Page précédente

- 7.1 Anteriorities.


Page suivante

This page is intended to present a historical account of my work and to quote anteriorities on certain demonstrations. I place it here at the request of objectivity-concerned correspondents. I thank the reader for announcing any similarity with other works he could meet.

I gathered on this site the results of an immense work which I made by myself since 1970. The majority of the elements reported here are the fruits of my own imagination and of my own developments.
In particular, for all that relates to
the organization by levels of livings,
the organization by levels of the the universe,
the cosine and sine (still to come) curves.
As well as the Universe formed of a double system of waves, identical to my model of particle and which generates the masses of its inhabitants. I never read anything similar.
I also think of being the first to have described the elements of order and the ontostat in a so complete manner - that I don't finish presenting on this site.

Concerning physics, I made all the developments starting from my model of particle, to prove its validity; these developments gathered, between them and with all the remainder of my work, constitute a theoretical unit likely to explain all the Universe and the life, starting from this simple model. It is especially this goal which I think of having reached the first and which I assert.

I recently raised on the Web some similar or converging works, though they are close to mines and published more or less at the same time, I must say that for the majority I had found them independently by myself.

The model of particle.
The idea of this model of particle came to me while reflecting on the ontostat and while trying to apply it to the elementary particle. Since the middle of the years 1990 until 2005, I gradually carried out the demonstrations presented on this site. I did inspired it entirely by myself, by the reading of Louis de Broglie and of Cramer. It is only recently that I found on Internet that others follow the same track independently. I am happy to quote them now because I feel myself less alone. I do it quickly, but I will return there later to try to specify, in relation to them, the contributions and the merits of each one: Milo Wolff, Gabriel LaFrenière, Geoff Haselhurst, Chris Hawkings, Serge Cabala.
Nevertheless the primacy will always return to Louis De Broglie who had, as soon as 1925, imagined rather precisely such a model: "All occurs as if there were superposition of a convergent wave and a divergent wave being propagated with speed c. This result... will perhaps make it possible to define more exactly the periodic size which closely appears related to the very existence of the matter. In any case, it appears certain that the existence of a speed of phase higher than c is not incompatible with the electromagnetic equation of wave propagation." (C.R. Acad of Paris Sciences, Meeting of February 16, 1925).
I recently found that quotation of Louis de Broglie; I did not know it when I imagined my model though having largely read his thesis; he wrote the latter shortly before but he is not so explicit on this point. I admit to him nevertheless to have shown me the way where I engaged with confidence of a pupil in his Master. He finished his life surrounded by a certain recognition, at least in France, but these honors had to appear quite factitious to him not addressing itself to this centre piece of its work. Nearly fifty years later, he expresses his bitterness and his loneliness at the same tribune (C.R. Acad. Sc Paris, t.277 July -16 1973). He finishes nevertheless his text on a note of hope:
"Arrived to an age which does not enable me any more to hope to be able to continue my personal work a long time, I must express the hope that young researchers devote themselves to develop, in the sense that I indicated in these last years, the ideas which allowed, one half-century ago, the birth in France of the Wave Mechanics."
I also admit to him to have used the first the phase wave in a certain number of demonstrations which I found, to some extent independently, to some extent under his inspiration. Quantum Physics nor Relativity do not recognize them; they are however at the base even of the knowledge of the matter. The phase wave is in the heart of the functioning of the particles.

The Large Numbers Theory.
P.A.M. Dirac is the promoter. I was informed of it by an article published in the French general review La Recherche in 1977. Before and without knowing it, I had added the biomass to it by plotting my first cosine curve in 1970. Towards the end of the Nineties I noticed that 2137 was equal to this same value. I believed a long time to be the decouvror for it, until I read, in 2005, an article of Martin Kokus published in 1994 when he exposes the theory of the Large Numbers including the fine structure constant. He pointed out anteriorities of Sternglass (1984) and of Landau (1955). He added a personal note (1.23137 = 1012 ) which refers to its own work. Nevertheless until now, July 2005, having never read it in another author, I think of being able to affirm that I am the only one to have made the bringing together between this Fine Structure constant and the Information of the Universe.

The formula of Balmer-Rydberg as a family of hyperboles.
I developed it at the beginning of the years 2000. I could interest nobody in it, undoubtedly because it referred to a too remote past for modern physicists. They do not see that it is a delayed-action bomb in the foundations of quantum physics. This relation, mathematically simple, could have been made towards the end of the XIXème century, directing differently physics.

The magnetic field does not exist.
It is an old debate which goes up to Ampère:
"And that only would be enough to show that the mutual action of two conducting wires is really the simplest case and that which we need to start to explain all the others." Ampère.
Perhaps I will make some day the history to show how throughout XIXème century the explanation of magnetism by the currents was opposed to that of the orientation of space; Ampère versus Faraday.

A new reading of Michelson and Morley experiment.
The explanation that I give was formulated from the very start by Lorentz and especially Fitzerald. It is the same for the demonstrations of Relativity by Doppler-Fizeau effect. I do not know if those which I present, for the calculation of the kinetic energy, for the time dilatation and for the space contraction, using the combination of the Doppler effect and the wave of phase, have been already formulated.

The principle of Inertia.
Concerning the design explaining inertia, starting from the permanent repositioning of the particle towards a position assigned by the remainder of the Universe, I also think of being the first. Mach cultivated this idea long before me, but with a different approach.

Clarification of the Standard Model.
The Standard Model proposes a classification of the particles without really explaining it. The Repositioning Theory gives invaluable explanations on the origin and on the nature of these particles.

home page previous page next page Denys Lépinard

august 2005