[humanbydefault]

You all guys have been my best source of inspiration, believe it or not.

I've accepted in the past your critics as well as your kind words with the same seriousness and weight. I believe that many of you also share in the bottom of your hearts the same hope:

That if there was a remote chance that physics could on day become the kind of science we've always dreamed it to be -"A real exact science"- no effort would ever be useless...
That has been my personal whish and the engine driving the best of my intentions.

I'm glad to know that you also have found commonalities between your work and mine. We must make the others to "see beyond our own human limitations."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are some of the questions I'd like [all of the present members of this marvelous forum] to ask themselves at least once:

-" If you my friend, haven't read my work yet, I believe there are a coupple of questions I'd like to ask you from the bottom of my heart:

1) In the beginnings of the mathematical fundament and theoretical building of "Quantum Mechanics" there was someone who introduced UNCERTAINTY and PROBABILITIES into the quantum world, as many of you must know, his name was Heisenberg (A Noble Prized laurate).

This is the question now:

If Heisenberg's uncertainty principle" was entirely based on experimentation using "light" ("c") as the fastest observational tool available at that time... couldn't he be missing a number of "hidden realities" [not just one] he was supposed to mathematically describe?

He wasn't mistaken in his observations, don't get me wrong (!) He stated the impossibility to determine the momentum and the position of a "particle" [like an electron for example] at the same time and from the results he could have obtained, he was perfectly right.
The problem has always been that he was counting with a "falsely assumed fact" that REALITY could only be the one we are able to observe and therefore able perhaps to describe, when in fact the universe was much more complex than the one we are able to imagine.

Eisntein thought that there had to exist a way enabling us to describe the physical reality with entire exactitude, but he was also counting with a simple and a single reality... He was also wrong from my own perspectives too.

It was never about a truth explainable under Bohr's comlimentary principle where the setting of the "apparatus" will always "predetermine" the outcome of what we considered to be "the final truth." There were more than just one reality "playing along" at a rate of speed we can't be even aware of it, and we were chosing one among all 4 (four) of them every time we determined the conditions of the laboratory observation.

"Bonding Harmonics" is not an "artificial-empiric compromise" to deal with inexisting realities out of a crazy guy's imagination, those have been there all the time "WARNING US" about their existence and preventing us from finding the "ideal description" of the physical reality as Einstein once dreamed.

------------------------------------------------------------------

If you "visit" CHEMISTRY these days you'll find a "duel" between two inaccurate theories and half-half succesful results-failure scenarios:

Valence Bond Theory [promoted by one of the greatest minds in the world of modern chemistry: Lignus Pauling] adopted 2 concepts that gave them some advantages in the organic field of carbon compunds: "Hybridization" and "Resonance."
The first is almost forgotten or ignored by most schools at the present time, but "Resonance" is still today the only possible plausible response to something human science is unable to answer, even as we speak.
I suggest you to visit wikipedia and go to chemistry and resonance, I know is not the most serious place to look for definitive answers but still the ideas presented in their pages ARE THE PRESENTLY OFFICIALLY ACCEPTED by the scientific community... and that was more than enough for me when I used them as reference, besides from the copyright limitations it was the least dangerous one. As long as you don't mention the names of those who send their citations, you don't have to face "copyright infringement charges" and that fit my requirements. You may check other sources but you'll still find "chemical resonance" a violation of logic and common sense right on the face of every single chemist.
First there was alternating double lines, later they draw a circle inside the ring... the point is that the strength of the bonds between carbons was finally determined to be 1.5 (!) Me, You, they and everyone in this world knows that to be an impossible and ridiculous solution [a compromising one] but the 'closest to the experimental results' we could get.

I say it is 1 (one) in two "frames of existence" and I say it is 2 (two) in the other 2 "frames of existence" and then I am the one NUTS...

I'll get back into other parts of my theory in future posting right here, But I really whish that every member of this friendly forum took a moment to meditate about these things no one seems too concern lately...

Your friend

HUMANBYDEFAULT