marnixR wrote:

instead of asking people to read a book or an e-book or watch a video, how about trying to summarise your views so that we can make up our minds whether there's any beef in this archimedean screw analogy for what physics normally tends to think of as bosons

Okay. Here's a quick summary.

A List of Observables.

1. Uses the original Theory of Aberration in the transverse arm beam (MMX). That is the beams ba1 and ca1, do not meet at the same point on the splitter when they return due to aberration. According to Relativity, they do. Please view the animation I made on the Physics forum.

2. This theory uses, Parallelogram Law summations to trace planetary orbits, where one arm of the parallelogram law represents gravity (force of helical screws, that spin in the same direction) and the other the absolute velocity of the planet/star/projectile. Also this enables a prediction of a precession of orbits,without giving up the inverse square law or making up a new central force (like Newton and Einstein do for eg). The precession of orbits in-built in Parallelogram Law summations. This can be seen in any Excel simulation of orbits. (I used Michael Fowler's program, which anyone can download and see for themselves).

3. Uess Newtonian definitions of "mass", "inertia", "centrifugal force", "weight", "gravity", "momentum" and "kinetic energy".

4. Newton's 2nd law does not violate Causality. Therefore, "inertia" and by extension "centrifugal force" has nothing to do with distant rotating stars. We claim "inertia" and therefore, "mass" needs no explanations in the form of "Higgs Field", since we use the age old definition of mass: Number of nucleons.

5. There is no need for an entity called, Strong Force in this theory, since we use, a variant of Maxwell's Idle-Wheels in the core of a nucleus, hence we are easily able to explain why protons don't fly away in an atom (without invoking an entity called, Strong Force).

6. This theory presents a Particle Interpretation of the Wave Mechanics of Light. For eg, Interference. This interpretation is extended to explain, spectral lines, spectral shadows, spectrum, and E=hv.

7. We maintain that an entity called, Angular Momentum is a fictitious entity, which takes credit for the physical effects that are born out of "centrifugal force". Therefore, "precession of a spinning top" is explained in a new manner without relying an entity called, "Angular Momentum".

8. This theory presents a new model of Atoms where there are no electrons in a QM sense. Electric Charge is explained as an interaction between two helixes.

9. Light is a piece of an helix and is emitted by a turning helix. We assume that all helixes spin at an angular velocity of c. Therefore, a piece of a helix (light) is emitted at the same velocity, c. Light has a definite size and not a size zero particle.

10. Time dilation is explained via simple Newtonian mechanics as a "slowing down of a process". For eg, number of vibrations or cycles in a clock, when it is subjected to a change in external forces be it gravity or fictitious forces (in the form of acceleration). We claim, that clock dilation and time are dilation are not the same.

11. According to current theories, an "electron" is a point particle. That is size zero.

"The electron has no known substructure.[1][75] and it is assumed to be a point particle with a point charge and no spatial extent.[9] In classical physics, the angular momentum and magnetic moment of an object depend upon its physical dimensions. Hence, the concept of a dimensionless electron possessing these properties contrasts to experimental observations in Penning traps which point to finite non-zero radius of the electron. A possible explanation of this paradoxical situation is given below in the "Virtual particles" subsection by taking into consideration the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation.The issue of the radius of the electron is a challenging problem of the modern theoretical physics. The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity. On the other hand, a point-like electron (zero radius) generates serious mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the electron tending to infinity.[76] These aspects have been analyzed in detail byDmitri Ivanenko and Arseny Sokolov."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElectronMy model simplifies things, removes, strong force, infinite self energy, and other fictitious entities, and models reality more easily than current models. I recommend that you give my work a quick glance. It has all the answers.

Link to the free eBook:

LINK REMOVED BY INOWStrawman