No no no, Des, that's Virgon. Or are you an Aquarinus? I think I'm something to do with centaurs who eat ice cream.

Of course. The Bohr model was replaced by the Schrodinger model. Electrons don't orbit the nucleus at all. They occupy probability density functions which are described by quantum electrodynamics (which, to date, is the only physical theory which is complete. There are no cracks in QED.)

Well, of course! Electrons are not particles. School models are called "school models" for a reason. The probability density functions correspond to harmonics which we normally associate with standing waves. The wavefunctions associated with electron orbitals have very distinct shapes:

 None of this is very new. We've known this since it was worked out by Schrodinger and Heisenberg in the 1920s and 30s.

Not really. It's hard for me to follow the ideas presented because the English is virtually indecipherable. Anyway, if this model was new, it would have to be published in a journal first, then a book.

EDIT: Also, nobody ever said protons were sperical.  However, I know where the conceptualization comes from. Because of Coulomb forces, charged particles behave as if they were hard spheres, and that is why, in most applications in biology and non quantum chemistry, they are treated as such, although this conceptualized is flawed, it is useful for certain purposes.

Also, to say "flawed" is to be overly critical of an illustration's purpose. It really IS only possible (in my humble estimation) to understand the math first, and then to "understand" quantum mechanics. You know, understand as much as it can be said to be understood.

Luminon, every time you post some inane comment about scientists not having any imagination or sense of awe, I cannot help myself but think of This.

I don't deny that, I am just in awe from both scientifically known and unknown wonders. I have a personal direct sensoric access to a scientifically unknown form of matter with amazing physical properties. (which is in my opinion a kind of etheric matter, proven to exist by Silvertooth experiment) Ocassionally, I've seen a similarly awesome things. Trust me, the scientists should save some awe for future, they will need it. The scientific progress of 20th century was relatively small, compared to progress expected in 21th century.

No, I don't claim that I know in scientific terms what I'm talking about, I know it in esoteric terms, and these are old for millenia, thus a bit outdated. I don't understand the basis of such a phenomena, I just can observe them rather often. I don't know more, I just perceive more, and I know people who perceives a lot more than me. The extent of scientifically unknown areas of research is huge, a couple of times greater than our currently known world, at least. From my point of view, the science does only little steps towards this knowledge, and I'm impatient for it to finally get there. There is so much of mystery to be revealed, that I can hardly tolerate it with my mouth and keyboard shut. Yes, I'm an impatient and ungrateful complainer, but I have my reasons.

The Silvertooth experiment was over 20 years ago, and the only reference I could find was an old website, the page referring to it had a couple of comments, the latest dated 1999...

There is an Italian researcher, Maurizio Consoli, who in 2005 announced he was going to test what he saw as flaws in the MM experiment.

A recent experiment, which was kept running for over a year to cover all point in the Earth's orbit, confirmed (again) the MM result. Consoli argues that the problem was that the light was travelling in a vacuum. His claim is that there could be interactions between the light, the particles of the gas, and the 'ether', that have yet to be ruled out. He appears to have published a paper in May 08 on the idea, but I have yet to hear of any results overturning fundamental physics...

It means, that my senses, and the sense of touch mainly, informs me about an existence of this mysterious form of matter. It gives me an access to it, my senses, I mean. So I can interact with this matter, like people can interact with any other piece of matter, which they get their hands on.  You understand the words, right? It's a significant thing, because this matter otherwise passes through the solid matter freely, but it's highly responsive to thoughts, both conscious and subconscious. It's a scientist's dream! I have met at least one person who was able to see this matter. To me, it's only tangible. A lifetime routine of that sensation prevents me from realizing fully, how strange, unbelievable and crazy this sounds. I can't really know, for me it's as natural, as breathing. I'd wish this feeling to every skeptic in the world! This profound experience can change anyone's worldview. But until there will be a technical means of detecting this matter, (which I'm all for) the only way is either to train this kind of perception for yourself (it's possible) or consider a people's testimony about it's existence, like mine.
I should write down some properties of this phenomenon in a scientific manner, to make more clear than my confused description. But many 'physical' properties and quantities of it are strongly affected by the observer himself.

Eh, I'm sorry, I'm too quick to consider something proven, when my lifetime experience supports that Well, the link below says something about Sagnac experiment.

It should depend on what device do they use. On this link there's a few words about the flaw of MM experiment and the S experiment. I hope this text is true, it should be, there's more pages like that (in my language, as this was featured in a local magazine of underground science) and some other attacking these results. They should be anyway all compared to an official description of the experiment, which interested people can download here:
silvertooth_experiment.pdf

The first sentences says:
Abstract: The Michelson-Morley type experiments are shown to be a non-sequiturs, because their logic fails to take into account the relationship between wavelength and propagation velocity. An experimental demonstration of anisotropy in wavelength is described.
 

