Hijack from No material can have a net negative charge. [Answered: Wrong!]

[Ni Mimi.]

Hallo.

The context of that statement therefore means that the concept of Infinity’s an illusion.

[Ni Mimi.]

Martillo, Immanuel Velikovsky in his book, ‘Earth In Uheaval’, said, “All fruitful ideas have been conceived in the minds of the nonconformists, for whom the known was still unknown, and who often went back to begin where others passed by, sure of their way. The truth of today was the heresy of yesterday. Imagination coupled with skepticism and an ability to wonder if you possess these, bountiful nature will hand you some of the secrets out of her inexhaustible store. The pleasure you will experience in discovering truth will repay you for your work; don't expect other compensation, because it may not come. Yet, dare.,” pg 271/303.

As long as one is trying, mistakes’ll be made and the most important lesson of it is to learn from that, any, experience.

[Eise]

Sorry, this is nonsense Ni Mimi. In modern times, most of science is too complicated today that somebody who is not totally uptodate to the level of present knowledge can contribute to basic scientific theories. First you have to really understand the empirical holes and possible inconsistencies in established science. For that you need a thorough knowledge of the science in question. Nonconformists without such knowledge always produce BS, like Immanuel Velikovsky himself.

Quote

 

Velikovsky's ideas have been rejected by mainstream academia (often vociferously so) and his work is generally regarded as erroneous in all its detailed conclusions. Moreover, scholars view his unorthodox methodology (for example, using comparative mythology to derive scenarios in celestial mechanics) as an unacceptable way to arrive at conclusions. Stephen Jay Gould[38] offered a synopsis of the mainstream response to Velikovsky, writing, "Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan—although, to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong ... Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends."

Velikovsky's bestselling, and as a consequence most criticized, book is Worlds in Collision. Astronomer Harlow Shapley, along with others such as Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, were highly critical of Macmillan's decision to publish the work. The fundamental criticism against this book from the astronomy community was that its celestial mechanics were physically impossible, requiring planetary orbits that do not conform with the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum.

 

Bold by me.

Your kind of misunderstanding of the situation is much worse than Martillo's. Martillo does not know how modern (again, established science!) explains atoms and chemical bonding. You obviously have not even the slightest idea about science, its methods, and how it progresses.