ist.

Boltzmanns Problem war, daß seine Theorie der Wärme ein Assemble von Atomen erforderte, das sich nach den Regeln der klassischen Mechanik bewegte. Er benutzte das Konzept eines Atoms als ein Materieteilchen, um in seiner Theorie "Wärme" als eine statistische Eigenschaft erklären zu können, die aus der Gesamtbewegung der Atome resultiert. Beachtenswert ist, daß diese Theorie um die Jahrhundertwende entstand, einige Jahre bevor die Arbeiten von Rutherford, Thomson und Bohr das moderne Konzept der Atome begründeten. Als Ergebnis seiner "atomaren Spekulationen" wurde Boltzmann in einen heißen Streit mit den damaligen Giganten der Wissenschaft verwickelt, insbesondere mit seinem Wiener Kollegen Ernst Mach und dem deutschen (physikalischen) Chemiker Wilhelm Ostwald, die kräftig gegen die Idee von Atomen argumentierten.Ostwald präferierte eine Theorie der Wärme die auf den Begriff der Energie beschränkt blieb und keine Materie brauchte.
Deprimiert durch die Angriffe seiner Gegner, aber auch durch seine nachlassende Sehfähigkeit und seinen - wie er das empfand - nachlassenden geistigen Fähigkeiten, nahm sich Boltzmann am 5. September 1906 das Leben.

Es wäre nun grundfalsch anzunehmen, daß Boltzmanns Gegner Dummköpfe waren, die das Offensichtliche nicht erkennen konnten. Sowohl Mach als auch Ostwald haben bleibende Beiträge zur Wissenschaft geleistet ("Machsche Zahl", "Ostwald-Reifung"). Auch heute noch berühmte Wissenschaftler wie Max Planck, Pierre Duhem oder Henri Poincaré gehörten zu den Gegnern der "Atome"! Was man aus dieser Episode lernen kann ist:

Auch in den Naturwissenschaften ist "Wahrheit" nicht immer sofort erkennbar; der individuelle Glaube an was "wahr" ist, hängt durchaus von Zeitströmungen und den vorherrschenden Paradigmen der Gesellschaft ab.

Daraus aber zu schließen, daß es keine naturwissenschaftlichen Wahrheiten gäbe, und alle Hypothesen und Theorien gleichberechtigt sind (was in letzter Konsequenz z.B. dazu führte, daß in vielen Staaten der USA die sog. "Creation", d.h. die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Bibel, gleichberechtigt neben der Evolutionstheorie gelehrt werden muß!) ist falsch! Denn die Wahrheit wird sich in den exakten Wissenschaften immer durchsetzen - es dauert nur gelegentlich ein Weilchen.

Ein Zitat aus einem Vorlesungsschrift der Uni Kiel (A citation from a lecture script of the University Kiel):

http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/mw1_ge/kap_2/advanced/n2_1_2.html

 

[Atomsz]

Paradigms lost has began with the wave-paticle dualizm. However, the wave-particle dualizm does not exists in Nature, only in head of scientists exists.

Waves (fields) are continuous objects and particles are localisable objects. Photons don't exist, the electromagnetic field is not quantized, and for the particles are neighter the precise position, nor the precise veliocity is ever known.

 

[Atomsz]

Particles remain allways particles without annihilation and creation. Particle number conservations are equal to Atomistic Theory of Matter.

 

[James R]

Atomsz:

You keep posting empty claims that all of science is wrong blah blah blah and you are right. But you never post any evidence or argument to support your theory.

Do you have any?

 

[Atomsz]

Atomsz:

You keep posting empty claims that all of science is wrong blah blah blah and you are right. But you never post any evidence or argument to support your theory.

Do you have any?

You don't have any physical evidence for the existence of photons. You have only have blah blah blah.

You don't have any physical evidence for the annihilation or for the creation of particles. You have only have blah blah blah.

It is really empty what you are thinking. You cannot post any physical evidence.

You can only censor and ignore.

 

[Atomsz]

And you cannot explain why the easier aluminium body quicker falls as the havier plumb body.

 

[Daecon]

And you cannot explain why the easier aluminium body quicker falls as the havier plumb body.

What are you trying to talk about?

 

[Atomsz]

That the gravitational mass of an isotope mg(isotope) in different from the inertial mass mi(isotope)

mi(isotope) = mg(isotope) (1 - Delta(isotope)),

whereby Delta(isotope) is the mass defect of the isotope.

