Abstract: "Twenty-first century science faces a dilemma: two of its
well-verified foundation stones, relativity and quantum theory, have
proven inconsistent. Resolution of the conflict has resisted
improvements in experimental precision leaving some to believe that some
fundamental understanding in our world view may need modification or
even radical reform."[1]

The view taken here is that the problem dates back to the nineteenth
century, when Thomas Young conducted an experiment that was seen as
definitively contradicting the particle model of light, and Henri
Bequerel discovered the photovoltaic effect, which was seen as
definitively contradicting the wave model of light. The need for a
model consistent with both results led eventually to Einstein's theory
of Special Relativity and thence to the present dilemma. Recognition
that there is a particulate explanation for the result of Young's
experiment solves the dilemma instantly: relativity theory is
superfluous.

"The Particle Theory of Matter" consists of four postulates naming and
describing the three fundamental entities Space, Force and Matter, and
the derived phenomenon Energy.
"The Particle Model of Light" defines frequency and wavelength as they
apply to light and provides explanations of light's behaviours,
including the result of Young's experiment.

"Suggestions for Research includes experiments that will unequivocably
contradict either particle theory or relativity theory.

Keywords: particle theory; particle model; Young's experiment

--------
1 Gareth Boardman, "Addressing the conflict between Relativity and
Quantum Theory: Models, measurement and the Markhov property", The
Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol 9, no 2, 2013.

If requested, I'll post the whole thing here. It totals about 200 lines.

http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 5:20:12 AM UTC+2, Ned Latham wrote:
> Abstract: "Twenty-first century science faces a dilemma: two of its
> well-verified foundation stones, relativity and quantum theory, have
> proven inconsistent. Resolution of the conflict has resisted
> improvements in experimental precision leaving some to believe that some
> fundamental understanding in our world view may need modification or
> even radical reform."[1]
>
> The view taken here is that the problem dates back to the nineteenth
> century, when Thomas Young conducted an experiment that was seen as
> definitively contradicting the particle model of light, and Henri
> Bequerel discovered the photovoltaic effect, which was seen as
> definitively contradicting the wave model of light. The need for a
> model consistent with both results led eventually to Einstein's theory
> of Special Relativity and thence to the present dilemma. Recognition
> that there is a particulate explanation for the result of Young's
> experiment solves the dilemma instantly: relativity theory is
> superfluous.
>
> "The Particle Theory of Matter" consists of four postulates naming and
> describing the three fundamental entities Space, Force and Matter, and
> the derived phenomenon Energy.
>
> "The Particle Model of Light" defines frequency and wavelength as they
> apply to light and provides explanations of light's behaviours,
> including the result of Young's experiment.
>
> "Suggestions for Research includes experiments that will unequivocably
> contradict either particle theory or relativity theory.
>
> Keywords: particle theory; particle model; Young's experiment
>
> --------
> 1 Gareth Boardman, "Addressing the conflict between Relativity and
> Quantum Theory: Models, measurement and the Markhov property", The
> Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol 9, no 2, 2013.
>
> If requested, I'll post the whole thing here. It totals about 200 lines.
>
> http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html

========================
yes indeed
we have to understand
that
mass is the creator of all forces !!
indeed revolutionary
if you have questions just ask
= TIA
Y.Porat
==============

On Wednesday, December 25, 2019 at 6:02:40 PM UTC+2, por...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 5:20:12 AM UTC+2, Ned Latham wrote:
> > Abstract: "Twenty-first century science faces a dilemma: two of its
> > well-verified foundation stones, relativity and quantum theory, have
> > proven inconsistent. Resolution of the conflict has resisted
> > improvements in experimental precision leaving some to believe that some
> > fundamental understanding in our world view may need modification or
> > even radical reform."[1]
> >
> > The view taken here is that the problem dates back to the nineteenth
> > century, when Thomas Young conducted an experiment that was seen as
> > definitively contradicting the particle model of light, and Henri
> > Bequerel discovered the photovoltaic effect, which was seen as
> > definitively contradicting the wave model of light. The need for a
> > model consistent with both results led eventually to Einstein's theory
> > of Special Relativity and thence to the present dilemma. Recognition
> > that there is a particulate explanation for the result of Young's
> > experiment solves the dilemma instantly: relativity theory is
> > superfluous.
> >
> > "The Particle Theory of Matter" consists of four postulates naming and
> > describing the three fundamental entities Space, Force and Matter, and
> > the derived phenomenon Energy.
> >
> > "The Particle Model of Light" defines frequency and wavelength as they
> > apply to light and provides explanations of light's behaviours,
> > including the result of Young's experiment.
> >
> > "Suggestions for Research includes experiments that will unequivocably
> > contradict either particle theory or relativity theory.
> >
> > Keywords: particle theory; particle model; Young's experiment
> >
> > --------
> > 1 Gareth Boardman, "Addressing the conflict between Relativity and
> > Quantum Theory: Models, measurement and the Markhov property", The
> > Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol 9, no 2, 2013.
> >
> > If requested, I'll post the whole thing here. It totals about 200 lines.
> >
> > http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html
>
> ========================
> yes indeed
> we have to understand
> that
> mass is the creator of all forces !!
> indeed revolutionary
> if you have questions just ask
> =
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ==============

and mass
is the fundamental matter as well
==================
Y.P
===============