The Annals of Frontier and Exploratory Science

Spinning or "Torsion" Mechanics in "Homogeneous" Media? Is it Possible?

Vladi S. Travkin

Hierarchical Scaled Physics and Technologies (HSPT), Rheinbach, Germany, Denver, CO, USA

ABSTRACT

The paper presents the unified approach to the most important for physics theories and provide the arguments in the favor of Physics 2 approach and theories. We consider the features of Spinning physics and tell why the name "torsion" is incorrect for physics that within itself and for each phenomenon or theory place the aether presence first of all into: the definitions of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous media and processes, the Scaled media and phenomena, the outcomes of Homogeneous One-scale interpretations of fundamental experiments of Fizeau, A.A.Michelson and E.W.Morley, Stern-Gerlach and Davisson-Germer. Shown the interconnection of all these experiments with the imbalances in electrodynamics and relativity theories which badly influenced the consequences for physics, including and Spinning physics and technologies.

Introduction

More than 60 years in the Spinning ("torsion") physics there is an open and direct need for acceptance and use of physical substance that serves as a medium of interaction between rotating, but not twisted or curled points, sub-atomic or solid medium particles .

Part of physics that unites thanks to its methods, mechanisms of interaction of physical processes on different scales, which has its origins nearly 50 years ago [1-30] - Hierarchical Scaled Physics (HSP), as it turned out is well applicable to multi-scale problems of Spinning ("torsion") physics.

The decisive factor is that at least two insoluble in other theories for Spinning ("torsion") physics problems are soluble in HSP for SHSP (Spinning (Rotation) Heterogeneous Scaled Physics ).

The first - is a review and a rigorous physical and mathematical analysis and problem solving for not only the one rotating sub-atomic or solid particle (that was not done during the previous ~60 years), but also with the averaged fields in the Spinning ("torsion") physics, i.e. with a variety of interactive particles that it makes possible physical effects thought after in SHSP and not only in it. Which is precisely the physical phenomena, rather than just the dynamics of a single particle.

The second problem is also insoluble in others and especially with PV (Physical Vacuum) theories, this is a problem of description and participation of intermediate interactive environment - aether (physical vacuum can not be an interactive environment by its assigned in COHP (Conventional Orthodox Homogeneous Physics) properties; the same must be said and about quantum vacuum), not only in the physical setting, mainly in the form of verbal semantic statements, but also in the strict mathematically solved statements of polyscale, polyphase problems of Spinning ("torsion") physics and an explanation of the experimental results. Because particles cannot interact via the "nothing" even with EM constants as it is accepted in atomic and particle physics in COHP.

One of the biggest advantages of HSP physics, which by the way has long been used, it is the possibility of direct interaction of Physics of Rotation (Spinning Physics) and other fundamental forces, fields, such as electromagnetic, gravitational.

Both in theory and experiments - so far only planned, because in the Hierarchical Scale physics the experiments have not yet provided specifically for the spinning physics.

Such an analysis, polyscale setting goals are impossible, invisible in the COHP [5,25,29-30,32-33] and therefore can not be obtained in Homogeneous Spinning areas of physics, including the existing now conventional theories of Spinning ("torsion") of physics. Therefore, this approach does not exist in these theories.

***************************************************************

Here in this manuscript we try to point out shortly to the IMPOSSIBILITY to build the any credible theory that supports the Spinning ("torsion") physics experimental facts, advancements and, at the same time, do not use other than the MHL electrodynamics; not abandoning the QM as the wrong on many issues theory; not use the Heterogeneity and Polyscaling of sub-atomic and larger scales physics; etc.

Shortly - not using the 2nd physics, of which most striking feature definitions we placed in the "Elements of the 2nd Physics at the beginning of XXI" [31].

To say this firmly we need to recall again - what was stated in our many articles on Physics 2 (part of it is the HSP-VAT) [1-31] and extend these theses into the easier read backgrounds with explanations here in this chapter together with [32,33].

What are the Components of Spinning ("Torsion") Physics Scaled (SPS) as of the Homogeneous Science based on the COH (Conventional One-scale Orthodox Homogeneous Physics (COHP)) Physics That Got so Ugly Common Media Press Releases and the COHP Falsified Conjectures

The most striking issue when reading of some "outstanding" "analysis" and remarks on the "torsion" Spinning physics texts, personalities in the mass media and the comments placed by their readers is the Outstanding ignorance of the commentators, "analysts".

This easily reminds the medieval arguments on religion's matters and mostly of the witch hunt topic. So primitive and ignorence filled are the remarks of pseudo-analysts after the >100 years of the old screwed education in physics and chemistry.

That also reminds some of the biblical exerpts about the simple ignorent people. The steps out of this are the educational efforts, programs. Meanwhile, the gap between the common way engineered technical professionals and the Frontier 2nd Physics basics specialists is wider and wider each year. We need to write here not only for a common way educated professionals in engineering, technical disciplines, but and for advanced readers. Some of them are the Spinning ("torsion") physics participants, researchers making studies while using the COHP methods, tools, even definitions.

The strongest and easier way would be referring readers to the already published here in this website and elsewhere manuscripts, papers on the content of the electromagnetic phenomena and the aether [7-10,13,14,19-22,25,27]. It is nevertheless, not a fast path to the information. This education requires rather high demands to the background education and for the efforts that need to be applied.

Going into the step by step path we need at first mention some of the main concepts, knowledge bricks of the Physics 2 that are already summoned in the way to outline the issues directly related to the Spinning physics understanding [11,24,25,29-33].

What are the Features of Physics 2 and Why most of COHP Physicists going Dumn or Mad When Realize What it is?

1) Not only recognition of the aether in a qualitative manner, as like - yes, we know that it exists. But full acceptance of the some features that are known at present and useful and pivotal for the craft of a researcher, worker in technologies.

Use of those aether pertinent characteristics with the possible for a user level of mathematical proficiency and physical issues qualification. Practical use of the aether.

2) Recognition, knowledge, and use of the fact that most of our universe itself (and possible of others) and of its parts, matters are of Heterogeneous nature and structure at different scales.

3) Recognition, knowledge, and use of the imbalances, improper theoretical analysis and mathematics, inadequate treatments of issues in the Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz (MHL) Electromagnetism for Homogeneous matter. H.A.Lorentz warned on this inadequacy in 1923, but others preferred not to hear on that.

4) Recognition, knowledge, and use of the facts that the sub-atomic particles are not the Point-Mass-Charge-Spin (PMCS) objects, but the Volumetric Structural Objects-Particles with the mass, charge, and spin as established by experiment.

5) Recognition and acting in the studies with the aether as not of a simple Homogeneous or even Structural, Corpuscular or similar Heterogeneous structure volume filling (between the atoms and sub-atomic particles) substance, matter.

The aether is much more complicated matter with mostly by experiments revealed properties up to the present - beginning of the XXI. One of these properties is the Materialization - Dematerialization (Transduction in and out) of a matter and use in our universe, world.

