After reading your post again, I'm starting to fear a certain
line you might be taking with this discussion, this

"they don't agree with how I was taught"

gave you away.


So let me go through it once more with baby steps to show that
there are no conspiracies of the orthodoxy at work in here.


1. A theory in physics would have to be based on proven facts of
physics. These facts you get from the references, which you absolutely
must list so they can be checked for possible misinterpretations.


2. From these facts you deduce new facts, formulate them and show them
to be correct, prove them. This is, again, crucial for the 'checkability'
of the theory.


3. From these new facts, you come to a new conclusion.




Now, did the theory on the site succeed in these steps? No, no, yes. And
what do we call it then?


A preconceived conclusion.


You cannot argue a conclusion that is not based on anything.


However, some pseudophysicist can go through these steps very convincingly,
if you do not have the access to their references and do not have the mathematical
abilities to check their work yourself. In such case one ought to stick to the
sources I listed in the previous post. (There may be other good sources that
didn't come to my mind.)







Simon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tommi
>
> Why do you think no scientist would say these
> things ?


Not very well chosen words from my part, but because of the way it was said in the paper.
If there is a problem, you formulate the wave-fucntion in such way that it
can be seen where the problem is, or give reference to a work where it has
been previously done.

You cannot just leave these things up to faith.




Hope that clarifies things a bit,
Tommi