Spherical Trajectories

[Kramer]

SPHERICAL TRAJECTORIES =====A CONTROVERSIAL HINT ABOUT
STRUCTURE OF COMMON ELEMENTARY PARTICLES.

I have drawn two models of spherical trajectories in MATLAB. The footprint of those trajectories gives the impression of a stationary globe, like a set-shell drawn by two quasi point sub-particles interacting between the two move in spherical spirals. In the first figure the movement is up Z axis and down, that is one harmonic movement—one hz. In the second figure the harmonic movement is one horizontal cycle—one hz.
For a particle like an electron, which must have fe = 1.23559006*10^20 hz the presence of one sub-particle in whatever point of surface is quite instantaneous, especially for outside particles that have fx << fe , for example photons.

 

 

 

It is supposed that the sub-particle must be an “unique particle” that possesses both an electric and gravity property and is naturally never at rest, always with “C’ velocity.

Unique particle M = e / sqrt (G) gr. in c.g.s.e system of units or
M = e / sqrt ( 4*pi*epsilon0*G) kg. in KMS.A system of units,

is the supposed sub particle.

The radius of this sub-particle is R = e * G / C^2 cm

M = Mplanc / sqrt (1 / alpha)
R = Lplanc / sqrt( 1 / alpha)
For electron sub particle supposed to be M1 = - e / - sqrt(G)
----------------

[Klaynos]

If it's in a spherical trajectory it must be accelerating, if it has charge it would therefore be radiating, how do you account for this lose of energy?

[Kramer]

If it's in a spherical trajectory it must be accelerating, if it has charge it would therefore be radiating, how do you account for this lose of energy?

 

 

Hi Klaynos! And thank you for your thorny questions.

A short response is:

 

 

The sub particles, responsible for spherical trajectories of ten common elementary particles in rest status, are two so called ‘mini black holes’. They are the “unity of mass’ in upper extreme as it is “h” the unity of energy in lower extreme of particles map. THEY INTERACTS IN PAR (TWO FOR EACH KIND OF COMMON ELEMENTARY PARTICLES IN THEIR REST STATUS.) In itself sub particles don’t lose and don’t gain energy or mass, they are always in movement with C velocity in whatever trajectories they creates interacting.

The sub particles are M= -e / -sqrt (G) in cm.gr.sec.e system

Their interacting force in equilibrium for electron is:

e^2 / re^2 = ((C*Ve) / sqrt.G)^2 = 2.905350735*10^6 gr.cm.sec^-2

“ re “is classic radius of electron, “Ve” = sqrt(G*me /re)

The lose or gain of energy in particles, IN NON REST STATUS , is a different story..

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

An excellent representation

[Klaynos]

 

 

Hi Klaynos! And thank you for your thorny questions.

A short response is:

 

 

The sub particles, responsible for spherical trajectories of ten common elementary particles in rest status, are two so called ‘mini black holes’. They are the “unity of mass’ in upper extreme as it is “h” the unity of energy in lower extreme of particles map. THEY INTERACTS IN PAR (TWO FOR EACH KIND OF COMMON ELEMENTARY PARTICLES IN THEIR REST STATUS.) In itself sub particles don’t lose and don’t gain energy or mass, they are always in movement with C velocity in whatever trajectories they creates interacting.

The sub particles are M= -e / -sqrt (G) in cm.gr.sec.e system

Their interacting force in equilibrium for electron is:

e^2 / re^2 = ((C*Ve) / sqrt.G)^2 = 2.905350735*10^6 gr.cm.sec^-2

“ re “is classic radius of electron, “Ve” = sqrt(G*me /re)

The lose or gain of energy in particles, IN NON REST STATUS , is a different story..

I fail to see how any of the this addresses the energy loss due to accelerating charges.