6) Recognition, knowledge, and use of the Heterogeneous mathematics based at present mostly on the Heterogeneous theorems that are similar to Homogeneous mathematics theorem of Gauss-Ostrogradsky.

7) Recognition and use the advanced Galilean (actually the very different) electrodynamics only of Heterogeneous matter. Right now at the beginning of XXI this Heterogeneous electrodynamics is based on Homogeneous electrodynamics of Ja.G.Klyushin.

8) Recognition and use of Heterogeneous Scaled Classical Mechanics instead of the One Scale Classical Mechanics for PMCS of XVIII - XX.

9) Recognition and acceptance of knowledge of physics and biophysics as the one field. The reason for this is that the biophysics is still the much more complicated science that (that is OK here) the physics itself.

10) Recognition and use of Polyphase (aether first) Polyscale (2P) Particle, Spinning (Rotation, "torsion"), and Nuclear physics. As soon as they are the 2P experimentally.

11) Recognition and use of only the 3P (Polyphase (aether first), Polyscale, Polyphysics) Continuum Mechanics as the most developed at the moment HSP (Hierarchical Scaled Physics) group of sciences.

12) The speeds of interaction, influence and the field transport signs speed in the aether are much larger then the speed of light in the aether. The Entanglement is just the feature of transport in the aether. So, no SR and GR, and not only because of speed, but mostly because of improper theory in MHL electrodynamics, Homogeneity of Spatial Matters, and of the Aether absence. No just geometrization of physics as the wacky offer, point of view.

13) There are others then the four kinds of interaction that are accepted in COHP at present. And the 3rd and 4th "interactions" of COHP with high possibility are just of the electromagnetic nature.

14) The Gravitation is the phenomenon tight to electromagnetism and the aether properties and dynamics.

15) Many, if not everyone of the COP > 1 contemporary devices succumb to the direct and often strict explanation while in the environment of the 2nd physics theories.

Well, and we don't call them a "junk" science, especially if the great experimental evidences on the table. That in spite that in the US even judges became the experts in calling this or that phenomenon as the "junk" science (Wikipedia "junk science"). We don't do this - just recognize that yes, the bad, ignorant, and foolish "scientific" studies exist.

Examples of our explanation COP > 1 invented devices - the pure Magner Motors; the Cold Fusion processes type of A.Rossi's reactors; nuclear reciprocal transformation and energy generation in the chamber of J.Papp engine; Hendershot's Perendev generator; etc., etc.

16) The 2nd Biophysics implementation to phenomena and processes as, for example, for the magnetobiology and macromolecules internal dynamics and interaction; intracellular polyphase dynamics; energy 3P generation and transformation within the cell; cell-tissue Bottom-Up scaling; spinning ("torsion") dynamics (transduction) in bioprocesses; physical and mathematical modeling and explanation of Embryonic Induction; etc..

These processes are the HSP 3P processes and modeling have demonstrated the power and ability for advancement within the 2nd Biophysics. Meanwhile, these theories are unreachable in COHP based biophysics.

17) Medicinal implementation of the 2nd biophysics already includes more then 25 years of advancements in fluids flow, mostly of polyphase, polyscale (2P) blood; in 2P organ's tissues theorizing and modeling; polyphase polyscale polyphysics (3P) processes in organ's tissue; disease modeling (at least the major 3P features) now can be available as the 3P process.

All of this is not achievable in the medicinal COH physics, biochemistry theorizing and modeling.

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

Now, after reading these main issues of Physics 2 and of Spinning physics [11,31-33] we might relate to faults of COHP that actually blocking the developments in SPS because the most researchers in Spinning physics are still the users of COH physics and as such are on the street going to the dead end one.

That is why the conventional physics (COHP) based lectures and publications of great pioneer A.E.Akimov [34-36,38-40] could not reach the proper explanations and methods of data reduction in the previous ~45 years of studies in SPS.

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

Meanwhile, in the outstanding publications and lectures by A.E.Akimov [34-36,38-40] everyone can often find the quite opposite statements to the above mentioned Physics 2 features of that make the Spinning physics the science - but not a bunch of alchemistry similar enormous experimental results. These experiments had been accompanied with the metaphysics of simply wrong even in COHP physical theories [8-11,13-14,29-33,42]. That is why the lectures of Akimov perceived as the fairy-tales by the townsfolk and COHP physicists. Because the fundamentals of COHP do not allow them to be of reality.

Among those imbalanced discrepant COHP based theoretical statements for "torsion physics" we can mention (just obviously only few of the list of errors):

1) In the "Torsion" Mechanics (Homogeneous) of Akimov-Shipov expressed the trust to all the major theories of COH physics.

2) There is no place for the aether in Akimov's lectures, texts.

3) There is no distinguishing between the Homogeneous and Heterogeneous media, material, bodies, phenomena, processes..

4) Akimov connects the Spinning ("torsion") fields with the theories of Einstein-Cartan? There are no physical facts supporting this claim. Can be imagined as the clear weight of G.Shipov [37,41,43-45].

At the same time A.E.Akimov points out to the outstanding features of Spinning experiments as the following:

1) Spinning ("torsion") fields have the capability for the self-generating.

2) Spinning ("torsion") fields have a memory, ability for memorizing of the event - and this effect of spin memory ("torsion" memory) can be conserved for a pretty long time - because to destroy the spin memory is the very difficult task.

3) Velocity of "torsion" signals are tremendously high - Akimov says - might be of $10^{9}$ $c$ or even bigger.

4) Akimov stated that - "Torsion" fields are different from the electromagnetic and gravidynamics fields.

5) Akimov stated that - "Torsion" fields at the macroscales can be considered as the ones generated by "torsion" fields of the elementary particles." This is the very credible statement.

6) Akimov mentiones N.A.Kozyurev with regard of "torsion" signals transport.

7) The high penetrating capability of spinning ("torsion") fields as the outstanding feature in the experiments.

8) Akimov stated that - "Equally Oriented spins are appended one to another. And Equally Oriented spins are not repel one another, but attract themselves. That is the different from the equal charges forces interaction. ..."

9) Akimov stated that - still the after Torsion Generator (TG) treatment - the size of cooled metal grains increased ~50 times; and inside of the grains there was no crystal structure of the metal - alloys were created and cooled.

10) Akimov stated that - "Transport of the binary TG sygnal in Moscow for the distance of ~22 km gave - no signal decreasing, no signal deterioration, etc. Practically ideal transport of binary signal throughout the numerous and thick solid state obstacles by Torsion Radiation."

11) Akimov says that - "The term - Biofield is equal to term "Torsion field".

12) Akimov says that - " North pole of a magnet is corresponding to Right Torsion field, but the South pole of the magnet is to correspond to the Left Torsion field...."

13) Akimov told the story about experiments with - "the gate-blocking by magnet of this spin field transport from a one test-tube with the medication dissolved to a nearing another test-tube with the distilled water in it and nothing more."