DG: the parts I understood are interesting. I heard that the Silvertooth experiment supports the hypothesis of partially dragged aether, as the Fizezau's equations on your page 8 suggests. ( v, which is velocity as I hope, << which is something like < as I hope, and for c, which is the speed of light, which I'm sure of, giving together v<<c)

As for your hypothetical description of aether, (page 3) it seems that you're nearing the truth, as far as I can tell. Some points in your text reminds me of a properties of aetheric forms available to me. They're surely astounding. Translated from esoteric terms, it's a perfect conducting medium. Usually, a conducting medium can transmit only an energy similar to it's own quality, but etheric matter can transmit all known qualities of energy, even some of the highest possible in solar system. A practical implication of that is, that thoughts have a certain energy or causes an emission of it, and that the etheric matter reacts significantly.

(I suggest to skip the following block and read it as the last, if your patience allows, as I don't want to stretch it)
It most often behaves as a chunk of liquid in weightless state, but it never gets torn apart into pieces. Instead, it's elastic without known limits. It often stays in such a half-liquid state, but it can be easily transformed into forms more similar to jelly (but without shaking), rubber of various density, or keratin. There's a zero fragility, which is sometimes annoying, as it's nearly impossible for me to take one piece from another totally. The surface of an object is generally very soft. There seems to be often a microscopic softer layers on a more dense core. These layers can be a bit sticky.
Most of this work with such a material is done simply by mental concentration and visualization, which affects the aetheric object, let's say, in my hands or in front of me, or around, or whatever.
Also, I have never seen that it would ever be subjected to gravity and other mass-related effects, like acceleration or inertia. Maybe they're present, but completely subjected to the form I make it to be in. I have no sensoric perception of a 'raw' aether. There are two hypotheses, supported by multiple of my sources. One says, that etheric matter can be converted on an equivalent physical matter and vice versa. Also, etheric world is very similar to the solid-physical, as etheric life forms are expected to get born, live some time, and then die and decompose. The second hypothesis says, that the etheric matter allows some form of FTL travel, maybe an instantaneous movement. This is not impossible, as a certain scientific discovery suggests.

Unfortunately, there are some technical obstacles. For example, when I observe a transformation (of shape and quality) of the etheric object (which is almost continual, as it swirls with the tides of thoughts) I don't know, what to measure it against. From my point of view, the transformation is either immediate, or as fast as I expect and imagine. I can't differ a speed of 1000 km/h from c speed or from absolute (immediate) speed of movement or transformation. My reaction time is 0.4s at best.
Any suggestions? What would you try to measure and how, being in my place?
I guess you'd suggest to visit a psychiatrist Well that could be fun, but what about something else, serious and constructive?
 

Any substance possessing such properties would be unable to propogate transverse waves whose oscillations were that fast if that wave actually required the oscillation of the medium to propogate. You clearly misunderstood me gravely. An elasticity modulus is a measure of the force required to deform an object by a displacement x. So when I say that if a light wave required a medium, and that medium would have to have an elasticity modulus exceeding that of steel by 1 million, it means that it would have to be 1 million times less deformable than steel. No liquid can posssibly meet that property, since liquids are not compressible.

The problem is that the mechanical properties of aether require it to be tremendously rigid, and completely solid, but it cannot have mass (because then it would interfere with planetry motion) and it cannot physically obstruct planets. This is contradictory to its required property of having an elasticity modulus. By definition, anything that deforms when force is applied to it (an oscillating medium must meet this criteria) has mass.

You are joking, right? Why would you even try? Light travels at 300 million meters per second. To discuss such velocities requires sensitive instruments.

Gah! You completely misunderstood my post! The whole point of page 8 was that Fizeau's result was shown to be an approximation which is only valid in non-relativistic situations! It was originally inserted to make Snell's law work in the context of the fact that c is invariant under inertial frames. Only relativity can accurately account for a medium whose motion (wrt the light source) is not much different to light speed. In other words, the relativistic correction term means that for relativistic situations, the observed velocity will include a relativistic correction term (this is empirically confirmed) thus disproving the aether hypothesis. But you still missed the central point. The fact that light can propogate without a medium and that c is always invariant effectively seals the case that c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The speeds of light in various media are given by relativistic transforms. They are not invariant! 

Additionally, you and I are using the term transform in a totally different way. In my discussion of electrodynamics, every time I use the word transform, I am referring to a linear transform. A linear transform is one where a set of n output variables is a function of n input variables such that:

y₁=y₁(x₁,x₂)

y₂=y₂(x₁,x₂)

such that:

y₁₌ax₁+bx₂

y₂=cx₁+dx₂

Where a,b,c and d are matrix coefficients.What makes this important is the fact that any switch in inertial coordinate systems can be represented by a linear transform, a fact which is the basis of the Lorentz transformation laws describing time dilation and length contraction.

No, not necessarily, because aether doesn't collide with solid matter. (but surprisingly, it collides with another piece of aether) That's no wonder, as the matter is mostly empty. Does all these particles of cosmic radiation passing through us, slow our planets down? I guess not. But there is a relationship between aether and nuclear fission. One of my sources says, that the aetheric wind on this whole planet is instantaneously stormed, whenever a nuclear bomb is tested. But what this means for our problem here, I don't know yet.

