To start, let me express a personal and no-quantum thought:
"Thinking that things and physical circumstances don't exist until we get discover or observe them, is of such stupidity, hubris and egocentrism that only those lacking in intelligence, sensitivity or humility can continue this belief without feeling true scientific shame."

I am aware that the present article can be a disproportionate critic against the principles that the current physic use as base. But the behaviour, disregard toward my works and contempt in many cases toward my person, it gives me moral reason and justification of this extreme critical exhibition (but justified) for my part toward other postures and physical thoughts prevailing at the present time.
To my to understand the fundamental reason for this critic would be: The erroneous structuring and foundations of the present theories, based on a clear contempt toward the basic knowledge on physics as they are forces, momentums, inertias, etc., and its substitution for simple and incoherent mathematical formulas without any physical base.
On the other hand, when understanding that my Cosmic Model explains in a simple and complete way and without contradictions the main physical events and the Cosmos structuring, which is ignored (not published) during decades, because I consider justified any exhibition of the defects and bad habits of the current bases of the current physics theories, even though in an overwhelming way and with such aggressive expressions as "triangle of the garbage."

Quantum mechanics or Houdinist mechanics
Final conclusion: Today's quantum mechanics is a great heap of garbage that will be necessary to be recycled in a future to see if we can take out something useful from the same one.

And being condescending, we could say that:
"The current quantum mechanics is a great heap of failed pretensions that drive us to a virtual, imaginary, incoherent, illogical and unreal world, where it can be said that: Any resemblance with the reality is pure coincidence"

Maybe I can be specially hard in the analysis of the quantum mechanics, but I estimate that it is exactly what make now thousands of scientific (quantum) when they disvalue and scorn quite correct atomic and physics theories (although incomplete) such as the proposals for Newton, Rutherford or Bohr. And this is made from the platform and acceptance of a completely erroneous quantum theory for an impartial or intelligent critic of their postulates.
I think, the only very good thing that can be considered to the current quantum theories, it is the same of any mathematical systems: That in any moment the parameter of the quantum mechanic can be changed or adapted to any new discovery when not having any real physical base to undergo.
But the question is that many cases when quantum mechanics resolves problems it not due to it quantum bases, but due to its adaptation as mathematical system. So, as in other mathematic system.
This way to explain any physical event instead of to analyze it and to study it in its real structure, the quantum mechanics invents elements and physical characteristics that don't exist or don't influence in this event (barriers and tunnels of energy; spin and azimuth in electrons, etc.) and this way they go us defining a Cosmos in which any likeness with the reality is pure coincidence.
Because well, I will begin with the critic to the quantum mechanics, analyzing their principles or postulates:

1.- First law that I would define as "The Funnel Law" o "Law of the cynicism of the quantum mechanics."
This principle would tell us: The laws of the classic physics don't act in the microcosms -at atomic level-... always when we are analyzing principles and foundations of the quantum mechanics.
But against the classic physic have acts and must be kept in mind when we have to discredit other atomic theories as those of Rutherford or Bohr.
This way applying (*erroneously) the Maxwell deductions, they can say that the atomic models of Rutherford or Bohr are not correct since electrons in their atomic orbits would fall for the energy waste that they suffer to be an electric charge in motion. That is to say, these atomic models must complete the classic laws, in this case those of movements of electric charges.
Now then, if what we want is to analyze the quantum pattern that doesn't complete the classic laws of the electric loads, momentums, impulse forces, orbital balances among charges, etc. In this case the classic laws no longer act then they would demonstrate that the quantum pattern is an authentic mess, but the quantum laws, which don't exist really because they are simply games and probabilities allegories without having any primary neither proven fact that support them.

To know: at atomic level the particles are not moved by forces, but for some mathematical formulas that were invented (by quantum scientists) in a "pretty summer night."