14) Akimov said that - " a human being needs to have an exchange with the external "torsion" fields as similar we need to have a gaseous exchange for our body with the external air. Without this "torsion" exchange" a human might got sick or even die."

15) Akimov states that - "the most important is that a "torsion" field can affect material objects without exchange of energy!"

16) Akimov states that - "We have discovered that any photograph, besides the visible picture, the image also includes a spin picture. Trying to see it brought to a view an interesting result - the resulting picture was far beyond of the borders of the photograph."

We must also acknowledge that the slogans distributed by some participants of Spinning physics research about the content and base of SPS supported heavily in the "Journal of Unconventional Science" are the ones that mostly of the COHP base as is.

That means that often in this journal as in other usual COHP magazines being published the wrong COHP ideas, statements, and even theories that are modified during the years.

Meanwhile, the COH physics itself with the great force is holding back not only the Spinning physics.

Researchers of SPS need to more openly exploit their possibility for using tools, theories of the Physics 2 because the COHP's content, methods, and theoretical base are wrong for COHP itself. That is wrong definitely and for the SPS' fundamentals and development [11,29-30,32-33]. The Spinning physics cannot be explained and advanced without the proper theoretical base, but COHP is the wrong physics in many the most important areas for SPS and Cold Fusion as well [1-16,18-25,29-33,42,48-50,71-72].

Relativity Theories and Why They Had Appeared at All, Especially in Connection to the Spinning Physics?

It is highly relevant to note here that all these loud unstoppable discussions and theories of "Relativity" at the end of XIX and the beginning of XX were the result of that time the only accepted theory (belief) of Homogeneity of our world and consequently - in physics the modeling of its (Homogeneous) phenomena as of Homogeneous models with the Homogeneous governing equations. And of the incorrect reformulations of Maxwell's Homogeneous One-scale electrodynamics by O.Heaviside, H. Hertz, J.Larmor, H.Poincare, and H.Lorentz [42,49,50,8-10].

Then, there was a need for physical description of phenomena in the "neighboring" places, areas, volumes, and times.

All these schemes as - the observer stands in this system, while the object(s) moves in the other system and has its process occurring in it; are appeared because there was no conjugation of these systems, it was not even considered.

They just existed in the parallel worlds to each other and questions were not asked - How and whether they interact?

Anything is connecting these two systems with their like "separate" physics with their own like "separate "times"?

Is anything in between of them ?

Well, how they observe and know on the events?

Visually only? Then - How the photons are traveling back and forth?

These all questions have not been even through to ask - because the both systems were Homogeneous and NOTHING WAS - AND SHOULD BE BETWEEN OF THEM, and no discussions were happened on that!

Remember - in SR stated that there is no aether should be! For a purpose - we are desribing this aether's matter with the tenacious attention in [7-10,13,14].

There was no notions, belief, theory, terms on Heterogeneous physical interactions at the time of "Relativity" physics creation in ~(1870 - 1915) by H.Poincare, W.Thomson, H.A.Lorentz, J.Larmor, J.J.Thomson, H.Minkowski, A.Einstein, and a few other outstanding personalities.

Then - it will be pretty educational to review some of the traditional COHP texts (of greatest physicists) from that time on the issue - How they understood and were able (if any) to theorize, make some models on a matter (physical substance) and the electromagnetic interaction of aether, particles, and atoms within the matter (substance)?

We would reflect on the manuscripts of J.Larmor [46] and H.Lorentz [47]. Regarding the Lorentz's understanding of the Polyphase, Polyscale actually theory and modeling and presentation of the electrodynamics in the condensed matter we analyzed this issue in [8-10]. It was clearly shown that at the time of Lorentz at the end of XIX and the first quarter of XX century even H.Lorentz while describing, setting up the electrodynamics theory for a matter with the aether, for a matter with the atoms, aether and electrons, those are the polyphase matters, was not able to support this theory with the different class of physical matter, physical description of Heterogeneous Medium and a theory for physical modeling in it.

That was a common level of knowledge regarding the polyphase matter, materials, substances.

More distinctively we can find this level of physical science outlined regarding the Heterogeneous media in the another famous manuscript of that time by J.Larmor "Aether and Matter" (1900). In chapter X ("GENERAL PROBLEM OF MOVING MATTER TREATED IN RELATION TO THE INDIVIDUAL MOLECULES") Larmor wrote -

"102. We shall now consider the material system as consisting of free aether pervaded by a system of electrons which are to be treated individually, some of them free or isolated, but the great majority of them grouped into material molecules: and we shall attempt to compare the relative motions of these electrons when they form, or belong to, a material system devoid of translatory motion through the aether, with what it would be when a translatory velocity is superposed, say for shortness a velocity v parallel to the axis of x.

The medium in which the activity occurs is for our present purpose the free aether itself, whose dynamical equations have been definitely ascertained in quite independent ways from consideration of both the optical side and the electrodynamic side of its activity: so that there will be nothing hypothetical in our analysis on that score. "

While writing further on the mathematical equations for each "phase" - in our contemporary notations and understanding, Larmor did not distinguish in the mathematical models between the "phases" of "electrons" (he understood them as the close to our days atoms), aether and what is the most important - on the specifics of mathematical depiction of the "interphase" interaction.

That was all the common way Homogeneous media for each of the "phase" and for the whole material.

That was a usual method, things to do while in the attempt to model, depict the some Heterogeneous medium physical phenomena, processes - scientists needed to take the Homogeneous known to them mathematical constructions.

So, even H.Lorentz and J.Larmor could not create the theories for Heterogeneous physics.

Could not Introduce the concept and any theory for a one Homogeneous medium physics, for the Two Homogeneous media physics Interacting one with another, and for many Homogeneous media with their physics Interacting with and through their interphases.

They could not create this vision - may be mostly because they would need to have at their disposal the mathematics of Heterogeneous averaging and of broken-disjoined media with their separate physics'.

No one of H.Poincare, nor H.Lorentz, nor H.Minkowski, nor D.Hilbert could create these tools.

There was no science of Heterogeneous Media up to the ~1950s while in the pretty simplified and incorrect anyway form its elements appeared in the Nuclear science and engineering first of all [3,5,6,29,77-79,88].

Right now, at present times, nobody in a sober mind seems considering the events in the neighboring sand grains (particles) or gas bubbles in a water as the different systems with their "observers" within?

Nobody says that events in the Moon, Mars, or other planet of the solar astronomical system are related by their "observers" at ALL? Oh, yes, they say this - a lot of people in astrophysics and cosmology, some in the astronomy - those who's living just depends of what they say in their "sciences."

Meanwhile, the connecting physical phenomena are just need the intermedium (aether, or space filled with other substance - depending on a scale we are interested in) of a different nature, and their spatial and time scales. All of this in the one Heterogeneous system.

Note - that we are talking on the only one universe at a time and space - accepting that at present we have ability for experience of only the one world.

