[Physics] Cubic Atomic Model + Theory

[Soretna]

Ilja there are many, many non-null results with superior tooling all the
way up into this century / millennium. I think you would seriously
reconsider your thought process if you would review this expansive study of
history from back then until now.


On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:55 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200506/f1bd92b1/attachment.html>