(*) When I say the deductions of Maxwell are used erroneously, it is because these deductions refer to movements of charges through wires what don't have anything to do with the mentioned atomic models, since the waste or "consume" of energy of the electric charges takes place when they circulate for non ideals conductions, that is to say, when the electrons in movement must cross the successive atoms of a wire, to which must unbalance (when entering in a balanced electric space) when they arrive and to return to rebalance when they abandon each atom.
That is to say, electrons like any other matter type that circulates for a material medium or field of forces, need of a force which is wasted with the movement and distortion of that medium by where they circulate.
But that doesn't happen inside the atoms that are already in balance and therefore the movement of electrons doesn't produce any imbalance neither distortion that there is to be compensated with energy.
Summarizing, electrons inside an atom don't spend any energy.

(* *) In this same sense, with my atomic theory the problem of the luminous spectra (that didn't explain the pattern of Bohr) gets to be resolved.
The error of Bohr and other theories were in believing that electrons are those that emit energy when they move, and it is not this way.
As my atomic theory explains, electrons don't emit or capture energy when moving, but atoms in whole (and the specific magnetic potential of each one of them) are that capture and emit energy for their energy rebalance when they change their structure, number of electrons, chemical reaction, etc.

2.- The Uncertainty Principle.

This principle used as base of the quantum philosophy, is an erroneous principle from its birth. Philosophical, mathematically, or simply in good logic, we cannot accept that an entire microscopic and virtual world of uncertainty can work, melt and fuse, giving us as result a strict, certain, stable and trustworthy world of infinite physical laws, as the one that we observe around us.
But also when we observe principles of this type like that of Uncertainty of Heisenberg, we see their foundation is erroneous.
Heisenberg said that we could not measure by means of a luminous ray the momentum or situation of an electron without affecting some of these parameters, since the luminous ray would change to some of them.
However he and we seems to forget that all atoms are subjected to incredible changes of brightness, temperature, pressure, etc. in the different places of the Cosmos. And however all these situations are normal for atoms. They adapt to them simply.
In a star for example, their atoms can be subjected of millions of times to the luminous potential of the ray that we could use to measure electrons.
This way, the solution for the example of Heisenberg would be very easy: To use a dark room and to send a luminous ray similar in potential to a normal light. With it we would know the positions of electrons in one day with normal brightness.
But clear, as this it is escape theory for not bothering us in discovering the truths of the physics, because they invent a theory of uncertainty that later the quantum ones use to make us believe a theory of the impossible thing.

3.- Similarity wave-particle.

This is another attempt of escaping from the reality, principles and physical laws for this way to be able to manipulate the cosmic events. When I say to manipulate it is because although at first it is logical to study and see the possibilities of understanding of the physical processes, if to accept a study procedure as valid it is necessary to deny the laws and well-known physical principles, then this study procedure is false and erroneous its results.
This way we know the difference between particle and wave, so much for their physical consistency as for their physical behaviour.
A particle is a matter piece that can move through space, and therefore, it is carrier of inertia, moment, speed, address etc.
A wave is an oscillation of a material due to an applied force. The characteristics of the waves are therefore their oscillation frequency or vibration, their oscillation intensity, etc., that is to say, anything that to do with a particle.
It is certain that the movement of many particles for a certain place can induce to produce a frequency in passing or movement, but never an oscillation frequency on themselves.
It is also certain that the force or inertia of a particle can produce an oscillation in the medium for which circulates. But the particles already have the mentioned own characteristics and the bodies that oscillate have its.
Therefore the statement: "The photons, electrons, etc. in movement sometimes behave as particles and sometimes as waves" it is incorrect and what happens is that any particles are material elements with inertia, moment, speed, etc, and when they cross any medium, this can be deformed, producing oscillations and waves in the same one.
That is to say, the classic physics works appropriately in all the points of Cosmos.

So, if the quantum mechanics says particles are sometimes waves, then quantum mechanics has to explain what physical mean is oscillating to produce these waves; what forces produce and maintain this oscillation; how matter changes continuously from matter to force of oscillation, etc.
To say rare postulates without any explanation and denying all the physical laws with the unique goal that our quantum formulas are completed, this it is a simple and naked pretence or falsity.

4.- Distribution of electrons in atoms according to the quantum mechanics.