What was said above on the role of Heterogeneity in physical phenomena is the addition to the wrong evolution of MHL electrodynamics equations [42,48-50,7-10,13,14] and wrong interpretation of the experiment by Michelson-Morley's of 1887 while silencing (even in Wiki?) the successful continuation of these experiments by Michelson and Morley themselves and by D.Miller's later on in XX and many other followers [51-58]. Some of experimenters just worked because of the RT funds, some brought in the more modest confirmation of the aether dynamics, including of the earth drift and properties of the aether [56-58].

It is interesting how R.Santilli in [59] noticed that "As limpidly expressed by Einstein himself, the special relativity was specifically conceived for point-like particles moving in empty space. As a consequence, the relativity is intrinsically unable to describe extended deformable particles moving within inhomogeneous and anisotropic material media."

It is also hidden from public and students that space agencies unofficially are not using in practice many (if not everyone) of SR and GR suggestions. Just because they don't need to do this, because they found experimentally that most of these "laws" are not working, while some are supported and by the aether existence theories. Of course, Wikipedia controlled by COH physics pushes and lies about aether, RT and their place in physics.

The Pretty Renowned Experiments by Stern-Gerlach, Davisson-Germer, and Fizeau That Were Assessed and Explained as the One-scale Homogeneous Phenomena. What These COHP Explanations Have Done to the Contemporary Physics and Spinning ("torsion") Physics in Particular

Stern - Gerlach and Davisson - Germer experiments interpretation in Physics 2 are introduced here with the pure involvement of the Heterogeneity of the media and polyphase physical phenomena in them.

Never before physicists in COH physics could address these experiments explanation with the Heterogeneous 3D Dynamics theory that includes the aether and the structure of electrons, photons, nuclei and their magnetic fields and spins in the matter.

In short the interpretation of the Stern - Gerlach experiment embraces the factors of the magnetic moment and spin of electrons, protons, and $_{47}$Ag (in compound with MATHAg$_{\QTR{Large}{62}}$) atoms in the dynamics of $_{\QTR{Large}{47}}$Ag along the magnetic poles slit.

MATH

Fig. 1 Stern - Gerlach experiment schematic in educational literature.

As well as and $^{2}$H, $^{3}$H, $^{2}$H$_{2}$, other atoms and molecules in other experiments.

Naturally it is that the magnetic dipole of atoms along the path of movement starts to align itself with the magnetic fields (forces) of external magnets.

Then it all results either in the Up or Down direction of spins and magnetic moments. All of this because the atoms are structures of not a planetary design [12-14,19-22,25,60-72].

By the way - in COH physics classes they teach this - now lecturers tell that it is all because it "is not due to the orbital angular momentum of its electrons, but due to the spin of one electron."

Which one from the 47?

MATH

Fig. 2 Silver atom MATH Ag(?) according to Wikipedia. Note the planetary morphology of silver atom?? Wrong theory pushed by N.Bohr.

So - forget about "the orbital angular momentum"? Really?

But still - How even the ONE electron "orbiting around" the nucleus and in this way constantly changing the own magnetic momentum keeps tracking the external magnetic field and being able to turn the whole Ag atom ? One external electron? Is it pushing or dragging behind the whole Atom of silver ? Anyone knows on that or modeled that?

The pretty powerful One electron we can say.

Another thing that we can probably reflect upon is - That it is the serious scam of COH physics, this interpretation of the Stern - Gerlach experiment and teaching students on it.

*********

Regarding the C.Davisson - L.Germer experimental set up [73] and interpretation of the results we can return again back to the main facts of the morphology of nickel crystal Ni atoms net and the scattering (reflection of electrons from the atomic 3D Ni lattice ) of the array electrons of the electron beam from the spatial array of charged particles - electrons, atoms of Ni crystal.

Nobody throughout these >90 years says and understands that this is the pure Polyscale Polyphase physical phenomenon where the particles, atoms, and the aether are interacting with momentum and electrodynamics involved.

Why? Because these Scaled Heterogeneous processes are not known for the issues of how to theorize and model them within the COH physics with its One-scale Homogeneous fields and theories - One Scale For All (OFSA) physical phenomena. And if need - then used the most powerful and developed physical tool of Coefficient Science [16].

No scaled physical and mathematical models and statements exist and accepted in COH atomic and sub-atomic physics for the Heterogeneous, Hierarchical, Scaled media and physical phenomena in them [13-15]. But in the HSP-VAT they do exist and that exist for near 50 years, in the next year we will celebrate the 50 years of WSAM theorems [1-33,60-72].

COH physics professionals are afraid of this covering physics [1-33,59-70]. Cannot comprehend it.

Surely we will get sometimes in a future the more advanced replications of the Stern - Gerlach and Davisson - Germer experiments that will include the features of HSP design and data reduction procedures for these 3P (Polyphase Polyscale Polyphysics) experiments.

MATH MATH MATH MATH MATH MATH MATH MATH MATH

Fig. 3 Figures in the sequence that we show from the internet that are reflecting, giving the schemes, and possible interpretation in COH physics of Davisson -- Germer experiment. No one shows the wave creation from the Points-Dots - and how it can be done?

Picturing the particles, atoms as particles - not DOTS? How is that? They should be according to COHP - the DOTS, not spheres as in the figures. Dark large circles are not Dots, but appear as the balls of atoms. Dots-points are just coordinates of points in space and have no geometrical parameters - as volumes, surfaces, etc. Only the one Figure shows - No Dots, no spheres, only lines. Why is that? Probably ashamed to lie to students about dots as scattering atoms without any structure - because Points-Dots Cannot scatter, cannot reflect another Points-Dots. They don't find one another, because they don't have any Volume to meet one another! Just the interaction and the EM fields if the power of collisions is not of the very high level. Meanwhile, the Points-Dots have no ability to form the EM fields. Who knows on that? Nobody in COHP want even to talk on this scam. So, in COHP physicists created the Scheme for this [74,25].

Also - Where are the waves? Any student asking the questions?

The another question is that one that nobody asked before and it is:

Anyone of these and many other pictures on C.Davisson and L.Germer [73] experiment - Do Not show and have any Hint on the issue - How the flux of corpuscles-electrons being reflected from the 3D lattice of vibrating atoms and electrons of these atomes - then being collected in action by detector when combined give the collective picture as similar to the wave creation?

Because nobody could imagine of the problem of collective reflection of particles-electrons from the great array of another particles that formed the solid Ni. And how they form the wave-like effects?

Just believe in this - and that's it, they say to the students?

Nobody even thought on this (at least in permitted COHP publications) - How is it possible to collect the multiple reflection of arrays of particles? And that is only the portion of reflected electrons! Where is the most of incoming and reflected electrons within the solid Ni?

Still this problem had been probed from the natural classical mechanics side of simulation even in the COHP research [74] that we scrutinized in [25] -

  • "Classical Mechanics Attempts for Description of Atomic Physics (ClM One-scale One-phase Homogeneous Atomic Physics - ClMO2HAP) Phenomena."

