With "UNDETECTABLE" things anyone can invent any theory!

It's a pity all this discussion is happening off-board.

If you have an argument, it behooves to present it here.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It's a pity all this discussion is happening off-board.

If you have an argument, it behooves to present it here.
Click to expand...

I don't have another argument for the main subject of the thread than the already posted for now.
May be someone could have some other question or comment about.
I would just like to mention now a quote I made for the manuscript at the end of the main page of my site:
"Classical Physics is coming back, "reloaded". With some corrections, some new laws and the right structures for the elementary particles it really works now."
Unfortunately seems nobody passes the first Section 1.1 of the manuscript which only have my considerations on Relativity Theory while the really important things for me come after because they show the real work that worth for me which is finding what I think are amazing new interpretations and solutions with a totally new approach to some well known important phenomena and experiments of Physics. There it is shown what really matters nowadays in Physics what is to find right good alternative solutions rather than to point out the flaws. For me that's the right way Physics Science should take: in spite of stubbornly try to find odd things like "dark matter" and to reconcile Relativity with Quantum Physics a right totally new Physics must be looked for.
 
Last edited:
The edition time for the prior post expired so I end here:

For me the right way Physics Science should take is to, in spite of stubbornly try to find odd things like "virtual particles", "dark matter", etc and to reconcile Relativity with Quantum Physics and the particle's Standard Model, a right totally new Physics must be looked for and may be surprisingly nowadays that "totally new Physics" could be just the Classical Physics "reloaded" with some corrections (mainly in the fields' definition) and giving a right structure for the elementary particles what is not done in current Physics which assumes "point-like" particles. My manuscript shows that possible although much work still remains to be done.
 
Last edited:
martillo said:
Unfortunately for me seems you are right in your comments. Actually the manuscript is more a compilation of all the problems I could solve and all the things I could develop for the new theory rather than a good presentation of the theory. I must mention that it initially had many errors which where corrected and new things were developed and included with time. Many thanks to the participation in the forums since 2005 when the site was created. This way it evolved in a non pre-planned manner and so it could even look as not well organized. To make the things yet worse I'm an Electrical Engineer not a Physicist and I would have a different viewpoint on how things should be presented. I know all that and that's why I claim at the main page:
"I already had a very hard work. Still much work remains to be done. Many things wait for a definitely proof. Many things wait to be developed further. Some new experiments must be done.
A list of some further developments that would be needed by the new theory is presented in the “Further Developments” section.
I have no more time, no more resources and no expertise to develop it further. I'm claiming for physicists to take that work and develop it further. I cannot do that."
Click to expand...
It's a shame, because in the current state, it's very unlikely any physicist will take a serious look at it, and all of your hard work will go to waste.

martillo said:
You know, at this time, I feel too tired to improve more the work. My hope is that other ones could do that. I feel to only have energy to post in the forums times to times when I find something interesting to comment about...
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them more than you could think.
Click to expand...
No problem.

Might I suggest that, if you find some time, you focus on the introduction of an absolute reference frame first? If you can argue that convincingly, not only will you draw a lot of (positive) attention of physicists, but they will start looking at the rest of your material to see what other good things they can find.
 
NotEinstein said:
It's a shame, because in the current state, it's very unlikely any physicist will take a serious look at it, and all of your hard work will go to waste.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I think it will stay "over there" until someone recognize its chance and decide to do something about. Due to the current state of things I know it would take long, long time but this doesn't matter for me now...
 
martillo said:
I don't think so. I think it will stay "over there" until someone recognize its chance and decide to do something about. Due to the current state of things I know it would take long, long time but this doesn't matter for me now...
Click to expand...
Does it matter to you to get credit for it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top