What is wrong with the current paradigm? Please explain it to me in a few words. I don't want to read a 10 pages essay. There is no such a recursive relation with charge and when you quote that matter is an electromagnetic phenomenon, this is just meaningless to me. Can you please state how you understood the wave-particle duality? Your starting points sound non-understandable to me.
I would also like to recall that energy conservation is connected to Poincare invariance, or the invariance of the physics laws under translations (which are part of the Poincare group). This is not "nothing" as you claim. And creation/annihilation processes are real and observed. Which is what @pjheinz has taught us in his posts. You cannot refute these because you just don't like them.
I will not go further into details of your theories (let us spare my time and yours). I would just like to say that relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, etc... (modern physics) correctly predict most of all observations connected to the microscopic world. Can your setup do as good? I honestly doubt about that.
A scientific theory will not be thrown away because anyone claims it is wrong. It will be replaced if someone propose a new theory that does at least as good as the older theory. And this theory should give back the current paradigm in some limit, otherwise the latter would not work so well.
Simply stated, the wave-particle duality principle says that all known matter as well as all known forms of electromagnetic radiation are basically the same thing. In other words, the wave-particle duality principle says (or should say IMHO) that particles ARE some kind of electromagnetic phenomenon.
So, if particles ARE electromagnetic in nature, and you attach the concept of "charge" as the cause for electromagnetism to "particles", you are actually saying:
And there's your recursive problem, which is wrong IMHO.
This has nothing to do with modern physics. Sorry.
Then modern physics is nothing but pseudoscientific crackpottery.
Well, the "nothing" part is derived logically from @pjheinz statement:
I followed the following logic:
Hence the sort version, completely in line with Tesla' s reasoning:
energy conservation is enforced by nothing
Regards,
@lamare
Of course it can!
Aether theory was the basis for Maxwell's equations. The problem is that he abstracted the connection to the basic hypothesis away, which resulted in inconsistent equations. The major problem with Maxwell's equations is that these allow "gauge freedom", which forms the basis of all kinds of weird theories, fields and what have you. Of course, this "gauge freedom" should NOT be there, considering that Maxwell started out at the aether hypothesis.
Also, because of the same inconsistency, you get a set of wave equations which are not invariant to the galilean transform, which should have indicated that there is something wrong with Maxwell's equations, which, after all, are supposed to describe waves in a fluid-like medium which does NOT have "gauge freedom".
With Einstein's relativity theory, this transformation issue has been "resolved" by the introduction of the Lorentz transform, which in essence introduces the concept of "compressibility" to the model, albeit in a rather weird way. It proposes time to be compressible, instead of the logical candidate: the medium.
When introducing this compressibility aspect at the proper place in the model, both curving space as well as quantum weirdness are gone, while you get a consistent theory which naturally integrates the current theories, which diverged out of the same flaw, which I like to call "Maxwell's hole". And therefore, a theory fixing the error which gave rise to the current misunderstandings, fundamentally re-integrates physics theory right at the point where it all went wrong . It should be no surprise this works all the way from the sub-atomic up to galaxy scale and explains gravity as well: Gravity = grad [E].
Well, this one shares a lot of predictions with the current standard model, yet can do without "virtual particles", "curving space" and all the other quantum weirdness, while predicting a new phenomenon: longitudinal dielectric waves, so it's actually testable as well.. :)
Regards,
@lamare