[Physics] Cubic Atomic Model + Theory

[Ruud Loeffen]

Hello Soretna.

Interesting information that you provided. Thanks for the links.
Basically I agree with your statement: " we do not have any actual evidence
of quarks or the validity of the SM whatsoever at this point. You may be
interested in my video:   “*Expansion of the universe and earth” *
http://bit.ly/3cDZbre <http://bit.ly/3cDZbre> If you are in a hurry: start
at 6.00 minutes. You will understand why I am sure that there are no
quarks. Quarks exist only as a mathematical concept to perform
calculations. Our solar system is an atom, that expanded for 4.5 billion
years. In that period it grew from a nucleus with electrons to a sun with
planets. Of course it changed as I changed also from being born to being an
old man aged 72 years. But basically I have still the construction of that
baby.
<http://bit.ly/3cDZbre>

Best regards.
Ruud Loeffen.

Op wo 6 mei 2020 om 06:01 schreef Soretna <illumination00 at gmail.com>:

> Since this topic appears to be taboo at some level, I believe a history
> lesson is essential to address fundamental problem that currently plagues
> our study and even beliefs. I think a well researched/documented approach
> is best to eliminate the concern of bias and to this end I must highly
> recommend that anyone on this list pick up the following book for
> *historical context* of where physics went wrong ~130 years ago and has yet
> still not been able to recover:
> https://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Ether-Cosmic-Space-Correcting/dp/0997405716 (there
> is no affiliate link there, so no fear in clicking)
>
> Note you may ignore the non-historical information, if you wish, as I
> personally did not find much value in those parts, BUT the treatment of
> the historical information in this compendium contains impeccable research
> that I think anyone here will very much appreciate.
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 12:46 PM Soretna <illumination00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I should have gone a step further in my last hasty reply: if the
>> Michelson–Morley experiment was (and various other subsequent experiments
>> were) not null, then would that invalidate the SM and by extension quarks?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 12:15 PM Soretna <illumination00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree, we do not have any actual evidence of quarks or the validity
>>> of the SM whatsoever at this point.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 7:25 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2020-05-03 2:02 GMT+06:30, Soretna <illumination00 at gmail.com>:
>>>> > I recently stumbled upon a fresh new perspective by Franklin Hu
>>>> (always
>>>> > love to find such unique perspectives) that I thought I should share
>>>> for
>>>> > review and consideration:
>>>> > http://franklinhu.com/theory.html
>>>>
>>>> A rough look at this reveals:
>>>>
>>>> I see something about protons, electrons, and neutrons, but nothing
>>>> about quarks, three generations of them as well as of leptons.  So, it
>>>> looks like the SM as a whole is not covered.
>>>>
>>>> So, not worth to be considered.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Physics mailing list
>>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>


-- 
*Ruud Loeffen*
http://www.human-DNA.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200506/3c261b19/attachment.html>