[Kramer]

Hi friendly Arnaud. It was a pleasure to read your remark. Who doesn’t like praises? But has the post merits to be praised?
When I dare to put my hypothesis in judgment of “speculation forum” it was for it’s controversial nature, it was a “ hint “ that I suppose go too far especially for a layman as I am.
What I wanted to read in comments from readers of my post is the reaction about the idea that the elementary particles including here photons are composed or structured by sub particles or whatever you want to call them.
The moderator did put me in corner with it’s remarks, I wanted to listen his rebut for my response. Truly I am eager because the moderator made me questions that I am sure (if I am not wrong?) nobody, with sincerity, can give a response. And they are essential in physic:
Why electron is moving around proton, long eons, without losing energy?
What made electron to have angular acceleration?
What ‘for earth sake’ cause movement?
Exact the answers that moderator wanted from me.
There was the” hint” of the post.
The other hints from this “ hint “ are the possibility to reconcile the health part of quantum with health part of classic, the SR with GR, to make the connection between extremes. Short to obtain a peace between Dimocritis and Plato (even though the dudes are too mulish to cease the ancient fight about reality).
That all.
Kramer

[Klaynos]

It is thought in modern physics, and as close as our experiments can tell is true, that electrons do not travel around atoms but are in a quantum orbital, they occupy a cloud around the nucleus.

 

If they did travel around the nucleus in an orbit they would radiate energy, over time they would fall into the nucleus. Your proposal needs to explain why this is not observed in nature.

[Kramer]

Hi Klaynos! You say:

!

It is thought in modern physics, and
as close as our experiments can tell is true, that electrons do not travel
around atoms but are in a quantum orbital, they occupy a cloud around the nucleus.




If they did travel around the nucleus in an orbit they would radiate energy,
over time they would fall into the nucleus. Your proposal needs to explain why
this is not observed in nature.

Response:

With my layman imagination I consider the structure of electron, presented in
my post, more than a cloud ( a cloud with 1.23559*10^20 position in a second,

created by only two “special particles” moving around with C velocity obedient
Coulomb and Newton—Einstein laws, if we quantify the space, and time in Plank
rate. ) .

But tell me: When your experiment kick out a “quantum orbital” from the so
called quantum orbitals , how comes that the “quantum orbital ”kicked out is an
electron?

Or you say that is not an electron, is a quantum? Or that –electron is born
from quanta?

Seems to me that I was not persuasive in my first post.

Again: The ‘things” that build “ELECTRON PARTICLE” (and all kind of particles)

have property of electric charges because attract or repel via Coulomb law and
have gravity property because attract or repel via gravity laws. The third
property that has unique particles is eternal movement (I suppose with C
velocity) in whatever trajectory.

I have coined the “things” ----“ Unique particles” for their special property.

The Unique particle is ELECTRIC CHARGE but not ELECTRON PARTICLE. It has
nothing to loose, it is a “unity”. The statement of quantum theory that charge
disappear, “annihilated” it is not true.

Now: When they are embedded in pair with each other, they build an elementary
common particle.

The created elementary particle inherits electric and gravity property, but now
not in the same order as in “Hypothetic Plank particle”. The property of
gravity of elementary common particles (as whole) diminishes in square power
while the electric property is preserved. SO THE BREACKING OF GRAVITY SYMETRI
DOES NOT “HAPPENED”----it is nature of Unique particle that determine.

Another digression: You say that dimension of electron is zero, or a point
without dimensions, because so fit with calculations and with experiment. What
to say with this kind of logics? I trust experiments but I don’t know what kind
of experiment was performed in this case. I know something about Compton
experiment. It’s different.

I suspect that experimenter has shut a
bullet on the 'set' , the 'bullet' is gone throw. Instead Compton has shut a 'boll'
and set has kicked back.

Again I insist: The model of electron in my hypothesis is in rest status.

The electron in movement has in his structure plus “photons” which it may loose
or gain depend in case.

Sorry for your time.

Kramer

[SamBridge]

 

 

 

 

Hi Klaynos! You say:

 

 

!

 

It is thought in modern physics, and

as close as our experiments can tell is true, that electrons do not travel

around atoms but are in a quantum orbital, they occupy a cloud around the nucleus.

 

 

 

 

If they did travel around the nucleus in an orbit they would radiate energy,

over time they would fall into the nucleus. Your proposal needs to explain why

this is not observed in nature.

 

Response:

 

With my layman imagination I consider the structure of electron, presented in

my post, more than a cloud ( a cloud with 1.23559*10^20 position in a second,

 

created by only two “special particles” moving around with C velocity obedient

Coulomb and Newton—Einstein laws, if we quantify the space, and time in Plank

rate. ) .

 

But tell me: When your experiment kick out a “quantum orbital” from the so

called quantum orbitals , how comes that the “quantum orbital ”kicked out is an

electron?

