One thing I can say for certain: I could have never come up with this model. I'm merely a student of it and so far, it was not contradicted like most other models I encountered so far. Models that are not falsifiable, like string theory go directly to the trash bin for me.

Secondly, I know for absolute certainty that most models we believe in, are wrong if you take the combined perceptive into account. There are nutjobs out there how actually believe there is a difference between physics, chemistry and astrophysics. Every model that has paradoxes must have errors.

So, please, falsify it for me, I take logical or mathematical arguments as well as publicly accepted measurements interpreted under this model. Everything else is just bullshit. Just because many people believe something does not make it right, in fact history has shown the opposite (if it concerns natural sciences).

This is the only more or less complete description of the model, if you think it's to expensive, and still want to falsify it (please do), I can give you a pdf. Take into account that you will need a year or so to really grasp it, it's a thick book with quite dense content.

Me too, the blind believe in mathematical logic is absurd, just because we could not find a classical model in the past does not mean there can't be one.

For example, for the photon you can have a very promising model that just uses classical kinetics:

But you are free to find the errors in the 11 experiments listed, Your Michelson-Morley experiment people generally refer to is PROVEN faulty - even Michelson said that they made mistakes in their assumption.

Then you get stuff like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43sqytcdLE

I explained this some days ago to a geologist that is into physics as a hobby. When I explained to him hat they did with the substitution he just said: This is nuts, you can't do this.
I told him, you can, but then you are not in classical logical anymore, mathematical logic allows you to do this. It is a believe that you can invent a clever formula and use substitution to get solvable solution. Everybody in real logic and philosophy knows, that those logics are not compatible - if you can prove this, you will get a very major price for sure.

The Big Bang Theory looks not very likely:
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf

But hey, if you believe in that, find me in explanation for every mentioned problem - And don't come with bullshit arguments that this site is of nutjobs. All they do is link to papers in other peer reviewed journals, they see problems where they are and not ignoring them - real scientific behavior.

My current tip for the most likely model:
Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory by Stoyan Sarg

3 Eucledian dimensions.
2 indestructable fundamental particles
1 force of attraction

Very minimal set of constants.
Classical Logic.

Every force/constant or effect from the standard model is derived with 0.2-2% accuracy. If this model is so nuts as some people claim, then bring me the error, show me the logical breakage or math error, because for me everything checks out good so far and the predictions fit much better then the standard model.

But people are lazy and don't want to spend month thinking about some alternative concept, this is the feeling I get from scientists reactions.

You can start with some of his papers, but the book is the best source as it follows a logical flow that will lead to understanding. If you just open the book somewhere and start reading, you will hardly understand (this is what one of the amazon reader clearly did. Everybody how really tried to understand give the theory full stars).

Once you understand the basic principles of this model, you can think about everything yourself. Every physical phenomena you encounter will only take days to get some really good idea what is happening there. I needed 3 days to have a logical explanation of the electron double slit experiment, just thinking in this model. I explained Stoyan my conclusion and he came to the same experiment and explanation.
This is one of my principles of cross validation, thinking about stuff myself and see if I come to the same conclusion - if everything is logical this should very often be the case. Of course, some parts are one of many possible ways, but at least one explanation in this framework exists.

This is the power of logic, you can understand on the most fundamental level and don't need some wired theory/believe.

For those who do not care about paradigms and use the Solomonoff induction (Occam's razor) and falsification as a guiding principle:

After carefully checking basic assumptions made long ago against newer research, als well as using a different interpretation of the measured effect - you can build up a fully deterministic and logical model compatible with GR, SR while also explaining quantum mechanical effects and cosmology.

I take falsification very seriously - if there are multiple unexplainable phenomena or different measurements contradicting a theory, it's of the table for me and I don't care if the rest of the world still believes in it. History has shown that theories die slowly despite contradictory evidence. Secondly, nature does not care about the artificial borders in science we humans create - there is exactly zero difference between quantum mechanical world, chemistry, classical physical objects and cosmology - there is only physics. Every proposed theory must also be paradox free - paradoxes should make your internal alarm ring that something is wrong and should never be ignored.