    In that study in spite of multiple COHP conjectures and incorrect methods [25] - the basic idea was good: How to approach the problem of reflecting some sub-atomic particles, as electrons, by the row (only one row of the two, three negative charges - not of the Ni atoms as exactly should be) that in some simplified model can be considered as the first phase of to be accurately the Davisson -- Germer experiment simulation. The second phase of simulation when the question is - How the reflected electrons could be collected as the "wave" pattern flux is the most interesting - and was unswered many years ago in our studies of the Two-scale Hirarchical Scaled phenomena in physics [1-30].

    Going further, that means the statement widely distributed in the COHP literature as of that "the Davisson -- Germer experiment confirmed the de Broglie hypothesis that matter has wave-like behavior," is just confirmation of outstanding phenomenon of collective interaction of particulate media - that is it. And no actual waves?

    No waves - just collective interaction of particles arrays with their dynamics and electrodynamics [19-23,25,29], etc.

    When transfer our attention to the Davisson - Germer Experiment and the dynamics of it and how this collective inter-particle collisions and scattering can be analyzed and modeled we need to outline the main features in this experiment:

    1) There was not an individual particles dynamics, but collective flux of electrons and its again collective impact on a solid state Ni target, near surface atomic layers . This problem up to now COHP is not able to state and to model, simulate correctly as well.

    2) The electrodynamics of electron particles could not be stated correctly, because they used inappropiate for these point-like tasks MHL electrodynamics and simplified artificial dynamics (poin-like volumeless electrons) momentum equations, if they used. But we doubt on that.

    3) Data modeling, simulation and reduction in Figures can not be performed correctly in COHP, just vecause COHP cannot treat these kind of collective interaction local-nonlocal problems for more then 100 years. Just don't have tools, methods for that.

    4) The structure of electrons was not known. And could not be used even if known as long as was used QM after ~1926 as a primary modeling theoretical tool.

    5) The structure of nickel, nickel's atom and nickel's nuclei were not known at that time in physics and not recognized now in COHP either. And that alone destroys any hope on stating and/or making a data reduction in this problem correctly.

    6) Aether presence was ignored. So, the electromagnetism couldn't be applied correctly.

    Collective interaction is also in the behavior of water, for example (and other similar liquid or/and gaseous fluid), - that consists of billions of water molecules even in a small continuous volume that can form the various waves in the water as of the continuum medium - Why nobody says that the nature itself discovered this phenomenon of "wave-particle duality" just from the beginning of the creation? Because it is not understood yet?

    While that means - the water is the substance that the wave-particle duality preserves within itself? Great discovery by nature isn't it?

    The problem here and this problem is hidden from the students and public - that the COH physics has no tools, theories, or better to say that it's rejecting to think and adopt the HSP-VAT because it is too painful for the wrong areas in physics [8-15,1-23,79]. COHP needs to think about consequences and change in education [25-30,79,86-92,etc.].

    So far the HSP-VAT is not disputed in the Sub-Atomic as well as in Continuum Mechanics sciences in COHP [1-10]. Well, we have near 50 years of education and rejection of education because in COHP it will make a living in other way around.

    Fizeau Experiment

    It is obvious now after presenting a physical matter (substance) as a medium of the aether filled with the atoms (molecules in the case of Fizeau (Fizo) experiment) as the interaction of light (photons) and directed movement of water as the Heterogeneous 2-phase at least that creates the dragging (actually resistance by water) phenomenon for light particles. The light is the flux of particles - photons in a substance, it's not the continuum medium rays, or "electromagnetic" fictitious waves as incorrectly lecturers are teaching in the universities [42,48-50,61-70,8-10].

    It is of incredible interest observing the interpretations (many, almost all of them) of the setting up and experiment explanations and data reduction in COHP that even persons as of H.Lorentz stature used for experiment(s) of H.Fizeau (FE) throughout the more than 160 last years.

    MATH MATH MATH MATH

    Figures for H.Fizeau experiment (FE) provided and "explained" throughout the >160 years (web pages).

    More than 160 years physicists are debating on the results and interpretation of famous experiments done by H.Fizeau starting in 1851 to measure the relative speeds of light in moving water. There is the whole literature exists about - Why it is so important to explain it correctly.

    The very famous physicists used the understanding of FE as of the three Homogeneous media interaction - aether, light (mostly considered as a continuum Homogeneous substance), and water - also considered as a continuum Homogeneous substance, interacting in the tubes filled with running water.

    Seems a simple setup?

    It is interesting to note - that in all Figures above and many others are used the Ray Optics, and no presentation of light via the photons flux. That is - in COHP this experiment (and not only this) is shown with the visible light rays going through the "Homogeneous" water!

    Meanwhile, physicists used the relationships between these "Homogeneous" media without the specification of their interactions.

    Simply that they exist and act within each other - like in the Fizeau experiment - as they can "drag" one another? How this could be in the one small piece of interaction with the another piece we can recollect in comparison to the one not less famous history with the drag of water inside of the sand, porous media [1-10,75-82]. Also the resistance of one medium in relation to the dynamics of the other one.

    Students probably don't know that this is also not routinely performed task even now - and cannot be considered as the done technical problem? Strictly speaking it is not solved up to the square root similar status, but should be according to the scientific literature [1-6,75-80]. It is too complicated for the procedures used in COHP for resolution of Homogeneous problems.

    Even now it is the area of studies - Polyphase Heterogeneous Scaled ones [77-80,83-87].

    We definitely cannot name the phenomenological pseudo-explanations, including and use of RT, of Homogeneous light and matter "observers" position at, as this is presented in the COHP explanation literature - most known as via the Wikipedia - see the above Figures.

    Meanwhile, here in the Fizeau experiment we have the direct interaction of aether's Homogeneous (one of the "phases) "phase", the Heterogeneous phase of molecules of water, the sub-atomic particles including of ions, and the phase of flux of photons as the sub-atomic particles as well. Polyphase - Two-scale at least - Momentum - and - Electrodynamics interactions of Heterogeneous media with penetration - that what it is [12,19-22].

    No "observers" and different "systems" to observe are in need to be present, because the whole Heterogeneous local-nonlocal system is simultaneously at action. No "contraction," "auxiliary times" or "local time" of Lorentz are in here.

    This is the very much known example of the Heterogeneous Problem, which for >160 years in COHP not recognized as this one.

    Because there was no Heterogeneous medium even of its definition, and of use in physics in XIX-XX (first half of).

    The aether can be considered as of the low velocity medium (due to filtration through the protection of the surrounding building's elements) regarding the lab's coordinate system.

    Again, in textbooks and monographs the all descriptions about aether dynamics in COHP are finished in 1880s. While this is a fraud of silencing of the information about further studies on aether dynamics measurement through all the XX century. We need to mention with regard of this incorrect simply confirmations of RTs, at the same time the positive further aether experiments of D.Miller, later experiments by A.Michelson and finally of the Ukranian team of Yu.M.Galaev in the 1990s [51-59].