I can't blame you for not reading it all, I'll just repeat that the MM experiment is a non-sequitur, as the light beam gets phase-locked between the mirrors, and thus moves with them and measures nothing. The device used for the Silvertooth experiment has this mistake corrected the experiment supported the existence of aether.

DG: Just a quick question. (before I'll drop to sleep) You say that the light can move through space without a medium. Excuse me, but isn't the vacuum a medium? It has it's specific permitivity, energy, and so on, there's a lot going on in there. Rather than an emptiness, it's a medium, and we can't remove the vacuum from anywhere, so we can't really verify, if the light propagates without a medium.

If I may, I found that video to be extremely interesting. I would point-out, however, that the 'accuracy level' tended to rise whenever the statements were more flattering.

The results of the double-blind trial were, however,  frankly shocking to me.

I almost forgot. All the problems I discussed in the paper above were those that were formulated on the basis of discoveries in the 19th century. How could I forget the two most important discoveries of the 20th that rendered aether a useless notion, both discoveries by Einstein!

1. The quantization of photons

2. The formalization of the Lorentz transforms

The former result is especially important in this case. Light, having a particle nature, obviously does not need a medium to propogate. The first discovery led to the formulation of quantum mechanics. Neither modern quantum mechanics or relativity sees the need to incorporate any form of an aetheric theory of motion into their framework, and why would they? It doesn't make sense and the framekwork works perfectly well without it.

It seems that the idea of aether as an universal medium is a misunderstanding. According to the esoteric theory, it's an alternative, finer form of matter, which works as a medium for finer-than-material (spiritual) energy between the worlds composed of even finer matter, and this, solid-material one. Aether isn't an universal background of the universe, if solid matter needs a medium, aether needs it as well. And so it would be with even finer forms of matter and energy, of which the rest of the universe is composed.
Generally, these principles underlies and supports the solid-physical world, rather than violates it's laws, this is why it's diffcult to find them, unless we know what we are looking for. According to the calculations of galaxy rotation, there should be much more matter and energy than there is, our visible universe is about 5% of the needed amount. And exactly this value gives a cosmologic scheme of Alice Bailey (+1949), where three first levels of matter are known to us (solid, liquid, gaseous) and an etheric counterpart (four levels of matter) are unknown. Even more finer than that is remaining six of sevenfold levels of material existence. But etheric matter is the first one to be discovered, because it's basically just a finer form of our dense-physical matter. Four forms, actually.

Well, then aetheric matter may have a mass. The samples I observed (even in this moment, it's almost automatical) probably have it's common material features (like mass) suppressed by my intervention. But it definitely exists, the lowest and the most easily trainable form of clairvoyance is aetheric vision, and there is a lot to see. Even I had my glimpses, in rare moments of concentration.

Aetheric matter, according to it's known properties, provides a (rational, I'm tempted to say) explanation for many 'miracles', where objects are seen to appear out of nowhere and/or disappear, usually with a lot of witnesses in close proximity. These 'miracles' became very frequent in the last two decades, most of them in relation with religional symbols, which are easy to dismiss. But there are more bizarre cases of that, where a scam is even more diffcult, like a Lebanese girl weeping razor sharp crystals without any pain, a man producing a gemstones out of his toe, or Sathya Sai Baba manifesting a heaps of holy ash, a symbolical cheap jewelry and other items on his hand. He of course rolls his sleeve up before the trick.
In my opinion, these cases are basically a demonstrations of advanced science and technology, capable of converting the aetheric matter on dense-physical, and vice versa, not a scam, and not a divine intervention. It will take a while before our scientists gets on it's track. Maybe a constructive approach would help, instead of researching the methods of how it can be fake, we should search for how such things are possible.

You know, if you're going to make shit up, at least try to make it sound accurate. You are (in the above) referring to phase changes. Phases have no effect on the individual constituent atoms and molecules of a substance. They indicate how much internal kinetic energy is present in a chemical system. Atoms and molecules can form  intermolecular forces (such as dipole-dipole hydrogen bonding, metallic bonding, or in the case of Group IV elements, covalent bonding, and van der waals forces). The temperature of a system is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules (as represented by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution). As temperature of a system increases, the forces that tend to cause molecules to move randomly (kinetic energy of heat) become stronger than those that hold them together (intermolecular forces). As temperature decreases, the kinetic energy decreases and so the intermolecular forces between molecules are stronger than the kinetic forces that cause them to move randomly. This has nothing to do with individual molecules. They are not affected by these phase changes in any way. When you freeze water or melt ice, you are still dealing with exactly the same molecules of H2O. Nothing about the individual molecules has changed, only the total internal energy of the system and hence the kinetic energy posessed by each molecule. There is therefore absolutely no difference in terms of fundamental constituency, between identical substances at different phase. It is a purely thermodynamic property.

There is a truth to astrology but I think it's more on a suggestive level. To make my point, if one person grew up being constantly told that they were smart, and another person grew up being call stupid... chances are, the first would grow up to be a doctor and the second might grow up pumping gas. As for astrology, if a person goes through life believing that certain traits apply to them, then they will most likely follow suit.