 

Or you say that is not an electron, is a quantum? Or that –electron is born

from quanta?

 

Seems to me that I was not persuasive in my first post.

 

Again: The ‘things” that build “ELECTRON PARTICLE” (and all kind of particles)

 

have property of electric charges because attract or repel via Coulomb law and

have gravity property because attract or repel via gravity laws. The third

property that has unique particles is eternal movement (I suppose with C

velocity) in whatever trajectory.

 

I have coined the “things” ----“ Unique particles” for their special property.

 

The Unique particle is ELECTRIC CHARGE but not ELECTRON PARTICLE. It has

nothing to loose, it is a “unity”. The statement of quantum theory that charge

disappear, “annihilated” it is not true.

 

Now: When they are embedded in pair with each other, they build an elementary

common particle.

 

The created elementary particle inherits electric and gravity property, but now

not in the same order as in “Hypothetic Plank particle”. The property of

gravity of elementary common particles (as whole) diminishes in square power

while the electric property is preserved. SO THE BREACKING OF GRAVITY SYMETRI

DOES NOT “HAPPENED”----it is nature of Unique particle that determine.

 

Another digression: You say that dimension of electron is zero, or a point

without dimensions, because so fit with calculations and with experiment. What

to say with this kind of logics? I trust experiments but I don’t know what kind

of experiment was performed in this case. I know something about Compton

experiment. It’s different.

 

I suspect that experimenter has shut a

bullet on the 'set' , the 'bullet' is gone throw. Instead Compton has shut a 'boll'

and set has kicked back.

 

Again I insist: The model of electron in my hypothesis is in rest status.

 

The electron in movement has in his structure plus “photons” which it may loose

or gain depend in case.

 

Sorry for your time.

 

Kramer

What about inertia? There's an infinite number of tiny changes effecting every atom, any one of those in you're model should be enough to disrupt the orbital and send the electron off in some other direction.

[Klaynos]

You've still not explained why they would not radiate. Accelerating charges radiate, a charge moving in any curve will accelerate and thus radiate.

[Kramer]

you say:

You’ve still not explained why they would not radiate. Accelerating charges
moving in any curve will accelerate and thus radiate.



My layman’s response:

I wanted to ask: what is radiation? But I will not ask, cause don’t want to
show my ignorance in physic ha! and because moderators always fail to respond. They
are in the position of teacher, ask but not like to be asked.

If you have responded “ adequately” in my question about electron particle why
they do not radiate in atom, I would have learned a new information , I would
have been saved by this annoying question, and you would have moved further
with other questions in your rebut. There are too many pit falls for me.

I repeat again : In REST STATUS two single electron charge moving in spherical
trajectories do not radiate. The electric Charges are in perfect equilibrium by
gravity and electric forces and continue in eternity their movement.. The
sphere in itself is in absolute rest

I think the MOVING electron particle (not confound with Rest electron) has been
pushed or pulled by outside, and in this process, in his structure are added
photons and maybe neutrinos. This bunch of supplements is responsible for
interaction of electron particle with other particles A process of exchange
photons is radiation.

Am i wrong? Don’t wait to much by a layman.

[Klaynos]

you say: Youve still not explained why they would not radiate. Accelerating charges moving in any curve will accelerate and thus radiate. My laymans response:

Bluntly, this is a complicated subject, mkst professionals spend aroind 10 years trying to get a good working understanding. Good luck but your path is likely fruiteless without a good deal of background work.

I wanted to ask: what is radiation? But I will not ask, cause dont want to show my ignorance in physic ha!

Never be afraid to ask no one can know everything and we learn by asking. Radiating in this case means the generation of a propagating elctromagnetic field, so generating photons.

and because moderators always fail to respond. They are in the position of teacher, ask but not like to be asked. If you have responded adequately in my question about electron particle why they do not radiate in atom,

In an atom the elctons are not moving in sphercal trajectories, they are not movijg classically at all but are in elctron orbitals. Look up the bohr model of the atom and then look up why it's wrong.

I would have learned a new information , I would have been saved by this annoying question, and you would have moved further with other questions in your rebut. There are too many pit falls for me. I repeat again : In REST STATUS two single electron charge moving in spherical trajectories do not radiate.

If you mean the atom is at rest not the electrons (which wouldn't have any real meaning classically as how could somethin be in a trajctory and at rest) then the answer is that the elctrons are not in spherical trajectories as I say above and you wouldn't expect radiation.