    That's it - the Fizeau experiment by him and by numerous later replications are about the Polyphase Two - (or 3) scale Momentum and Electrodynamics interactions in Heterogeneous medium and should be studied, modeled and theorized in this setup and statements.

    There are no Homogeneous media in interaction of light and water. This was a great simplification in XIX-XX due to the lack of physical knowledge that brought in the incorrect understanding of phenomena and the dared consequences. We have these consequences in physics and technologies throughout all the time after that [42,49,50,59,12-15].

    Conclusions

    All these above re-interpreted crucial for physics and technologies experiments - Fizeau experiment, A.A.Michelson and E.W.Morley experiments, Stern-Gerlach and Davisson-Germer experiments - all of them - or more correct is to say - that their incorrect (MHL incorrect formulations in the still aether and in a substance, Homogeneous One-scale media accepted in experiments) interpretations (especially of Michelson and Morley experiment of 1987, and silencing of D.Miller, D.Miller and E.Morley, and A.Michelson and E.Morley experiments in XX) established for more than a century the incorrect theoretical interpretations of the world's physical phenomena [42,8-10,12-15,24,29-32,etc.].

    Because all these wrong idealistic XVIII style interpretations and theories brought in the "relativity" ideas, relativity principles in electrodynamics by H.Poincare and H.Lorentz (Lorentz and of others transformations) that they in turn relied on just mathematical imbalances in the MHL modified Homogeneous One-scale electrodynamics [42,49,50,59,12-15,24,29-32,88-92].

    That already not Maxwell's electrodynamics later on was reformulated by A.Einstein (and his co-authors), M.Planck, D.Hilbert, and F.Lindemann into the SR and GR with all these errors of MHL electrodynamics for Homogeneous media, Homogeneous and One-scale media of Universe in SR, GR with the added notions of torsion and curvature [11,32-33] into again the Homogeneous World space media. That was also the need to drop the aether as the intermedium from the SR and use only the Point-Mass-Charge-Spin (PMCS) "particles" for the interactions.

    That was the wrong "source" of definition of the "torsion" and "torsion physics" for Spinning physics that in the one scale one Homogeneous medium version (of ~1960-2011) was not embracing the facts of aether's presence along with the more accurate Heterogeneous Electrodynamics for existing Heterogeneity and Polyscaling in any known so far medium in the Universe (this one we know of definitely).

    References:

    1. Travkin, V.S., Fundamentals of Hierarchical Scaled Physics (HSP-VAT). Description of Transport and Phenomena in Heterogeneous and Scaled Media http://travkin-hspt.com/fundament/index.htm. (2003)

    2. Travkin, V.S., and Catton, I., Transport Phenomena in Heterogeneous Media Based on Volume Averaging Theory, in Advances in Heat Transfer, Vol. 34, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-144, (2001)

    3. Travkin, V.S., Continuum Mechanics of Heterogeneous (Ht) Media; Elasticity, Plasticity, http://travkin-hspt.com/elastic/index.htm, (2005)

    4. Travkin, V.S. and Catton, I., "Porous Media Transport Descriptions - Non-Local, Linear and Nonlinear Against Effective Thermal/Fluid Properties," in Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, Vol. 76-77, pp. 389-443, (1998)

    5. Travkin, V.S., "Why is it Different from Homogeneous and other Theories and Methods of Heterogeneous Media Mechanics/(other Sciences) Description?" http://travkin-hspt.com/fundament/03.htm, (2002)

    6. Travkin, V.S., "Reductionism and/versus Holism in Physics and Biology - are Both Defective Concepts without Scaleportation," http://travkin-hspt.com/fundament/scaleport/scaleport.htm, (2004)

    7. Travkin, V.S., "Solid State Plasma Models," http://travkin-hspt.com/atom/01.htm, (2006)

    8. Travkin, V.S., What's Wrong with the Pseudo-Averaging Used in Textbooks on Atomic Physics and Electrodynamics for Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz Electromagnetism Equations, http://travkin-hspt.com/eldyn/maxdown/maxdown.htm, (2009)

    9. Travkin, V.S., Incompatibility of Maxwell-Lorentz Electrodynamics Equations at Atomic and Continuum Scales, http://travkin-hspt.com/eldyn/incompat/incompat.htm, (2009)

    10. Travkin, V.S., Electrodynamics 2 - Elements 3P (Polyphase-Polyscale-Polyphysics), http://travkin-hspt.com/eldyn2/index.htm, (2013)

    11. Travkin, V.S., "Torsion" or Spinning (Rotation) Physics Scaled (SPS), http://travkin-hspt.com/rottors/right.htm. (2003-2014)

    12. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N., "The Classical and Sub-Atomic Physics are the Same Physics," http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys/pdf/51_PrAtEd-QM-Ref-2HSPT.pdf, (2013)

    13. Travkin, V.S., Particle Physics - Heterogeneous Polyscale Collectively Interactive, http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys/index.htm, (2011)

    14. Travkin, V.S., Particle Physics (Particle Physics 2). Fundamentals, http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/index.htm, (2013)

    15. Travkin, V.S., Nuclear Physics Structured. Introduction, http://travkin-hspt.com/nuc/index.htm, (2006-2013)

    16. Travkin, V.S., Experimental Science in Heterogeneous Media, http://travkin-hspt.com/exscience/index.htm, (2005)

    17. Travkin, V.S., Statistical Mechanics Homogeneous for Point Particles. What Objects it Articulates? http://travkin-hspt.com/statmech/index.htm, (2014)

    18. Travkin, V.S., Solid State Polyscale Physics. Fundamentals, http://travkin-hspt.com/solphys/index.htm, (2014)

    19. Travkin, V.S., "Two-Scale Three-Phase Regular and Irregular Shape Charged Particles (Electrons, Photons) Movement in MHL Electromagnetic Fields in a Vacuum0 (Aether)," http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/abstracts/twoparticlesshort-ab.htm, (2013)

    20. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N.,"Two-Scale Two-Phase Formation of Charged 3D Continuum Particles - Sphere and Cube From Electrons in a Vacuum0 (Aether). An Example of Scaleportation of Charge from the Sub-Atomic to Continuum Charged Particles, Conventional MD Cannot be Applied," http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/abstracts/subtocontin-ab.htm, (2013)

    21. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N., "One Structured Electron in an Aether (Vacuum0) Electrodynamics, Many Electrons in an Aether Fixed in Space - the Upper Scale Galilean Electrodynamics ," http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys/abstracts/stillelectrons-ab.htm (2011)

    22. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N., "Electrons and CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) Flux of Photons in a Vacuum0 (Aether) - Two-Scale Galilean Theory ," http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys/abstracts/elcmbr-ab.htm (2010)

    23. Travkin, V.S., "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Hierarchical Processes in the E-Cat Nuclear Reactor. Physics 2 ," http://travkin-hspt.com/coldlenr/ecathier1/ecathier1-ab.htm, (2012-2013)

