illuusio

Current QM is wrong, obviously, of course there is physical acceleration. When an electron is orbiting nucleus, small disturbances won't count. When electron comes back to S1, it causes photon to emit. That photon takes the most disturbing energy away from electron and harmonic wave emerges again.

Nah, I got tired with this topic. Predicting power.

So be it! There is no resistance in science community what-so-ever... good to know

I was rejected but the "thing" was immature (so it was a fair rejection). I'll tell you when I do submit it again and how it goes. Enough about me. You are funny!

Fair enough. But there is bottleneck with publishing. Few referees decide what to publish. If send paper is very controversial there will be prejudices among referees. And that generates needless resistance.

Can't answer to that (Gag order). Right... there has been never unfounded resistance. Is that what you are impling?

Another pearl to collect High five!

LOL That IS an interesting phenomenon. It must be a human feature. Of course I'm not referring in any way to myself... Aa... the history of this theory was presented in Finnish science magazine. Maybe it can be found by Google. Resistance came from peer reviewers. I don't know what's behind of this path of events and experiments. Maybe those DePalma "boys" didn't want that much scientific "glory" after all. I mean Bruce DePalma surely knew what was required from good solid experiments. There was one motivation, money, which might have been the force major and which overruled science methods. I agree. Maybe there should be a cut off time defined. Year? two years? ten? Every one of those cut off times provide examples to this thread.

Ok, we go along with Dr. Swanson here. Accepted is the key word. Ok... here is an example from my country (Finland) http://www.physnews.com/nano-physics-news/cluster246567486/ It took twenty years for that theory to break. Talking about resistance

No no! eventually was accepted? That's your opinion of "rules" in this topic. I say that any reasonable scientific case with resistance qualifies, accepted or not. Mm... I can only answer from my perspective. I do know where others are and to me it says "dead end".

You guys are so much fun So we should drop THE THING from this thread and keep the focus at the topic.

To be exact, my previous calculation was wrong due to lack of third law. You know exactly what I mean. I haven't misled nobody, specially the staff What do you mean? So, Dr. Swanson... If I were you I would read the paper of mine. I mean, at least to have updated information as a raw material to discussions. My notes on Dr? ajb are relevant in this topic because he has treated me, my writings, my ideas (and maybe my theory) with respect. No bashing at all. And flawed idea? If you would read the latest version you would realize it's not flawed at all.

There would be much greater differences with free fall times when the setup is bigger (longer drop -> bigger time difference).

Calculations can be posted for sure. Inventions are not. There is three laws in my paper and these laws can be used to calculate freely. Well, Swanson is a good example of resistance. He's sticking with the bike wheel's 15 N, even though, I have told him that that calculation was false. It needs third law also to get it right. He has not read the latest version of my theory and he still thinks that he's qualified to give critics You can find the latest version from my signature or I can attach it into this thread if that helps mr. Swanson. Yes, but you can say that the phenomenon might be there. Only bigger experiment is needed to make it into 6 sigma. Edit: What really seldom occurs here is verbal positive feedback. I want to pick one name, ajb, you are excellent person in many levels. You understand current physics very well, it's possibilities and limitations. You can also explain phenomena and theories very robustly. On top of that, your manners and style in here are flawless! Even in cases when somebody is ignorant and/or provocative. This forum and the whole world need human beings like you.

Not really. What are those waves and how do they do that aligning? One other thing bothers me. How photon emits long wavelength waves even gravitational?

Funny little story Well my current theory works just fine, equations and calculations prove it. Regarding Bruce DePalma this is his experiment with dropping gyroscope -> http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html and here some dude refering Japanise have done it too (in smaller scale but still). Well, what happened after those? Nothing? Silence. Reasonable evidence didn't make it. But, paradigms change at last and new ones are accepted as being self-evident (Arthur Schopenhauer) Lame, in that fortunate situation that your theory is got into process, you made it already! All ignoring and other tricks are done before that. You can't find publishers, funding etc.. Many has been labeled as crackpot for no reason. Luckily I'm not a part of science community. I don't have to care of my scientific career and positions. I make at least three times more money than average physicist in University. As I said, I'm the fortuned one I have been denied from the peer review process I bet there is many many wonderful dead end stories out there.

Could you please answer to this question (one that I asked earlier) "Yes, but what's the case with photon's field combines with the black holes field? What causes this combinement? Any mechanism there? "

I see... ignorance is bliss I refer experiments related to rotating objects and their behaviour while airborne versus non-rotating objects. And yes they did reproduce it but still... nothing happened!

You can start with the experiments of Bruce DePalma (rotating objects flew higher and felt faster than non-rotating objects with same force).

But analysis of success probability is distorted because of personal fears. And ignoring the evidence is stupidity.

Ok, my title is a bit too extreme. Being afraid might be something else, reluctant maybe? Anyway, does it make me an extremist if Ophiolite gave few examples where science world might haven't been very reluctant? And I don't think that science resists all change. But in case of a major paradigm change there is a LOT of resistance in all levels. Science should be about skepticism but it's also something else, in some cases, reluctance. What else could it be, for example case Bruce DePalma Well, sorry all geologist out there! Just making a point here. But in case when scientist reads a paper suggesting (with evidence) that there is totally new paradigm (better one) existing but still refuses to acknowledge it... well That's when (s)he is totally ignoring the facts and to me, it's weird. Is (s)he afraid? maybe.

Yes, but what's the case with photon's field combines with the black holes field? What causes this combinement? Any mechanism there?

I don't know that field enough to say anything of it or it's events. So to you, science is an utopia where everything go smoothly, right? Are you ignoring some cases in history of science, specially in case of major paradigm changes. Tectonic revolution is a minor event. LOL Of course not. But when you have an opportunity to see the evidence and you still ignore it, that's a resistance!

What causes that angular momentum when waves interact?