The electric Charges are in perfect equilibrium by gravity and electric forces and continue in eternity their movement.. The sphere in itself is in absolute rest

Gravity has nothing to do with it. Whether the sphere is at rest or not any charged particle moving in a cirve radiates.

I think the MOVING electron particle (not confound with Rest electron) has been pushed or pulled by outside, and in this process, in his structure are added photons and maybe neutrinos. This bunch of supplements is responsible for interaction of electron particle with other particles A process of exchange photons is radiation. Am i wrong? Dont wait to much by a layman.

Yes you are, your understanding of atoms was surpassed around 100 years ago.

[Kramer]

Hi experts Klaynos and Sam

It is
boring a persistent layman. But please -- give me another round before i admit
my knockout. Please show patience and attention for me.

I continue to have impression that you
both misunderstood my main idea.

I am convinced that all elementary particles have structure and the only
elements in their structure are two “ELECTRIC CHARGES” with gravity property.
They move with “C” velocity in spherical
or even in helicoidal trajectories. In the first they create particles,
in the second waves.

At all it is not an electron particle, as it may be confounded.

The conviction about structure came by magnetic moment that is tested not only
in elementary but in all kind of particles.

Now please make me a favor: “find where
is my wrong reasoning, in those ‘six grade’ ‘‘calculations”. I will be very
grateful.

In Plank area are at least three
formulas for force, and energy.

They have the same value:

Force
= 1.21049113*10^44 N

I) G * M^2 / R^2 2) C^4 / G 3) e^2 / R^2 in
(c.g.s.e) 3) e^2 / (4*pi*epsilon0 R^2)



I think that I have the right to re
write as below:

1) ((G*M / (sqrt(G))*R ) * ((G*M /
(sqrt(G)) * R)

2) ((C*2 / (sqrt(G)) * ((C^2 /
(sqrt(G))

3) ( e / ((sqrt(4*pi*epsilon0)*R) * (
e / ((sqrt(4*pi*epsilon0)*R)

My questions :

I - DOESN’T TWO ELECTRIC “CHARGE “ MOVING WITH ‘ C “ VELOCITY, HAVE THE SAME
VALUE OF FORCE via equations (2) and (3)?

II – IF YES ---- DOESN’T HAVE WE THE RIGHT TO CONSIDER TWO ELECTRIC “ CHARGE”
,MOVING WITH “C”VELOCITY, COMPORTIN THEMSELVES AS TWO TINY BLACK HOLES via
equation (1) ?

III – IF NO WHY?

[Kramer]

Let continue the thread of reasoning:

Let suppose that R (equal 1.3805438*10*-34 cm) which
is distance between two CHARGES in equation (3) or two MASS in equation (1),
enlarges and becomes “r”cm. which,
indeed, is larger R with the rate S = r / R .

It is evident that force on equations 1) and 3) will diminished with a rate
S^2= (r / R)^2

It is evident that the force in equation 2) will diminished with rate S^2 too.
That means C^2 will becomes C^2 * S. or C^2 * (r / R). or C * (C*(r /R)) or C*
Vg.

Here Vg is geodesic (or whatever physicist call it) of each other for each
other of two “unique particles.

It is evident too that with S rate will
diminished the energy of the whole complex. But mass is equal Energy / C^2 so
whole complex will have a mass diminished too. This is the mass that we percept
or test in common particles.

A digression: Maybe Electric Charge
gain status of black hole from its velocity via special relativity, and
influence of black hole on each other via general relativity. Ha!



Now let come for the case of common
particles.

Let take “electron particle” for an example:



Energy of electron particle in rest status will be:

Ee = ( G*M^2 / (R*Se) ) = ( G*
(e/sqrt(4*pi*epsilon0*G))^2 / (R * ( re / R )) =

Ee = e^2 / (4*pi*alpha0*re).

Do you think it is without interest
that using value of “UNIQUE PARTICLE” (M, R,) with Newton law you obtain the
same as electric value for common Elementary particles?

This means that energy in rest status depend only by Compton radius for each
common particle.

For electron it is r = 2.8179401 * 10 ^ -13 cm.

Rate “S” made copy cat every character
of corrected hypothetic Plank particle: mass, energy, force, frequency,
geodesic etc.