This is another of the topics that I have always pointed as ridiculous and even grotesque in its solution.
The first thing is to deny any law and physical behaviour inside atoms and their electrons.
This quantum postulate say that "certain possibility of finding electrons in certain place of the atom exists", but without having proven it never.
Simply this deduction is consequence of an invented formula whose parameters are erroneous and corrupted from their foundations.
But this postulate is unacceptable (in logic) when saying that inside atoms the physical laws don't act, and therefore the electromagnetism, gravity, centrifugal-attraction forces among charges, etc., don't exist, and that electrons alone are moving by means of an uncertain mathematical formula.
All this seems a shamefully lie, because with any electric-coil that provides magnetic fields we can move electrons for a wire, either inside or outside of wire's atoms.
Also in this case anyone could say:
"Well, if really particles alone obey to mathematical formulas and not to physical forces, for what reason we need electrical factory, nuclear plants, accelerators of particles, etc. Let us join some several quantum scientists who make formulas of acceleration and movement of particles and electrons and we already have resolved the problem."
But there are also other indicatives questions of the grotesque of the topic. One could be when the quantum ones instead of building a radial formula that distributes electrons in rotation around the nuclei, (as already made Rutherford and Bohr), because here the quantum ones give a gigantic step back in the time, in the knowledge and mainly in the intelligence, and they distribute electrons with a system of coordinated Cartesian, hit each other as bees in a honeycomb or as grapes in a cluster.

5.- The quantum mechanics as probabilistic function.

One of the principles that the quantum mechanics adduces as way and justification of its functionality is the one of to be based and structured as system of probabilities that take place in the different physical events.
This principle would be completely respectable if it completes and follows the most elementary norms of truth and scientific logic.
But it is not made this way, since as usually it said "They begin to build the house from the roof."
Logically, for the creation of all formulation and probabilistic principle is necessary to know and study in advance the foundations and elements that intervene in any event.
For example, to study the genetic principles and to see the possibilities of mutations, hereditary features, etc.
Then making a pursuit of the functionality and way of performance of these elements we can end up summing up the possibilities of the different results of the event and to propose a formula of probabilities that we see gives us the appropriate results of the same one.
But not, the quantum ones think to be more clever than all that. They build their formulas firstly and later on refuse all intervention of the principles and physical laws saying that in such or which site alone their invented formulas can act.
With all this, many times I see an enormous similarity between the religious beliefs and the quantum mechanics.
--Firstly the principle or god to adore and follow in all moment is created. For example the miraculous wave function that is good for everything and that doesn't differ between to fry an egg or to move an electron.
--Later quantum mechanics refuses and qualifies as sinful any logic and physical law.
--And lastly, as any religion, bases of quantum mechanics adapts to each circumstance, explaining allegorically any event with principles of probabilities without bases and not well outlined, but distant totally of the physical reality of the same ones.
This way with the quantum mechanics can explain everything, but in an erroneous and distant way to the reality.
For example, I can explain the climate in Spain in the following way (quantum way):
* * *The meteorological phenomena are subjected to the quantum laws so that so much storms (-1) as anticyclones (+1) are quantum elements with a spin that gives them their turning potential and the capacity of producing rain, (in storms when more spin--bigger quantity of rain, wind, etc.).
At the some time, all the storms or anticyclones are defined by their azimuth that makes them be located more toward the north or toward the south of the Iberian Peninsula (while bigger azimuth degree, more for the north they move).
An explanation a lot of far from the reality and the real and necessary knowledge.* * *
This same analysis way is good for all type of questions from to viral epidemic until to race of bulls.
Then, what it is the reason this article would be so critic and hard with the quantum mechanics?
Because for the mood, pretension, principles and forms of using this quantum system of probabilities.
First, erroneous formulas are taken out without foundations neither physics bases that can sustain them (Uncertainty, constant of Planck, etc.), which anything has to do with the reality and physical behaviour of particles, atoms, etc.
Later, when refusing the consistency and effectiveness of all the physical laws, forces, momentums, etc., that intervene in all the places of the Cosmos.
And lastly, and as consequence of the above-mentioned, because false explanations are given, also with false concepts to the different events that take place in the Cosmos.
So, the same as any religions does.
Nevertheless, and as I already explain in my cosmic model, I am convinced that with the continuous study, contribution of physics discoveries, etc., the quantum mechanics will go converting itself into what should be really, a mathematical system for design of the real probabilities that the physical events have to have.
But nothing of quantum mechanics, but mathematical system of probabilities based on data and real physical studies, and not in allegorical and imaginary formulas as it is at this time.

