1) Are there methods or is there a description of how to observe something?
2) Are old methods being applied to a new phenomenon.
3) Are new methods being applied to an old phenomenon.
It isn't possible to do science if you don't have a viable tool (method) for measuring a phenomenon of interest or if you can't describe the phenomenon you want to study in a way that others can observe it.
Cases like Mochizuki with the ABC conjecture are harder, but at least the ABC conjecture is a know quantity.
It is reassuring that classifying papers by category of research works fairly well. Both phenomena and methodology are described using specialized vocabulary, and mismatches tend to jump out, like trying to use a hadron collider to study the blood pressure of a frog.
I almost like to believe that a crackpot that could masquerade as a scientist might actually discover something because they would be forced to actually engage with the concepts and tools of science.
It's probably not very useful for getting comments. The only comments I ever get are along the lines "I see your nice manuscript, please don't forget to cite these papers of mine". To my surprise, it is mostly "leading" physicists who send such mails (which makes me doubt their citation records).
seems a bit like when you're on top of your game with a certain programming language and feeling bored with stackoverflow questions and mailing lists asking the same old questions. Happy that in software we can easily move on to a new language / concept / idea to keep things exciting.
http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/Sarg.html
Having spent the time to understand, I only laugh these days about the many papers I see every week that contradict our standard model :)
Obviously you're not a physicist; let me simply say that this is not how a scientific paper looks like.
It is just some philosophical text attempting to interpret some basic concepts in physics, introducing new fields no one ever seen (seriously?), and myriad of strange conjectures coming from nowhere and it goes borderline mysticism about vacuum. There is no new basic equation from which you can derive new, experimentally testable conclusions.
It's not even wrong.
Here're a few gems from his "theory":
> The energy is inseparable attribute of the matter.
> The Bohr atomic model is a correct mathematical model when assuming that the space is void.
> The intrinsic matter could never disappear.
> The vacuum is not a void space, but contains a unique grid structure. This grid structure named a Cosmic Lattice (CL) is built by two types of alternatively arranged nodes, each one containing 4 sub-elementary particles with shape of six sided prisms.
> The Newton’s gravitation (universal gravitational law) is a propagation of the IG field in CL space
What?!? I'm sorry but I can't believe I wasted ~10 minutes reading this crap. Yes, sorry about the language, but this is bullshit pseudoscience and any sane respectable physicist will reject this and blacklist this guy.
Here's how new theories in physics work: you put very little and very very basic assumptions into your theory (which is essentially an equation, that is compatible with experiments and hence is compatible with the old theory within a certain limited domain) and new stuff you derive from your basic equation comes out it in the form of experimentally testable predictions. You have to get a lot more stuff than you put into building your theory.
Special relativity is a very nice example, you just assume Galilean invariance and constantancy of speed of light and out comes time-dilation, length contraction, energy-mass relation. If you add equivalence principle you get general relativity which gives you spacetime and new theory of gravity, blackholes, etc etc. And old Newtonian physics is happily reproduced when speeds and energy densities are small. And most importantly, predictions of new theory agrees with observations and experiments in the domain where the old theory failed.
Some intermediate mathematical stuff between your basic equation and experimentally testable measurable predictions might be difficult to interpret (wavefunction and entanglement with Schordinger equation, "holes" with Dirac equation, virtual particles, etc.) but you don't dwell on this stuff like a philosopher because neither your current theory nor experiments doesn't give you a deeper understanding to it anyway. So instead of going mystic, you sweep the non-testable stuff under the rug, hope that future physicist will have a better theory eventually and just "Shut up and calculate".
What you don't do is, you don't pull a myriad of new philosophical stuff out of nowhere where your assumptions are all that comes out and call it physics.
Even if you're not a physicist, you can see what kind of a "scientist" he is by checking his publication history (0 papers in any respectable physics journal).
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitati...
Most of your points are taken out of context. If you don't understand the model, they don't make much sense.
First this are the basic assumptions:
- 3 dimensional eucledian space without physical properties
- 2 types of very small fundamental particels. Basically balls that are indestructible and vibrate
- 1 law of attraction valid in empty space. F_sg = G_0 * (m1*m2)/r^3. Which makes logical sense in our 3 dimensions. - classical logic
>> The energy is inseparable attribute of the matter.
You don't understand the difference between Newtonian mass and matter in this model. Newtownian mass is a derived effect of all high level structures that are impassible by CL space - eg. a certain size.
>> The Bohr atomic model is a correct mathematical model when assuming that the space is void.
After certain constants from the standard model are derived, eg. chapter 2,3,5,6 you can put up a mathematical model that is like the Bohr one, but this is not what the BSM model actually shows. Once you understand the geometric structure of protons/neutrons/electrons you will understand that even quantum mechanics is very close to the Bohr model compared to the BSM one.
>> The intrinsic matter could never disappear.
Yes. It would violate the energy conservation and it has been shown that this is the golden rule. As said mass != matter !!!!
>> The vacuum is not a void space, but contains a unique grid structure. This grid structure named a Cosmic Lattice (CL) is built by two types of alternatively arranged nodes, each one containing 4 sub-elementary particles with shape of six sided prisms.
It becomes obvious once a super massive black hole is understood, how a crystalization process will first create those complex formed prisms with it's substructures and later high level structures like protons/neutrons/electrons. Unfortunately apart from one type of GRBs as the last signature of the process, it is mostly hidden from observation due physical reasons.
> The Newton’s gravitation (universal gravitational law) is a propagation of the IG field in CL space
So, you neigher will be able to understand CL space nor the IG field by now and the first thing you cry is crackpottery.
> Even if you're not a physicist, you can see what kind of a "scientist" he is by checking his publication history (0 papers in any respectable physics journal).
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Sargoytchev/publ...
you are very bad at searching I have to say.
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Annales Geophysicae
Indian Journal of Physics
Canadian Journal of Physics
Applied Optics
Physics Essays
Advances in Space Research
Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering
...
To deduce a complete new model, you need to have a look in all areas of physics/chemistry and not just at one, especially theoretical ones. And you need to read a lot of papers and especially the ones that contradict the status quo.
And yes, the model explains much more then the standard model through fewer assumptions. Most of your "constants" are just derived.
