These pages are about understanding modern physics with its differing, often conflicting, interpretations. Understanding to mean: to perceive and comprehend the nature of the physics, contrary to only understanding the often very complicated mathematics.

The aim is finding, or devising, a model that can serve as a useful foundation for understanding physics, not to reject existing theories or providing new ones.

For the last 60 years, certain anomalies in physics --or what I consider to be so-- have fascinated me. After retirement as building technician, (working mostly as a designer of steel structures), I tried to find some answers, for instance: why is there no mechanism for gravity, what is energy, matter (mass) and what is the common factor.

Again, I am not looking for an alternative theory, nor am I opposed to any theory, I just cannot understand why even philosophically inclined physicists accept and discuss ridiculous 'interpretations' instead of looking for an answer that does rest on proper foundations and not on various ad hoc postulates.*

After realizing that I would not find answers in the published material available to me, I decided, as an interesting hobby, to try and find first of all a mechanism for gravity.

The idea that the anomalies of modern physics are caused by the disregard for proper foundations is followed to its logical consequences. Especially the basis (foundation or mechanism) for gravity is thought to be important. A mechanism for gravity is devised, and its consequences are examined in the following pieces:

[*]As Lorentz said: "Herr Einstein has postulated all our difficulties away.".

This is already a satisfying result. The more so because it does not use the light velocity, but a 'signalling' velocity for gravity, and it postulates no restrictions on this velocity. The Minkowski geometry is not used, only ordinary three dimensional space and ordinary time. The possible properties of light are examined in the following section that will also show that the classical successes of the relativity theories can be attained, without using either the SRT or the GRT.

The laws of physics are or should be descriptive, the relativity theories are, however, highly prescriptive. That theory tells nature how to behave, or restricts that behaviour and gives precedence to mathematical requirements. In the case of the special theory this is necessary to derive the desired result: the gamma factor. That result is then ('Minkowski') used in the general theory.
This model shows that the same results can be attained with fewer commands to nature.

The behaviour of light through this 'new' field suggests the possibility of a better, -a three dimensional-, model for the Hydrogen atom. This produces an attractive and clear alternative for the existing rather fuzzy model.

An attempt to check the assumption that a fifty-fifty occurrence translates in a fifty-fifty measurement.

Some thoughts about infinity. Endless, as synonym for infinity, gives a solution to Zeno's paradox etc.