Electron has a spatial configuration as it’s presented in the model, indeed
with out its radius, and without many-many trajectories iby the revolutions of
only two Unique particle.

But what to do with rebut from modern physicists :

1) electron radius is 0 cm.

2) nothing move inside electron, other ways it will loose energy.

1--- You can’t detect two so mini particles that play there go around.

2 ---Magnetic moment and de Broil frequency may be are a hint!



Let go every body on its own

[Daedalus]

II IF YES ---- DOESNT HAVE WE THE RIGHT TO CONSIDER TWO ELECTRIC CHARGE

,MOVING WITH CVELOCITY, COMPORTIN THEMSELVES AS TWO TINY BLACK HOLES via

equation (1) ?

Your proposal reminds me of a theory developed by Alexander Burinskii. He modeled the electron as a naked ring singularity. Don J. Stevens discusses this model at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/discussionpost/Electron_as_a_ring_singularity_56595

The theorist, Alexander Burinskii has modeled the electron as a naked ring singularity. In this model, the ring singularity radius is larger than the electron Schwarzschild radius so the singularity is naked. We can add to this model and test a hypothesis that the electron is a gravitationally collapsed entity with its collapse halted at the electron photon orbit radius, 3Gm divided by c squared.

 

...

 

In October, 1954, John Wheeler and Einstein agreed that GR allowed for electromagnetic wave geon solutions. However, electromagnetic geons were found to be unstable. Wheeler proposed, if a geon is small "-- a geon might radiate away some of its energy in electron-positron pairs". See John Wheeler book,"Geons, Black Holes, And Quantum Foam", page 237-238. Wheeler writes, "Such a (gravitational wave) geon, it seemed to me, might offer a transitional state between gravity waves and a black hole". A single photon (unstable) electromagnetic geon may change into a pair of gravitational wave geons that are stable.

 

When the electron is described as a gravitational wave geon, it has some, but not all of the predicted properties of a black hole. The electron lives in a space where its reference frame spins at light velocity. This space is very different from the one we live in.

Check out the above link. It may help you understand the model you are proposing.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Daedalus

[Kramer]

Thanks. Really thanks Daedalus for the recommended link.
From first page i did understand the similarity and in the same time the big rift between classic and quantum mode of reasoning.
I was astonished by coincidence.of idea between Mr.J.Steven's and my, about posting electron in sqrt. of two extremes.
IN my mode of playing physics for "pasa tempo' i have been truing for years to find why in my hypothesis electron is posted 4.064466685 time slower sqrt. (1*2.5220631*10^41). (here 1 is for e+h*1Hz lower row, and 2.5220631*10^41 is frequency of my hypothetical "unique particle"). I will study the link and will rebut, because i see very interesting to find what really is the schism between classic and quantum.

[Kramer]

Thought caused by
the first page of

Electron as a ring singularity.
( Rebutal)

Data
Mr Stiven’s
Plank dhimo kritis

M Kg 1.777224103 10^-8 2.17664610510^-8 1.859376054*10^-9

(2 / 3)^0.5 Mpl ((h*C/ (2*pi*G)) (e / (4*pi*epsilon0*G)^0.5
f M–upper Hz 2.952387049*10^42 2.410613931*10^42 2.522044245*10^41

formula for f =M*C^2 / h

f h --lower Hz 0.02533029591 1 1

1 /
(2*pi)^2
1 1

sqrt(fM*fh) Hz 2.471066663823*19^20 1.71825116*10^21 5.064451768*10^20

f el. Hz 1.235589976*10^20 idem idem

raport 1.99969369 13.90632162 4. 098812605



It seems that model of Mr. Stivens is quite near the fact.

But I am not sure if it is right and there is any law in physic to change lower
and upper limits of the frequency’s span.

If there it is , then there is nothing strange that modern physic is allowed to
be manipulated by the will of “ theorist”, and to be the ‘mess’ we see.

I am convinced that the smallest
portion of energy is 1*h, not h /(2*pi) or h /delta ‘t’ , which open green
light for speculations.

The energy is E = f * h where f is an integer from 1 until 2.522044245*10 ^ 41
Hz. and is it f = C / (R * (2 * pi / alpha) ) (only integer).

