Intention of the author
Technology based on science is very successful. But used theories – are they beyond any doubt regarding epistemology? Not only logical consistency of theories is a requirement, also ontology should be in accordance with nature that is rational. Therefore notions must be rationalized. Take for example the basic law of mechanics:
F = ma, where F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration. A common misconception is to treat the equation as the definition of force. Wrong, F = ma is a natural law, more precisely: a law sketch because it holds for low velocities only. Another misconception is to treat the term ma not as a real force but as an “apparent force”. This belief is the outcome of the ontologically fallacious doctrine of inertia that ascribes a resistant force against accelerating forces to an isolated body in vacuo. The body cannot develop such an intrinsic resistance.
Erroneously so-called inertial “apparent forces” are real forces, namely aether drag forces. The aether is assumed to be a dielectric medium of electrons and positrons. Since any body consists of charges, accelerating a body causes an electrodynamic resistance force. Drag force depends on the quantity of matter (= mass number A) and on acceleration. In microphysics the drag depends also on velocity and on the architecture of atoms or molecules. According to Prout (1819) quantity of matter means the number of hydrogen atoms.
Axiomatic of mechanics: Undefined primary notions: force, space and movement, quantitas materiae A (or number of H-atoms). Defined notions: time, energy..
Ontology of relativity theories wrong: Space and time are relations and not variable things. Time dilatation and space expansion are impossible. Decreasing clock frequency should not be confused with time dilatation. Energy is a relation, not a thing. Energy is a continuous entity. There are no flying energy parcels E = hf.
Convertibility of inert mass into energy and vice versa is impossible due to the meanings of the involved concepts. The mass defect delta m is zero.
The Rutherford-Bohr-de Broglie atomic model is untenable. Electron orbitals are not observable. The Bohr model assumptions deliver some hydrogen frequencies only; the model is not capable of determining hydrogen light intensities. Remember Ptolemy’s geocentric model. In order to save the phenomena, Ptolemy invented for mars an epicycle. So Ptolemy was successful to explain the loops of mars. In spite of that Ptolemy’s model is wrong. Bohr’s model is also wrong. Bohr’s model violates natural laws. Any accelerated charge radiates and loses energy. An orbiting electron would crash into the nucleus.
The attempted rescue with the de Broglie electron matter wave around the nucleus was a failure. Charges of the standing wave are accelerated and must crash into the nucleus.
Prout proposed in 1819 that a chemical element is a specific configuration of hydrogen atoms. I propose for the hydrogen atom a model without an extra nuclear electron. Proton and electron are coupled electromagnetically. Hydrogen atoms are oscillators with many degrees of freedom. Ionization of an atom means that an electromagnetic wave can detach the electron if it has a frequency that coincides with a Eigen frequency of the atom. There is no nuclear particle called neutron. Only when a excited hydrogen atom decays, then this decaying hydrogen is a “neutron”. Its mass is 1.00! Mass values due to mass spectrometry are pointless. Example: When carbon has mass 12.00, the mass of helium is exactly 4.00 and not 4.0028. This is known from stoichiometry….
For QM the electron is a carrier of electricity, it is the agent for metallic bonding, for specific heat, for luminescence. But electricity is not a flux of electrons but rather the propagation of a polarization wave. Metallic bonding is not due to valence electrons and electrostatic forces between atomic torsi and electrons. Genuine hydrogen rods build up a real lattice with rods and nodes. No photon: Wave theory of radiation can explain all phenomena. For instance, the fictitious photon fails to explain birefringence due to optically anisotropic materials. Work in progress!