If you've enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy my comments on this video by Sabine Hossenfelder, author and theoretical physicist who researches quantum gravity. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt

Sorry for the, ahem, late reply. Arcs always give of quite a lot of RF radiation, but there is a difference between welding and an arc-gap oscillator, as was common during the early years of the 19th century

#Aether #Physics is #Pseudoscientific #Crackpottery Upvote this reaction if you believe the above is true...

You can find your answer just above. They are smashing particles together with ever increasing speed and energy, only to create interference c.q. heterodyning of the electromagnetic phenomena involved,

In the end, IMHO the most important experimental data to consider is Young's experiment, which gave rise to wave-particle duality: Wave–particle duality is the concept that every elementary particle or

Your theory cannot cope with ALL the problems solved by the dark matter hypothesis. The only viable atlernative IMO consists of the MOND theories. Definitely not yours. In the end, it's very simple. There

In short: your claims about the current paradigm being not testable is just ridiculous. Data is there! You seem to be the only one who does not want to see it. You mean data like Aspect's experiment supposedly

Modern physics may not be the ultimate theory (which we do not know yet), but in the meantime, it works extremely well to describe all data. Try to do as good. If it does not work (and I can guarantee

Then modern physics is nothing but pseudoscientific crackpottery.

How to construct such a new physics theory? The idea is pretty simple. One starts from the Standard Model and extends it, for instance, by enlarging the symmetries behind it or its particle content. This

I will not go further into details of your theories (let us spare my time and yours). I would just like to say that relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, etc... (modern physics) correctly

I would also like to recall that energy conservation is connected to Poincare invariance, or the invariance of the physics laws under translations (which are part of the Poincare group). This is not

What is wrong with the current paradigm? Please explain it to me in a few words. I don't want to read a 10 pages essay. There is no such a recursive relation with charge and when you quote that matter

What IS charge and WHAT is actually conserved in Nature? If we don't know what it is, how do we know it's conserved? You wrote: Particles can have positive, negative, or zero charge. These particles can

Hydrogen can be used to convert existing cars to run on ZPE... The time for debate is over: the future is electric. While I agree the future is electric, or better: dielectric, I would argue that hydrogen

Sorry to disagree, but IMHO, our (energy) future is Aetheric... As I have argued, there is something very wrong with our current physics, which can be resolved by returning to an aether theory. I have

How about the near future? As I have argued, there is something very wrong with our current physics, which can be resolved by returning to an aether theory. I have also argued that a mechanism for converting

Oh yes, this platform goes a lot further than getting payed for content. I mean, if @dollarvigilante and @roguemoney both like it here a lot, I pay attention.

Hi @creatr, Glad you're here, too! I've seen this website before, but I never really checked it out. I've definitely read items from KeelyNet, though! It is these kinds of PUBLIC ARCHIVES which enable

I don't know how good steemit will turn out to be, but if this grows like bitcoin, you will be glad you took the time now to learn and get involved.