Recent physics loves mathematical models. Question is not, if it is absolutely right; question is, if tool recently loved is applicable to seeing something, what is by present physics suppressed.
Present physics suppresses, that experiments and observations often have alternative explanations. For example gravity lens have explanation using law of optics. Name with gravity is skillful trick, how optics to cut out. Phenomenon, led to optics, is interplanetary gas-dust; see Zdenek Kopal. Other option is Maxwell field; accept possibility case of field is similar to case of matter.

Make (mat) models for 2 explanations Gravity Lenses. Very detailed model will show difference between both possibilities. Gravity is maximal for little distance.

fi = G m c^-2 r^-1

Fi .. deflexion, G gravity constant, m mass, r radius
About effect of gas or field, effect for little distance is minimal, on the contrary.

fi = v/c * (r/r0)^2 /(1+(r/r0)^2)

Compare with common lens

fi = v/c * (r/r0) , r < r0 <br>
Effect of gas or field has non-linearity, but this non-linearity is many times less than in case of gravity lens. Effect of gravity has optical error larger and in full range of distance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing Einstein rings, arcs, and multiple images, their distortion of picture is kind of optic error in maximal radius of lens. This distortion has gas and field also. But gravity has great distortion for minimal radius; only it is parameter really relevant for comparison both possibilities.

If somewhere is Einstein ring (, and gravity explanation is right), than in distance n-times smaller is curvature n-times greater. Precise PC iterative model of presented phenomenon have to show some set of pictures; we can it compare with our observation of cosmos.

AAF: The belief in the absurd theory of Relativity is certainly evolving in the backward direction towards the mythologies of the Stone Age and beyond! That is because this false theory of Einstein is illogical and irrational to the ultimate degree. And only persons of the Stone Age and beyond can reach such dazzling and dizzying heights of irrationality and lack of logic.



Smal: Hi, AAF, My view is the same. But maybe I have in my hands something, which could help to solve full problem. I have functional model of atom by Rutherford's recommendation. I am looking somebody who would able to write with me the paper. Todays physics forgets about Rutherford, who criticized its methods with only word Jokes! Todays physics knows mathematical model only; I know both mathematical and material = functional model. Problem is not about writing only, but also with publication. I could write something to get prestige in your eyes. About Club Mensa CR - my interesting action there. About my inventions used in industry, The Prize of Rector CVUT University Prague. The Prize of Ministry of education CR. About project Measuring of (alleged) relativistic dilatation of time by rotating time standards. Searching Emanuel Smejkal (alone or with physics, or science, relativity) is able to illuminate my access. Criticism of TR is in blind alley. We need some trick. It is not sure, that my trick is the best; but, linked with somebody like you, this path will be one of the realistic possibilities.



AAF: Hello Smal; certainly, Rutherford's Model of the Hydrogen Atom is very important and interesting topic to investigate and write about. However, writing a paper and publishing it wouldn't be the big problems in this regard. The most difficult problems in applying Rutherford's analogy of the Solar System to the world of the atoms are firstly how to extend it to include more complex atomic structures and secondly how to prevent orbiting electrons from the immediate collapse into the nucleus without using absurd Quantum mechanics' assumptions and tricks. As for the 'Criticism of TR', it's, in my view, a complementary and necessary part of the process of overthrowing mainstream physics theories. In short, you have to show very convincingly it's broken before you can try to fix it. And if it is not broken, then you should not try to fix it; right, Cincirob?



Cincirob: Yes, but most of what you know is wrong. I think you should help Emanuel write his paper. You could be the next van Flandern.



AAF: 'Emanuel' is more than capable of writing his own papers; and he needs only to discover some mechanism to stabilize the orbiting electron inside the atom; and everything else would be a piece of cake; correct, 'nutty' Ted?



Ted: The other two nutters (AAF and bob sh^t) chime in



AAF: Nutty Ted, you can't chime in, because your kindergarten teacher didn't teach you how to chime in!