Well until here I have exposed critic's synthesis on the quantum mechanics; although in my cosmology web you can see more.

In the amplification of this topic I will go exposing my vision of the stranger and unlikely imagination of Einstein, and about the "mess", "puzzle" or bottomless-well in that the standard theory is entering with help of their enormous and incommensurable accelerators of particles.

Nevertheless and for those that want to have an idea of the atomic structure (of my atom model) in a very simple way, I could summarize this way:

All matter accumulation creates two big fields of force around it.
1.- The gravitational fields.
2.- The magnetic fields.
The gravitational fields cohere masses and maintain united the matter.
And the magnetic fields -antagonist of gravity- try to redistribute again the matter through space appropriately.
For this redistribution the magnetic fields create orbits around the big material nuclei and big particles, and on these orbits, these fields distribute to smaller material particles. (The magnetic fields of atoms make orbiting to their electron; electrons to their neutrinos; stars to their planets; planets to their satellites, etc.). In the galaxies the magnetic fields of these make rotate stars on the centre of the galaxy creating a balance of forces among gravity that attracts matter and magnetism that tries to redistribute it.
The magnetic fields according to their potential can behave, act and to be appreciated in different degrees and levels: High magnetic potential that destroys stars and atoms; half potential or electromagnetism that creates orbits and captures electrons (and planets); low potential that captures or gives particles and heat in the chemical reactions; light, colour and spectra, etc.

The detailed explanations are in my web of Cosmic Model.

Relativity.

The Relativity of Einstein could be an intuitive theory in many cases and with some approach points to the physics reality in some other one. But in whole it is a heap of such mistakes that becomes affected and distorts the understanding of the physical foundations.
When this theory is revised and we see the support and acceptance that has in the scientific means, one -that could has malicious thoughts- thinks that maybe this support are due to internal or external influences that little has to do with the scientific rigor.
And I say this because any circumstance, proof or scientific event is manipulated in its deductions to conclude that the relativity is certain and effective.
But as it is not good to disqualify without expressing the reasoning of this, because we see some examples:

1.- The speed of light is the same regarding to any reference frame

We can see clearly that it is not this way with simple deductions as for example:
--The first consideration is the physical impossibility of that postulate.
It is demonstrated continually that light moves, and its motion is to the known speed c.
This is demonstrated (for example) when an impulse of light is sent on a mirror and it returns to us after some time with this c speed.
Then if light is energy corpuscles that move to certain speed, it disables that light have same speed regarding to all and each of the bodies in movement.
This can be demonstrated in the following example and in all those that we can make.
--If we launch two rockets in contrary sense to high speed (both to the same speed), and next to one of them a ray or impulse of light, we see that passed some seconds, the distance between the ray and each rocket is different and therefore their relative speed also.
--However many people justify the Relativity by means of the Michelson-Morley experiment, when in this experiment the ray of light is included inside the device and therefore it is as if total device was in state of rest.
That is to say, the motions of the device (it is what is its sense of motion) can't affect the circumstances inside of this device, and so neither to the light ray.
A similar simple example to this experiment can be the traditional example of the train, very used by Einstein: If a passenger walks for the interior of the train, its motion regarding to the boxcar is not distorted due to the direction or sense of circulation of the train.
But clear the deductions seem to be bad deduced to conclude that the relativity is correct.

2.- Decreasing of time with speed.