 

[Atomsz]

Copy of a letter:

Sehr geehrter Herr Kopp,

ich bedanke mich sehr herzlich dafür, dass Sie mir einen Gesprächstermin trotz ihrer Zeitknappheit am Anfang des Semesters eingeräumt haben. Leider ist die Zeit wohl zu knapp bemessen gewesen, um Ihnen nur annähernd meine Theorie auseinanderzusetzen. Es ließ mich jedoch aufhorchen, dass Sie danach zu Ihrer Vorlesung der Quantenfeldtheorie geeilt sind. Ich habe dann zwischen Tür und Angel erwähnt, dass meine Theorie ebenfalls eine Quantenfeldtheorie ist, wobei jedoch die Quellen der Felder gequantelt sind und nicht die Felder selbst. Im Gegensatz zur QED habe ich nicht mit unendlichen Integralen zu kämpfen, um dann solche unphysikalischen Klimmzüge, wie das Renormierungsprozedere in Kauf zu nehmen. Im Übrigen, ich erteile den Feynmangraphen keine, irgendwie geartete, physikalisch motivierte Bewandtnis. Das zur von Ihnen erwähnten, Berechnung des anomalen magnetischen Moments des Elektrons bis zur 12. Dezimalstelle nach dem Komma. Um meine Quantenfeldtheorie Ihnen zu erklären bräuchte ich nicht mehrere Semester Vorlesungen zu halten. Es würde im Prinzip eine Doppelstunde reichen (wenn Sie und ggf. die andere Zuhörer mich nicht in meinem Vortrag unterbrechen würden). Danach könnten wir ja alles in jeder Einzelheit bereden.

Leider waren Sie nicht überzeugt worden, dass ein Elektron-Neutrino νe bei der Bindungsenergie E(νe,Bindung) = 2∙me∙c^2 zwischen einem Elektron und einem Positron entsteht. Ich weiß wirklich nicht warum? Wenn Sie im Nachhinein in Ruhe überlegen, dann stellen Sie fest, dass ihre Argumente mit der Impulserhaltung nicht stichhaltig waren. Mit der Bindungsenergie E(νe,Bindung) = 2∙ me∙c^2 berechne ich auch die Größe des Elektron-Neutrinos zu 0.703 x 10^-13 cm. Das νe ist das Bindemittel zwischen den Protonen in den Kernen in einem Gebiet von einigen 10^-13 cm. Und es ist das auch, was beim Zerfall des instabilen Neutrons N entsteht

N = (P,e,p,e) -> P + e + (e,p) = P + e + νe .

Das gebundene (e,p)-Paar ist also das oben erwähnte Elektron-Neutrino νe. In Rahmen der Standardphysik habe Sie auch keine Erklärung dafür, warum im Schwerefeld das (leichte) Aluminium schneller fällt als das (schwere) Blei.

In den Bibliotheken Ihrer Uni sind Exemplare meines Buches Physics of Elementary Processes; Basic Approach in Physics and Astronomy, ISBN; 963 219 791 7 vorhanden. Wenn Sie keine Zeit haben sich darin zu vertiefen, wäre es eine gute Idee, wie wir es angesprochen haben, einen Ihren Studenten daran zu setzen. In dem Buch ist nur die Bewegungsgleichungen der Teilchen nicht abgeleitet worden, sonst ist dort die Atomistische Theorie der Materie komplett begründet. Die Ableitung der Bewegungsgleichungen der vier stabilen Teilchen finden Sie jedoch auf der Webseite www.atomsz.com, in zwei dort zitieren Artikeln über das pretisches Variationsprinzip. Auch warum man für die Teilchen Spinoren nehmen muss.

Ich hoffe nur, dass unsere Gedankenaustausch nicht abbricht. Auf jeden Fall bin ich jeder Zeit weiter bereit zu meiner Theorie Rede und Antwort zu stehen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Gyula I. Szász

 

[Kristoffer]

I'm pretty sure the poor german scientists don't want your letters.

 

[rpenner]

The new atomistic theory of matter

Due to the correspondence principle, it's not a theory unless you bring the math, because since the days of Newton physics theories have had the precision of math. Therefore you must state your theory in mathematical terms to show how it is a useful, precise, communicable framework for predicting the behavior of a wide variety of related observable phenomena at least as well as the frameworks currently in use.

