All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident: Arthur Schopenhauer -- In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual: Galileo Galilei -- Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it: Albert Einstein -- When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable must be the truth: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle -- We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough? Niels Bohr -- Whenever a true theory appears, it will be its own evidence. Its test is that it will explain all phenomena: Ralph Waldo Emerson -- Since the mathematicians invaded Relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore: Albert Einstein -- I would say that the aether is a medium invented by man for the purpose of propagating his misconceptions from one place to another: W.F.G. Swann: -- Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone: Albert Einstein -- Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little: Bertrand Russell -- If I could explain it to the average person, I would not have been worth the Nobel Prize: R. P. Feynman -- I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use: Galileo Galilei -- How dare we speak of the laws of chance? Is not chance the antithesis of all law?: Bertrand Russell -- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I´m not sure about the former: Albert Einstein -- The glory of mathematics is that you don't have to say what you are talking about: Richard Feynman -- Anything is possible if you don´t know what you are talking about: Author Unknown -- In life, everything is relative - except Einstein´s theory: Leonid S. Sukhorukov -- Don´\'t worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you´ll have to ram them down people´s throats: Howard Aiken --A day will come undoubtedly when the ether will be discarded as useless: H. Poincaré -- First they tell you you´re wrong and they can prove it; then they tell you you´re right but it isn´t important; then they tell you it´s important but they knew it all along: Charles Kettering -- It is not once nor twice but times without number that the same ideas make their appearance in the world: Aristotle -- The opposite of a true statement is a false statement. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth: Niels Bohr -- A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it: Max Planck -- Euclid taught me that without assumptions there is no proof. Therefore, in any argument, examine the assumptions: Eric Temple Bell -- Half this game is ninety percent mental: Yogi Berra

Another experiment rejects Ampere's Law and supports the STOE model


Hodge, John


Research Papers


Mechanics / Electrodynamics



Date Published:

June 27, 2018




STOE, Theory of Everything, magnetostatics, Biot-Savart Law


The Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) posits the components of the universe emerge to cause gravity and electromagnetic effects. An experiment to test Ampere's law and the STOE was performed. The data shows the STOE model is very close to the actual measurements. The traditional magnetostatics Biot-Savart Law is rejected. The STOE model of magnetostatics is not rejected and is supported.


Sjaak Uitterdijk(Netherlands):
One concreet objection, against my photon model, of you is: "Accepted science has noted that a charge in an orbit (continually changing acceleration) should radiate"
What kind of "accepted science” did accept this?
The accepted science I know about is that an electric current in a circular shaped conductor consists of "continually changing accelerating” electrons, indeed not generating EM radiation and only creating a constant magnetic field.
So what is my flaw?
You state that the centripetal and centrifugal forces exercised on the electron are unlikely.
To my opinion this is the most normal / natural physics.
So what kind of accepted science doesn’t accept this natural physiscs?
Or might it be that you don’t accept natural science / physics?
If so, I stop the discussion immediately

Posted: June 27, 2018 @ 3:17:03 pm
John Hodge(Franklin, United States):
Sjaak Uitterdijk::

You asked me if there was a flaw in your paper. I think experiment doesn't support many of your assumptions. Some are obvious. I make a distinction between "accepted" (popular) experiments and my experiments. The idea of a photon as having any wave characteristic is rejected:

Youtube hodge
see videos
photon 1st:
Hodge Exp 2nd?:

The idea that electron "orbits" a nucleus is debatable. Accepted science has noted that a charge in an orbit (continually changing acceleration) should radiate - it doesn't so the centripetal and centrifugal forces are unlikely.
The STOE holds the electrons are not in orbit but are in spherical potential wells. See one of the papers (I forget which) listed in


The E=hf results from photoelectric experiment where the slope of the E v. f line is h - the addition of one more hod (my elementary particle) to the photon structure. NOT because a frequency is involved.
Accepted physics likes he constancy of the speed of light. The Shapiro delay and other experiments suggest the light speed varies at least in differing gravity. the speed of light then is dependent on the medium , only, and not on the speed of the emitter.
You may note I go back to experiment not hypothesis or theories.


Posted: June 27, 2018 @ 2:22:04 pm
Sjaak Uitterdijk(Netherlands):
You write: "They are inexact and seem to not apply to situations involving individual photons”.
In /Research Papers-Quantum Theory / Particle Physics/Download/7323
I prove that the generation and the properties of individual photons can perfectly be described by means of Ampere’s law and Maxwell equations.
Can you show me flaws in my article?

Posted: June 27, 2018 @ 5:19:51 am

Add a Comment

<<< Back