A hint: maybe alpha (constant of fine structure) is a mediator for adapting
circle

2 * pi * R ------- in spherical physic trajectory; via >> t = -2 * pi / sqrt alpha : …….

[Kramer]

So! 60 years ago two icons of physics Wheeler and Einstein have discarded the
idea that the so- called black holes can (or must) be in the structure of
elementary particles.

The gurus with their authoritative prestige have made a bad service for science,
giving priority one branch of physic and throw in trash- can the other. I
suppose that if they had not an adverse about “material particle”, and had
encouraged both schools; (gravity and quantum) with the same fervor, today the
humanity would have the instrument to manage the gravity in the same degree as
he is managing photons.

May be they presumed any threat for their own theories? Who knows?

So! My naïve hypothesis that all kind of common particles are structured by
only one “kind of things”: the “atoms “ of Demokritis, was doomed sixty years
ago.

In fact my hypothesis has nothing to do with the link that Daedalus has
suggested me to study. It has nothing to do with any kind of “collapse”
(collapse of what?), with any cloud of “photons, etc.

My hypothesis is very simple:

The “atom” of Demokritis ( or as I coined “unique particle” ) must be a
sub-particle, that posses both kind of main forces that exist in nature:
electricity and gravity.

They posses both kind of fields: electric field and gravity field.

They eterne move in unlimited space, mainly in spherical trajectories when form
stationary common particles , or in linear helicoidal trajectories when form photons of e.m.waves.

Postulates? Whatever. When the science hasn’t any satisfactory answer what
other option is?

[PureGenius]

The electromagnetic instability is what threw einstien off of his pursuit of Black hole physics. It was too great an unknown during his time surely no fault of his.

[Kramer]

 

PureGenius

The electromagnetic instability is what threw einstien off of his pursuit of Black hole physics. It was too great an unknown during his time surely no fault of his.

You are right. Who are we to blame a giant genius who gave the humanity : the equivalence of mass and energy, the particle of energy (Photon),…and the thought that “Quantum Mechanic” is an uncompleted theory.

[PureGenius]

I believe the electromagnetic flux created by the time variable is the answer Black holes are within the microscopic realm you are on the right track Kramer ...

[Kramer]

PureGenius

I believe the electromagnetic flux created by the time variable is the answer Black holes are within the microscopic realm you are on the right track Kramer ...

I am afraid I can’t grasp your idea. I think is opposite of mine. My main hypothesis is that “unique sub particles” those blocks that structures every thing, every common particle, mass or mass less, exist for ever, are not created -- can not annihilated, they fill an unlimited space which has not an beginning or an end, in an unnumbered amount.
The alleged “unique sub-particle” has both electric and gravity ability. Interact with one partner via Coulomb and Newton laws in equilibrium of forces creating so the common particles, moving always with C velocity in whatever trajectory. The magnetic and relativistic phenomena derive plus afterward by the movement of common particles.
I suppose you will change mind about “right track”

PureGenius

I believe the electromagnetic flux created by the time variable is the answer Black holes are within the microscopic realm you are on the right track Kramer ...

I am afraid I can’t grasp your idea. I think is opposite of mine. My main hypothesis is that “unique sub particles” those blocks that structures every thing, every common particle, mass or mass less, exist for ever, are not created -- can not annihilated, they fill an unlimited space which has not an beginning or an end, in an unnumbered amount.
The alleged “unique sub-particle” has both electric and gravity ability. Interact with one partner via Coulomb and Newton laws in equilibrium of forces, moving always with C velocity in whatever trajectory. The magnetic and relativistic phenomena derive plus afterward by the movement of common particles.
I suppose you will change mind about “right track”

[PureGenius]

My fault I misread the main point it's still an interesting idea Kramer.

[Kramer]

Thanks Pure Genius. You are the only member that think that i am right.

[Bignose]

Thanks Pure Genius. You are the only member that think that i am right.

One can think something is right all they want. Opinions have very little scientific capital.

 

If you want to gain some true scientific capital, you start making predictions and showing that those predictions agree with observations better than any other predictions have agreed before. There is none of that here.

 

There are observations, such as these particles that accelerate also radiate -- that are not matching your prediction of no radiation. Until you can remedy this, the current theories whose agreement between prediction and observation are much, much closer. And hence, the current theories are much more useful scientifically.

 

So, again, you can think something is right all you want. But that doesn't make it meaningful scientifically.