And you cannot explain why the easier aluminium body quicker falls as the havier plumb body.

In post #408 your contention that aluminum fell at a different rate than the container is shown to be based on faulty data analysis of the raw data you report. Also, your claim was that Al falls less than Pb which is why the target region of the Al test body is many cm higher than that for the Pb test body. You aren't just contradicting science settled by experiments millions of times more precise than yours, you are contradicting your own data collection and your own theory.

 

[Atomsz]

A Memorandum has been sent to physical organizations, groups and researchers word wide, for instant to APS, DPG (German Physical Society), MTA Fizikai Osztály (Hungarian Academy of Science Physics Department) , CERN, ITER, etc. :


Scientific Memorandum in Physics
Gyula Imre Szász*gyulaszasz42@gmail.com


The Standard Model of Particle Physics and the General Theory of Relativity are inconsistent and are not fundamental theories. These standard theories are based on the quantization procedure of energy and fields and on two relativity theories; these are only a kind of scientific conventionalizm. Undeniable and irreconcilable discrepancies in physics are herein taken as an opportunity to develop a new Fundamental Theory: an Atomistic Theory of Matter (ATOM) which is intuitively, consistently and mathematically correct. This theory requires a new principle for the derivation of the equations of motion for particles and fields: the isopretic variation principle which did not have been used earlier in physics. The new principle is independent of coordinate systems, deals with four kinds of stable particles of arbitrary large velocities and uses a fundamental field consisting of the electromagnetic and the gravitational field (the Unified Field - UF). The non-conservative UF is generated by two kinds of elementary charges, propagates with the constant velocity c and is to be centralized as interaction of the particles. The UF is a quantum field theory; the sources of the field are quantized by the four stable particles: electron (e), positron (p), proton (P) and elton (E, is a negative charged proton) which carry two kinds of elementary Maxwell-charges - the known electrical and the new introduced gravitational charges. The precondition for the stable particles is that neither the position, nor the velocity is precisely known at any time. The equations of motion for the particles derived from the isopretic variation principle contain some constants, called as Lagrange multipliers: Planck’s constant h is a Lagrange multiplier and still describes the atomic shells. Below the regions of ground states of atomic shell, a second constant h 0 =h/387.7 is assigned to describe the nuclei, neutrinos and the unstable particles. For the interaction no singularities occur in very small space-time areas; the equations of motion prohibit the approach of particles very close to each other. The ATOM with the isopretic variation principle is, in contrast to the nowadays used energetic theory, a successful attempt at clarifying the unsolved central problems in physics. However, because the proposed existence of elementary gravitational charges, the oldest hypothesis of physics, the Universality of Free Fall (UFF), must be given up; the UFF is violated in order of several per mill. The acceptance of ATOM requires a paradigm shift in physics.

I don't want to write once again that all physical systems are non-closed systems and that the electromagnetism is a non-conservative interaction. Why is generally accepted that the energy is conserved and why is the quantization of energy assumed to be successful and leads to a desired result? Why is not developed a general theory for non-closed and non-conservative systems?

I don't want to write once again that all bodies have two different kinds of mass and only the gravitational mass is conserved. Why is the UFF experimentally not investigated with different composite bodies and why is the weak equivalence principle to be hold valid? Why is the inertial mass to be hold equivalent to the energy for the rest mass too?

I don't want to write once again that the laws of Nature are non-deterministic but causal. Why is only the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg accepted and not a much broader uncertainty principle?

I have explained all these central problems in physics already with their consequences and the references give detailed results to all these problems. A further discussion is superfluously and a waste of time.

References

The literature for the Memorandum is to be taken from the (self-)published works of the author because the reviewers of physical journals have rejected all his publications. A book is leading to the Atomistic Theory:

Physics of Elementary Processes; Basic Approach in Physics and Astronomy, Cerberus, Budapest (2005) ISBN: 963 219 791 7.

Several accomplishing articles are published on the website www.atomsz.com. Almost all Sections of the book are also available on the website. The most important articles are

The Atomistic Theory of Matter: Stable particles and a Unified Field,

Physikalische Evidenz; Experimentelle Bestätigung gegen empirische Behauptung,

Variationsprinzipien: klassische Massenpunkte und stabile Teilchen mit Feldern,

Paradigmenwechsel in der Physik.

The energetic conventionalism is disastrous and does not have scientific future.