Now the fun fact: We already have a unified theory that only requires the most minimal and logical assumptions you can possible do. But as it breaks many beloved paradigms and is obviously not a weekend read as every complete physical model is at least very complex - it is not even discussed in contemporary physics. The name of the model is:
"Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory" by Dr. Stoyan Sarg.

Secondly, I know for absolute certainty that most models we believe in, are wrong if you take the combined perceptive into account. There are nutjobs out there how actually believe there is a difference between physics, chemistry and astrophysics. Every model that has paradoxes must have errors.

So, please, falsify it for me, I take logical or mathematical arguments as well as publicly accepted measurements interpreted under this model. Everything else is just bullshit. Just because many people believe something does not make it right, in fact history has shown the opposite (if it concerns natural sciences).

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitat...

This is the only more or less complete description of the model, if you think it's to expensive, and still want to falsify it (please do), I can give you a pdf. Take into account that you will need a year or so to really grasp it, it's a thick book with quite dense content.

For example, for the photon you can have a very promising model that just uses classical kinetics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1323&v=0z2RujXPcq4

Problems are ignored:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZ1GU_HDwY

www.helical-structures.org/new_evidences/modern-ether-drift-exp/ether-drift-exp.pdf

But you are free to find the errors in the 11 experiments listed, Your Michelson-Morley experiment people generally refer to is PROVEN faulty - even Michelson said that they made mistakes in their assumption.

Then you get stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43sqytcdLE

I explained this some days ago to a geologist that is into physics as a hobby. When I explained to him hat they did with the substitution he just said: This is nuts, you can't do this. I told him, you can, but then you are not in classical logical anymore, mathematical logic allows you to do this. It is a believe that you can invent a clever formula and use substitution to get solvable solution. Everybody in real logic and philosophy knows, that those logics are not compatible - if you can prove this, you will get a very major price for sure.

The Big Bang Theory looks not very likely: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf

But hey, if you believe in that, find me in explanation for every mentioned problem - And don't come with bullshit arguments that this site is of nutjobs. All they do is link to papers in other peer reviewed journals, they see problems where they are and not ignoring them - real scientific behavior.

My current tip for the most likely model: Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory by Stoyan Sarg

3 Eucledian dimensions. 2 indestructable fundamental particles 1 force of attraction

Very minimal set of constants. Classical Logic.

Every force/constant or effect from the standard model is derived with 0.2-2% accuracy. If this model is so nuts as some people claim, then bring me the error, show me the logical breakage or math error, because for me everything checks out good so far and the predictions fit much better then the standard model.

But people are lazy and don't want to spend month thinking about some alternative concept, this is the feeling I get from scientists reactions.

Best books I have ever read:

www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitation-Unified/dp/1412083877

You can start with some of his papers, but the book is the best source as it follows a logical flow that will lead to understanding. If you just open the book somewhere and start reading, you will hardly understand (this is what one of the amazon reader clearly did. Everybody how really tried to understand give the theory full stars).

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Sargoytchev

I can promise you this:

Once you understand the basic principles of this model, you can think about everything yourself. Every physical phenomena you encounter will only take days to get some really good idea what is happening there. I needed 3 days to have a logical explanation of the electron double slit experiment, just thinking in this model. I explained Stoyan my conclusion and he came to the same experiment and explanation. This is one of my principles of cross validation, thinking about stuff myself and see if I come to the same conclusion - if everything is logical this should very often be the case. Of course, some parts are one of many possible ways, but at least one explanation in this framework exists.

This is the power of logic, you can understand on the most fundamental level and don't need some wired theory/believe.

After carefully checking basic assumptions made long ago against newer research, als well as using a different interpretation of the measured effect - you can build up a fully deterministic and logical model compatible with GR, SR while also explaining quantum mechanical effects and cosmology.

