You still haven't told me how Planck was wrong.

i did, it is above, as well with material in current form (Virial) to share, that observed data does not match the math...

problem is, you talk rather than do....

in that even if I put a frame of math on the board, all you would do is ask someone else to confirm it.

please remove the dr, from your handle as it ruins an credibility to the field of professionals.

if you think I am here to debate with an unarmed person, you have me figured all wrong....

i like to offer questions to thinking minds, our future generations; that can offer basis to drive their professors nuts.

as to question the curren paradigm is what allows progress to continue;

you just can't see that

as for to question has the works been done? You bet, but I have no intention of publishing as i did once before in 82' and the 'community' was too much like you, complacent to comprehend that material.

So for these last 25 years, research unbiasd has been completed and this time, we will go directly to the kids; the future with the truth....

it is all based from changing the comprehension of how energy is observed (plancks constant).......

just as 'f' is relevant to the energy, 'l' is also just as important, which brings in 't' and removes 'c'......

if you understand that than you will find the em spectrum is simple a list of line items of energy, as each is simply a unit of 'light'... in which then the properties of energy (i.e. resonance and entanglement) ground the non-local affect

basically addressing what the Big E was trying to do; represent gravity within the single form of mathematics

that missing link is the property of entanglement