[Physics] Cubic Atomic Model + Theory

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-05-06 5:30 GMT+06:30, 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:

I doubt such historical considerations give a lot.

The consideration of historical experiments does not give anything at
all.   The point is that later they are regularly repeated, in various
variants, and, given the technical progress during the last centuries,
with much better equipment.

Instead, the first experiment, the one which becomes famous, is always
borderline. The mainstream has accepted it as sufficient, but it was
the first one, thus, the first one which was accurate enough to be
accepted by the mainstream.  That means, there have been probably even
at that time reasonable scientists who had not accepted it.  So,
doubting them is always possible, even reasonable. But the mainstream
does not rely on that first experiment alone, but bases its certainty
on the more accurate subsequent ones.

> 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?

Hardly.  It would probably not change much.