The relativity has a heap of contradictions among same of its bases and postulates. One of them is this referred to the decrease of time with speed of any object.
The first thing that it is necessary to keep in mind is that speed, and so the speed of light, is not any cosmic element, but the quantity and relationship between two primary cosmic and physical elements that are space and time.
In this sense to say that the division or relationship (speed) between run space and time (e/t) is that manages to these primary physical elements it is of such a incongruity and lacking in logic that is difficult to be believed it, (although there are many people that believe it).
This case, for that this proposal is correct, (and so the speed of light really exists as an absolute value) before it is necessary that space and time are stationary, since if time change its value also change the value of the speed of light. And if in the moment the value of time increases or diminishes, the speed of the light loses its stability and value.
In the contrary sense, if space and time are stationary, then they don't increase neither they diminish with the speed of light.
That is to say, it is par excellence the contradiction principle.
And this can be proven with any practical example that can make.
For example:
We have that, according to this theory, the earth has to take a slower time than the sun, because we rotate to its surroundings with more speed than it.
If in any moment we throw a rocket in contrary sense to the turn of earth, we will have that in this rocket the time will be slower than in the earth. But at the same time, the time in the rocket is the same than the time of the Sun, because it speed is similar.
As you this it is impossible, at least can we measure this values regarding to stationary space an time.
And in this way, the space and time would not vary with the speed of light.

3.- The clocks' fables.

Some of the foundations or tests that try to justify the relativity theory in the sense of the time variation in function of speed and gravity, it is the one relative to the backwardness/advance of clocks on airships.

On this question, I believe and suppose many manipulations in the observations and applied formulas to be able the final affirmation that "certainly the backwardness/advance of the clocks demonstrates the consistency of the relativity in the time variation", besides demonstrating an almost absolute lack of knowledge of basic physical principles.

Although when being very confuse, long and complicated of explaining the different phases of this great "confusion" (being generous when not call it manipulation), I take in mind alone the kernel of the question, which on the other hand, is vary simple.

And the kernel of the question so simple is:

"In no moment and in no circumstance it is time that moves the clocks"

And therefore the asseveration that the change of speed or rhythm of a clock means the change of rhythm of time is an inaccuracy, inconsistency and a false conclusion.

The clocks are mechanical, electro-mechanics, atomic systems, etc., in which the motion that they mark always comes determined by the balances and development of the forces and elements that structure and move them.

For example, if we fit in our house a pendulum clock in such a way that it keep almost exact, and later we take it away to the external space where there is not gravity, and there we lift the pendulum so that this way it can begins its oscillation, we will be surprised of seeing as this pendulum remains lifted and the clock doesn't move neither works.
Equal would make a sand clock, because in the outer space without gravity the sand doesn't fall.

Then we can ask ourselves: Could be that in places without gravity "TIME DOESN'T PASS"?, as erroneously a relativist could conclude.

Certainly NOT. Simply the forces that move to clock don't act in this place.

In contrary sense, a spiral-spring clock due to its frictions, atmospheric pressure, etc. in the space without gravity will "walk" speedier.

In the same way, the atomic clocks of any type; of radioactive oscillation; laser; biochemical or of any other device, they are always affected for the gravitational fields, temperatures, etc.

In this case, far from the gravitational fields the atomic clocks advance a little speedier because the gravitation is a force that exercises certain "pressure" on the atoms, decreasing its oscillation and this way its rhythm of measuring time.

As we see, while the pendulum clocks (and others) advance speedier in the gravitational fields, the atomic clocks (and other) delay in these fields.

And the question is logical and necessary:

Of course that any relativist will make anything to demonstrate its theory; although this intent is ridiculous and stupid for incongruous and unhappy.

* Many of these relativist errors (and other such as the increase of the inertial mass to the speed of light) are due to the ignorance of a property of the forces (execution speed) that I explain in the page up exposed: Speed of development of forces.

But I don't want to be too hard with a good man as Einstein, and although I have criticized and I am against the form of solving his intuitions with the theory of the Relativity, (since I understand the Newtonian physics solves all the events and cosmic circumstances), I want to make homage to his last years in those he was minus-valued and minimized (like me now) due his confusion in the intent of establishing a theory of unification of forces and elements of the Cosmos.
For it, to Einstein and to his last years of incomprehension, I dedicate my unification theory with which all those principles that Einstein looked for are explained.

4.- Gravity equal to deformation of space-time ?

The Standard Theory.