    24. Travkin, V.S.,Atomic and Subatomic Physics 2 - Elements 3P, http://travkin-hspt.com/atom2/index.htm, (2003-2015)

    25. Travkin, V.S., "Classical Mechanics Attempts for Description of Atomic Physics (ClM One-scale One-phase Homogeneous Atomic Physics - ClMO2HAP) Phenomena ," http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/clmechonesc1/clmechonesc1.htm, (2014)

    26. Gordienko, Y.G. and Travkin, V.S., "Transport Properties of Point-Like Objects in Multi-Scale Heterogeneous Substructure," http://travkin-hspt.com/atom/pointlike.htm, (2003)

    27. Travkin, V.S., "Crystalline Medium Defects and Micro-Heterogeneous Solid State Plasma VAT Equations," http://travkin-hspt.com/atom/04.htm, (2004)

    28. Travkin, V.S., "Bridging Atomic and Macroscopic Scales for Materials, Process, and Device Design. US-Russian Workshop on Software Development (SWN2003)," http://travkin-hspt.com/atom/SWN2003.htm, (2003)

    29. Travkin, V.S., "What Classical Mechanics of XVIII Provided in XX Has Done Wrong to the Base of Mechanical Science Including the Classical Mechanics of Continuum Particles and Conventional Orthodox Homogeneous Particle Physics", http://travkin-hspt.com/rottors/classmechwrong/classmechwrong.htm, (2014)

    30. Travkin, V.S., "The Major Forces Have Been Missing From Governing Equations for Dynamics of Sub-atomic and Continuum Particles, Bodies in XVIII - XX," http://travkin-hspt.com/rottors/forcemissing/forcemissing.htm, (2014)

    31. Travkin, V.S., Elements of the 2nd Physics at the beginning of XXI , Elements of the 2nd Physics at the beginning of XXI , (1978-2015)

    32. Travkin, V.S., "Concepts for SHSP: HSP Conceptual Vision and Methods in Application to Spinning (Rotation) Heterogeneous Scaled Physics (SHSP)", http://travkin-hspt.com/rottors/concepts/concepts.htm, (2014)

    33. Travkin, V.S., "Scaled Presentation of "Torsion" Mechanics in Polyphase Media", http://travkin-hspt.com/rottors/tormechpoly/tormechpoly.htm, (2014)

    34. Akimov, A.E., Torsion fields and vacuum theory. Part 1, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUtK3fxCHxM&index=173& list=UUvPuVwtqcIF90dprFznCKdw; retrieved 09/28/2014 (in Russian)

    35. Akimov, A.E., Properties of Torsion Fields. Physical Models of the Theory of Physical Vacuum.. Part 2, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGJI4K3hRxY&list= UUvPuVwtqcIF90dprFznCKdw&index=173; retrieved 09/28/2014 (in Russian)

    36. Akimov, A.E., The role of torsion fields in the fundamental experiments. Part 3, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a9CVK-ofLE&list=UUvPuVwtqcIF90dprFznCKdw&index=172; retrieved 09/28/2014 (in Russian)

    37. Shipov, G.I., Theoretical and Experimental Basis of Torsion Mechanics. Part 4, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YnER9_hxgA&list= UUvPuVwtqcIF90dprFznCKdw&index=171; retrieved 09/28/2014 (in Russian)

    38. Akimov, A.E., Consciousness and the Physical World. Environmental Technologies.. Part 5, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkZrEwnNg4U&index= 173&list=UUvPuVwtqcIF90dprFznCKdw; retrieved 09/28/2014 (in Russian)

    39. Akimov, A.E., Human Biofield as Objective Reality. Part 6, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zif7Q_UeGs; retrieved 09/28/2014 (in Russian)

    40. Akimov, A.E., Torsion Fields and the Theory of Vacuum. Part 7, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1BuRx6_wCE; retrieved 09/28/2014 (in Russian)

    41. Akimov, A.E. and Shipov, G.I., Torsion fields and Their Experimental Manifestations, http://www.koob.ru/akimov_a_e/#books; retrieved 01/06/2015 (in Russian)

    42. Sull', S.A., The Origins and Misconceptions in Relativism. Looking Through the Century, http://www.koob.ru/sall/_ The Origins and Misconceptions in Relativism. Looking Through the Century , (2006) (in Russian)

    The Origins and Misconceptions in Relativism. Looking Through the Century

    43. Chistolinov, À.V., "Theory of Physical Vacuum G.I. Shipov, Questions Remained Unanswered," Int. Journal of Unconventional Science, No. 6(2), pp. 148-150, (2014)

    44. Chistolinov, À.V., "Concerning the Theory of Physical Vacuum G.I.Shipov," Int. Journal of Unconventional Science, No. 3(1), pp. 118-122, (2013)

    45. Kulikov, D.N., "Some Modern Problems of Scientific Methodology in the Analysis of Results on Subjects of «Psychophysical», and Also the Physical and Biophysical Phenomena of Still Unknown («Nonclassical») Physical Nature," Proc. IV-th Intern. Conf. "Torsion Fields and Interaction of Information -- 2014," Sept. 20-21, 2014, Moscow, pp. 8-17, (2014)

    46. Larmor, J., Aether and Matter, Cambridge Univ. Press, (1900) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Aether_and_Matter

    47. Lorentz, H.A., The Theory of Electrons and Its Applications to the Phenomena of Light and Radiant Heat : a Course of Lectures Delivered in Columbia University in 1906, Dover, New York, N.Y., (1952). pp. 1-343.

    48. Klyushin, Ya. G., "Field Generalization for Lorentz Force Formula," Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 11, No 5, (2000)

    49. Klyushin, Ya. G., Some Fundamental Problems of Electro - and Gravidynamics, St. Petersburg, RF, (2007)

    50. Klyushin, Ya. G., Electricity, Gravity, Heat - Another View, St. Petersburg, RF, (2012)

    51. Dayton Miller, "Ether Drift Experiments in 1929 and Other Evidences of Solar Motion", J. Royal Ast. Soc. Canada, Vol. 24, pp.82-84, (1930)

    52. Dayton Miller, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol.5(2), pp.203-242, July (1933)

    53. Dayton Miller, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth", Nature, Vol.133, pp. 16-27, 3 Feb. (1934)

    54. Morley, E.W. and Miller, D., "Report of an Experiment to Detect the FitzGerald-Lorentz Effect", Proc. Am. Acad. Arts & Sciences, Vol.41, pp. 321-328, (1905)

    55. Morley, E.W. and Miller, D., "Final Report on Ether-Drift Experiments", Science, Vol.25:525, p.5, (1907)

    56. Allais, M., "The Experiments of Dayton C. Miller (1925-1926) and the Theory of Relativity", Pulse of the Planet, Vol.5, pp.131-136, (2002)

    57. Galaev, Yu.M., "Ether-drift Effects in the Experiments on Radio Wave Propagation", in Proc. "Radiophysics and Electronics, Institute for Radiophysics and Electronics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine," Vol.5, No.1, pp. 119-132, (2000)

    58. Galaev, Yu.M., "The Measuring of Ether-Drift Velocity and Kinematic Ether Viscosity Within Optical Waves Band", (in English) Spacetime and Substance, Vol.3, No.5 (15), pp. 207-224, (2002) Posted to: http://www.spacetime.narod.ru/0015-pdf.zip, 2002.

