[cpu68 (OP)]

Since when is that an acceptable means of scientific observation?

If there is no technical way to observe this structure, and there isn't, there are other methods. I could quote here the famous philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend's dictum from his work Against Method, which is "anything goes". This is supposed to be a fundamental principle of science.

No. No it did not

Wikipedia:

However, because of its simplicity, and its correct results for selected systems (see below for application), the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics

[Kryptid]

If there is no technical way to observe this structure, and there isn't, there are other methods.

And what evidence do you have that you have actually used psychic powers to look at the fundamental structure of space-time? We can't just take your word for it. Science doesn't work that way. We need verification.

Wikipedia:

However, because of its simplicity, and its correct results for selected systems (see below for application), the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics

Funny how you conveniently cut off the end of that sentence where it says we now have a more accurate model of the atom. Did you willingly ignore that? Electrons are not little balls that orbit the nucleus like planets.

[cpu68 (OP)]

We need verification.

Then you can try to look at this structure yourself, using your own powers in this regard. You have a good chance of spotting it.

Electrons are not little balls that orbit the nucleus like planets.

You are right to some extent in this respect, I admit. However, I would insist that the astronomical model is useful. I will refer here to A. Comte, who assumed that each preceding science is the basis for the next, and this subsequent science can draw models from the preceding one. Sociology from biology, biology from chemistry, chemistry from physics, and physics from astronomy. According to this concept, physics can have a basis in astronomy and physics can draw basic models from astronomy.

[Kryptid]

Then you can try to look at this structure yourself, using your own powers in this regard. You have a good chance of spotting it.

I don't have psychic powers. I strongly doubt that you have them either. Of course, I'm always willing to test your claim. I'd be willing to roll some dice over here and ask you to tell me what numbers they landed on.

Electrons are not little balls that orbit the nucleus like planets.
You are right to some extent in this respect, I admit. However, I would insist that the astronomical model is useful. I will refer here to A. Comte, who assumed that each preceding science is the basis for the next, and this subsequent science can draw models from the preceding one. Sociology from biology, biology from chemistry, chemistry from physics, and physics from astronomy. According to this concept, physics can have a basis in astronomy and physics can draw basic models from astronomy.

Except that there needs to be some kind of evidence in support of those models.

[cpu68 (OP)]

Although, for example, Lee Smolin's microgrid concept cannot be considered nonsense.