And logically, with these previous bases: What we can ask to the designers of the Standard Theory!
So, as it is usually said: "They are more tied than a Roman leg". (Spanish phrase, confusion)
Personally I am a little annoyed with the specialists and investigators of this theory, because I take many years exposing them my atomic and cosmic models as well as sending them all type of summaries, studies, even books of these models. Also thousands of intents of connecting with them in letters, e-mail, etc. and no one of they answered me never. It should be the mental mess that they have to have with this Standard Theory.
Nevertheless, I have certain respect toward them because I understand they are honest in their deductions and they try to discover the Cosmos essences.
Although, I must to analyze some deductions a little:
As I put previously, in the Cosmos and in the construction of gravitational systems such as atoms and stars (even galaxies), two are the unique forces that exist in this structuring: Gravitational fields and magnetic fields.
Any atomic nucleus, electron, neutrino; quarks, small or great particle; stars, planet, asteroid; galaxy, etc. they are single peace of matter that produces their magnetic fields and these fields can attract and to make rotate -around these material bodies- to other particles or smaller bodies. And there is all; not one different reason exists.
The potentials and magnetic or electromagnetic charges in each case depend on the magnitude of any system and on the accompanying particles (nucleus and their orbital ones), and whose principles and reasons are detailed according to the Law of Universal Balance of the energy in through space.
Now then, the Standard Theory proposes a quantity of forces and differentiated particles that don't exist in fact.
These proposed forces are alone gravity (strong force) and the magnetic force in its different levels. And the different and numerous particles that this theory proposes are single matter pieces with their corresponding fields of forces (gravity and magnetism) according to their dimensions.
The problem of these proposals is every time that the capacity of searching and tracking of particles of the devices increase (for example, the accelerators of particles) the scientists will go being discovered more and more particles and more and more forces in them. The number can be this way of up to 10^57 types.
And clear, possibly they will be every time more confused with the way of structuring of the Cosmos.
This way, we see today discussions about the information that take inscribed each particle, as if particles were computer files.
In the same sense and with the exponential increase of their supposed particles, non alone the forms of structuring atoms go complicating, but rather every time it will goes being more difficult the way of explain how such a quantity of particles and types of forces could be created from the supposed and simple energy that existed before the Big-bang.
In this sense I say often that: "The principles and foundations of the Universe use to be so easy and simple that the complicated minds of many scientists find difficult to deduce them."
But good, let us have some faith in them, and surely they can clear up a little.
And you know, for it, to read and see my cosmic and atomic models.

Regrettably the current scientific statement is a closed and hierarchical entity with resemblance to a bunker with lobbies of many thousands of quantum and relativistic supporters; "dozens" of accelerators of particles with thousands of millions of budget, as well as a scientific structure that cannot allow (or listen to) that nobody shows them anything on physics that it doesn't come from themselves.
This way, I sometimes ask myself a question:
How did they react when they realize that their theories and cosmic concepts are uniquely a heap of absurdities or tower of Babel whose pieces don't fit among them and that it is about to collapse?
At the end, in my sea of doubts, a last query always remains:
Really they are not aware of the great gibberish that they have mounted or simply "they want to continue living off the story" and not "to kill the hen of the gold eggs" that would be to discover and to expose the simple and flat truth of the Cosmos structuring?

Fields and Boson of Higgs.

The field and boson of Higgs are in my opinion a caricature or bad copy of the concepts of gravity and graviton.
The Higgs would be fields that interact with the particles to give them mass.
So, particles have no mass itself, but they acquire mass when interact with the Higgs fields.
This leads to a state of helplessness to all particles because we don't know what they are, since if they do not have mass they will not have matter; then it is not known where they contain the charges; neither is known its dimensions, etc.
On the other hand the Higgs boson should be the one that shares the Higgs fields through the Cosmos. But of course, whether these bosons alone can be gotten in the large accelerators and only they have a very short life, as it is impossible that they can share and build the Higgs fields.
If the Higgs boson really existed, they would be the first visible particles because its potential is incredibly large, but however they do not appear anywhere.
This way, gravity would serve better and more easily to explain the mass of any particle.
See my cosmos or atomic model.

* (July 2012) The Higgs' Boson is not have been discovered, it is have been artificially built with a large and great machine as the particles accelerator.
The question is similar to have built a Frankenstein monster and say later that this is a common creature in nature.
We must to distinguish the natural and balance particles that form the cosmos from our "monster" that are created into the great accelerators.

Greetings to who has arrived reading until here, the end of this article.
Fernando.

Malaga, 2007-02-02