    59. Santilli, R.M., Ethical Probe of Einstein's Followers in the USA: An Insider's View, "http://www.scientificethics.org/IlGrandeGrido.htm," (1984)

    60. Kanarev, Ph.M., "Model of the Electron," Apeiron, Vol. 7, No. 3-4, pp. 184-194, (2000)

    61. Kanarev, Ph.M., "A Model for the Free Electron," Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 13, No. S1, pp. 15-18, (2002)

    62. Kanarev, Ph.M., "Electrons in Atom," Journal of Theoretics, Vol.4-4, pp. - , (2002)

    63. Kanarev, Ph.M., "Modelling the Photon and Analyzing Its Electromagnetic and Physical Nature ," Journal of Theoretics, Vol.4-1, pp. 1-12, (2002)

    64. Kanarev, Ph.M., Photon, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Books"; retrieved 05/05/2013

    65. Kanarev, Ph.M., Nuclei of Atoms, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Books"; retrieved 05/05/2013

    66. Kanarev, Ph.M., Answers to Microworld Questions, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Answers"; retrieved 05/05/2013

    67. Kanarev, Ph.M., Introduction to New Electrodynamics, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Books"; retrieved 05/05/2013

    68. Kanarev, Ph.M., "Orthodox Knowledge and New Knowledge," http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/index.html; (2013)

    69. Kanarev, Ph.M., The Foundations of Physchemistry of Microworld, the 15th edition, http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder "Monographs"; (2013)

    70. Kanarev, Ph.M., Crisis of Theoretical Physics, second ed., Krasnodar, (1997) (in Russian)

    71. Travkin, V.S., "Structure and Types of Hydrogen and Oxygen Atoms and Their Heavy Isotopes," http://www.travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/hydrooxyatoms/hydrooxyatoms.htm, (2014)

    72. Travkin, V.S., "3P Water, Heavy Water Molecules, Deuterium, Tritium Collective Interaction-1," http://www.travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/watmolsinter/watmolsinter.htm, (2014)

    73. Davisson, C. J. and Germer, L. H., "Reflection of Electrons by a Crystal of Nickel," Proc Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol. 4, No. 14, pp. 317--322, (1928)

    74. Vikhrev, V.V., "Description of the Wave Properties of Particles by Means of Laws of Classical Physics," in The Search of Mathematical Laws of the Universe: the Physical Ideas, Approaches and Concepts, Vol. 7, Geo publ., Novosibirsk, pp. 110-123, (2010) (in Russian)

    75. Travkin, V.S., "What is in use in Continuum Mechanics of Heterogeneous Media as of Through ~1950 - 2005?" http://www.travkin-hspt.com/elastic/whatsupf/whatsup.htm, (2005-2006)

    76. Travkin, V.S., "Who Are in the Continuum Mechanics Continuing to Dwell in an Ivory Tower? Who Tries to Re-Invent the Wheel? What Are the Damage and Financial Loss?" http://www.travkin-hspt.com/elastic/ivorytower/ivorytower.htm, (2006)

    77. Travkin, V.S., Fluid Mechanics , http://www.travkin-hspt.com/fluid/index.htm, (2002-2015)

    78. Travkin, V.S., Thermal Physics , http://www.travkin-hspt.com/thermph/index.htm, (2002-2015)

    79. Travkin, V.S.,"Homogeneous Mathematical Schemes for Heterogeneous Multiphase Fluids - 14 Years After 1998 Analysis and Criticism, " http://travkin-hspt.com/fluid/homofluids2012/homofluids2012.htm, (2012)

    80. Travkin, V.S., Few Aspects of Acoustics in Heterogeneous Media, http://travkin-hspt.com/acoustics/right.htm, (2006)

    81. Travkin, V.S., "Scattering Modeling in Acoustics Using One Scale," http://travkin-hspt.com/fluid/homofluids2012/homofluids2012.htm, (2007)

    82. Travkin, V.S., Linear Acousto-Elasticity in Porous Medium, http://travkin-hspt.com/acoustics/02.htm, (2007)

    83. Travkin V.S. and Bolotina N.N., "Pseudo-scaled and Scaled Description and Scaleportation of Inorganic and Organic Polymer and Polymer Composites Properties," IS Journal of Alternative Energy and Ecology, No.1, pp.62-77, (2011).

    84. Travkin V.S., Bolotina N.N., and Gusev A.L., "Presentation of Continuum Mechanics Elasticity Models for Heterogeneous Media. The Polyphase and Polydefect Scale Physics, Hierarchical Mathematics Applied," IS Journal of Alternative Energy and Ecology, No.2, pp.19-41, (2012)

    85. Travkin V.S. and Bolotina N.N., "Principles, Biological and Mathematical Modeling for Elasticity, Poroelasticity of Soft Biomedia, Polymers with Fluids Mechanics in the Bioporous Two-scale Media," http://travkin-hspt.com/biophysics/pdf/61BEl-BioHtElasticity-5.1HSPT-f.pdf, (2011)

    86. Travkin V.S., Classical Problems in Fluid Mechanics, http://travkin-hspt.com/fluid/03.htm, (2003)

    87. Travkin V.S., Classical Problems in Thermal Physics, http://travkin-hspt.com/thermph/02.htm, (2003)

    88. Travkin V.S., Education, Courses, http://travkin-hspt.com/edu/index.htm, (2003)

    89. Travkin, V. S. and Ponomarenko, A. T., "Electrodynamic Equations for Heterogeneous Media and Structures on the Length Scales of Their Constituents", Inorganic Materials, Vol. 40, Suppl. 2, pp. S128 - S144, (2004).

    90. Travkin V.S., Fluid Mechanics 2 - Elements 3P, http://travkin-hspt.com/fluid2/index.htm, (2005)

    91. Travkin V.S., Thermal Physics 2 - Elements 3P (Polyphase-Polyscale-Polyphysics), http://travkin-hspt.com/thermph2/index.htm, (2005)

    92. Travkin V.S., Cold Fusion or LENR is the HSP-VAT Science, http://travkin-hspt.com/coldlenr/index.htm, (2008)

    =========================================================================================

    Any information displayed here (but internet pictures, figures that are taken alone) is the proprietary information in the area of "Spinning or "Torsion" Mechanics in "Homogeneous" Media? Is it Possible?"

    This is also the well known problem - still can not be resolved within the Homogeneous One-Scale General physics, Spinning, Particle, Nuclear and Atomic physics, electromagnetism, gravidynamics and Astrophysics.

    UNDER CONTINUAL DEVELOPMENT