I take falsification very seriously - if there are multiple unexplainable phenomena or different measurements contradicting a theory, it's of the table for me and I don't care if the rest of the world still believes in it. History has shown that theories die slowly despite contradictory evidence. Secondly, nature does not care about the artificial borders in science we humans create - there is exactly zero difference between quantum mechanical world, chemistry, classical physical objects and cosmology - there is only physics. Every proposed theory must also be paradox free - paradoxes should make your internal alarm ring that something is wrong and should never be ignored.

Now the fun fact: We already have a unified theory that only requires the most minimal and logical assumptions you can possible do. But as it breaks many beloved paradigms and is obviously not a weekend read as every complete physical model is at least very complex - it is not even discussed in contemporary physics. The name of the model is: "Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory" by Dr. Stoyan Sarg.

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitat...

There are some papers about this theory, but I have to say, when I started with them, I did not really understand it well from them. I got some raw picture, but no real understand of the model - the large book is the only source for this model - unfortunately.

When I explain this model these days, I usually take a different order and explain many parts of Chapter 12 right at the beginning. How those fundamental particles crystallize into higher structures that later build up protons/neutrons/electrons/... is one of the most beautiful processes I have ever understood and actually so simple once understood. So I usually start there now and then explain the CL space, electrons, protons/neutrons and then some chemical topics.

My perspective changed quite dramatically while understanding this model. The world is now so much more complex and much much deeper then the standard model. In fact, the standard model and even quantum electrodynamics now look like very rough approximations. To give you a perspective, a electron has easily 2.44e+19 fundamental particles with very complex arrangement (the very exact number unknown due some missing facts not yet determinable. There is a partially finite recursive process involved those depth is not clear yet, only the minimum depth is clear.

I asked many scientists about this theory, my old physics professors, famous ones, local ones - also those who clearly state that something in our current understand must be wrong. Sad truth is, they either don't know the model or simply don't care.

So far, I have not found anything wrong with this model. Apart from the many typos and sometimes a index error that you can easily spot, I only stumbled upon one equation so far that I don't understand or is wrong - can't say yet. But this would in the worst case, only change the distances between two neutrons in tritium and that can't cause larger problems with the model itself.

For those open minded people that have a deep interest in a true revolutionary model, read this book. If I could only have one book, that's the one I will pick ;)

http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitati...

2.9.6.B Fine structure constant as embedded feature of the twisted prisms

12.A.5.3. Hypothesis of embedded fine structure constant in the lower level structures of matter organization

It gets derived later to: α_c = 2 ⁄ [ ( n^2 + 2/2 )^1⁄2 + n ] = 7.29735194 × 10–3

where n =137 results in a very accurate value of α. It is important to understand that the fine matter constant has it's origin in a geometrical organization of the prisms. A very low level building block of matter in the BSM-SG model. It is 1/6th the size of a neutrino (neutral or positive flavor) - those 2 neutrinos are composed of 6 prisms of either large or small prisms an rectangular geometry j but the prisms is itself a very large structure compared with the ultimate building blocks, the fundamental particles.

The prism itself is quite complex in it's internal structure but there is a very logical explanation for its existence. On the first level of organization or you could see it as the first crystallized structure is the Primary Tetrahedron. You basically take a bunch of Fundamental Particles - just very, very small balls, and create a tetrahedron with same length sides out of it.

Very simplified explanation: This tetrahedron has a very complex vibrational mode - like every layer of our physical world. You end up basically with 2 overlaying vibrational modes, where you need n cycles of the small cycle to result in one cycle of the larger one. Alpha is the Energy relation of those cycles. Through alpha, you end up with 2 Energies in the prims, CP and TP.

Alpha is very fascinating feature as it is basically the driving force of most of the complex behavior of nature, it is everywhere in the BSM-SG model.

Funny side-node: In the BSM model, the cosmological redshift is not of Doppler kind (also no space expansion) and you can find the fine matter constant in the periodicity of the red-shift.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

Please note, that you have to do a proper Doppler correction in the BSM model if you measure galaxies. It also explains the Lyman-Alpha-Forest phenomena very well.

From the standard model perspective: I have no clue what it could be, like most constants.