Hi Paul, Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers. I have written a 27 page basic introduction to the theory, which I had to keep as short as possible but still present the theory. In that paper, I cover several of the observations listed below, and several others could be easily derived as they are logically implied. The theory I present is mathematically correct and is modeled in MathCAD.
So you are saying, "write the paper and they will read it." You haven't read it, apparently. I have presented a completely new foundation for physics, which explains many things not explained in the Standard Model, including a mathematically correct unification of the forces, an electron binding energy equation, a correction in the dimensions of charge used in units, as well as the discovery of a second type of charge. I have discovered the final force law for the strong force, which is identical in structure to Newton's and Coulomb's laws. I have quantified exactly how the physical Universe arose from non-material cause, exceeding the Big Bang theory in scope. Modern physicists get into the news for predicting the Higgs Boson, which has never been observed and never will be. Scientists get Nobel prizes for theories involving imaginary Pions and Gluons. Scientists are thrilled that their physics is confused as to whether quantum existence is a wave or a particle, and they are ecstatic to claim that quantum existence is nothing more than a probability function. Somebody comes along, uses the empirical data and constants to derive a discrete model of physics, which answers many of the questions sought by modern science, and instead of being welcomed, he is told to go back to his cave until he has solved every possible problem in physics. What kind of response is that? What justification do you have to tell me that I have to single handedly rewrite all of physics before my theories can be accepted, when I present many unique discoveries and no other scientist has ever been told to do similar? Dave > Theories are great, but a theory usually receives death ears from the science community until such a theory can correctly predict all known effects and experiments such as --> * Single electron double slit experiment. * Single photon double slit experiment. * Delayed choice experiment. * Van der Waals' forces. * Zel'dovich radiation. * Cherenkov radiation. * Hawking radiation. * Quantum tunnelling. * Casimir effect. * Unruh effect. * Quantum Hall Effect. * Quantum Zeno effect. * Quantum confinement effect. * Aharonov-Bohm effect. * Compton effect. * Photoelectric effect. * Primakoff effect. * Scharnhorst effect. * Zeeman effect. * Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. * Schottky effect. * Peltier-Seebeck effect. * Mössbauer effect. * Meissner effect. * Leidenfrost effect. * Kaye effect. * Josephson effect. * Ferroelectric effect. * Faraday effect. * Biefeld-Brown effect, also known as electrohydrodynamics (EHD). Furthermore, the theory must use an accurate and stable method of predicting such theories such as mathematics or computer software. Regards, Paul Lowrance
