Carel van der Togt

2006-Apr-12, 02:17 PM

Dear Sir/Madam,

Imagine that theoretical physicists are wrong and there is no relativity of time and space, just 3 dimensions and not 12, no parallel worlds etc. Would that not be the story of the century?

Theoretical physicists claim they understand people who try to comprehend Quantum Mechanics (QM) with the help of classical physics. They know this is not possible. Could it be that they are mistaken?

In principle a theory is based on axioms which are considered to be true. When a theory has been developing in the course of time, the theoretical conclusions are valid as long as the premises, on which the theory is based, are still holding. When one or more axioms are proven not to be valid anymore, scientists have to reconsider all conclusions the theory implies.

The simple article "Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether" (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/van_der_Togt_stellarab-final.pdf) proves without doubt that the premise of nonexistence of dragged ether, a specific axiom of SRT, is false. And it states that the Michelson and Morley experiment (1887) disproves only absolute ether and not dragged ether. With dragged ether the exact stellar aberration of any star any time during the year is predicted; undeniable experimental evidence dragged ether exists.

The article is refused by physics journals with the argument that the article is not actual, not relevant. How can a paper that disproves SRT ever be not actual or not relevant!

Before Einstein discovered relativity QM accepted the premise that the electron, apart from the electromagnetic mass, must also have a mechanical mass. The paper "The Equivalence of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy" (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_der_Togt_equiv2ckw.pdf) proves that this premise is false because the Energy Conservation Law is brutally violated. The mass of an electron is completely explained by classical physics; the Electromagnetic Theory. This article is again rejected. How can an article that disproves a premise at the core of QM ever be not actual or not relevant!

It is therefore, considered the above-mentioned, not surprising that the paper “Quantum Mechanics and the Ether: The Derivation of Planck’s constant” (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Quantum%20Mechanics%20and%20the%20Ether.htm) explaining the quantification of subatomic physics is rejected. With the derivation of Planck’s constant the quantification by QM is explained with traditional physics.

Why do theoretical physicists reject these articles?

By accepting SRT Theoretical Physics introduced many contradictions. These contradictions have never been solved. To stop the ever-lasting demand for explanations science elevated SRT to the absolute truth (Positivism). Theoretical Physics found an easy way out.

Theoretical physicists claim that QM is the most successful theory ever. The mathematical solutions of QM are staggering. How can QM be so successful while a basic premise is false? The answer is that QM is more an experimental than a theoretical science. Many, many scientists search for years and years for mathematical solutions every day. Statistically now and then staggering mathematical solutions should be found. QM also implies many contradictions that cannot be explained. The so successful elevation of SRT to the absolute truth silenced all opposition, so this strategy is also applied to QM.

In the present situation RT and QM are both elevated to undeniable scientific truth. RT and QM have become indisputable. Science ends up with the unbelievable fairytale of relativity of time and space, 12 dimensions, parallel worlds, unacceptable contradictions etc. When each of both theories has a basic premise proven false, all theoretical conclusions should be reconsidered.

How can any self-respecting scientist admit that premises on which RT and QM are based are false when they have elevated these theories and therefore the premises to the absolute truth? How can they admit that the “truth” is just 3 dimensions and an independent natural constant (h) less? How can they admit that complete explanation by classical physics is possible after declaring that this is impossible? Theoretical physicists think they only can save their face when they ignore and deny the omissions occurred and therefore reject manuscripts on bogus arguments.

Probably you will think this impossible to believe, but consider that the mentioned relatively simple articles prove the premises are false. Simple math is undeniable. When premises are proven false all the conclusions based on it have to be reconsidered.

As the mentioned omissions occurred in the early days of RT and QM, it is not necessary to be a (theoretical) physicist or an expert to be able to comprehend the consequences. Time has come to reveal the incompetence of theoretical physicists. They refuse to address the omissions.

When you are a scientist and not a priest you should wonder why the omissions are not addressed. Save your profession from being ridiculed to the bone because that will happen when Theoretical Physics refuses to budge. All physic disciplines will suffer when the truth comes out.

The stubbornness of theoretical physicists will become a disgrace for all physic disciplines. The easiest and fastest way to get an impression is to read the chapter “Incompetence Science” of the book “From Paradox to Paradigm” (www.paradox-paradigm.nl). This chapter displays the correspondence with science and physic journals.

Forward this thhread to colleagues and friends so Theoretical Physics will be forced to budge and change their fairytale into something useful.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

Imagine that theoretical physicists are wrong and there is no relativity of time and space, just 3 dimensions and not 12, no parallel worlds etc. Would that not be the story of the century?

Theoretical physicists claim they understand people who try to comprehend Quantum Mechanics (QM) with the help of classical physics. They know this is not possible. Could it be that they are mistaken?

In principle a theory is based on axioms which are considered to be true. When a theory has been developing in the course of time, the theoretical conclusions are valid as long as the premises, on which the theory is based, are still holding. When one or more axioms are proven not to be valid anymore, scientists have to reconsider all conclusions the theory implies.

The simple article "Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether" (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/van_der_Togt_stellarab-final.pdf) proves without doubt that the premise of nonexistence of dragged ether, a specific axiom of SRT, is false. And it states that the Michelson and Morley experiment (1887) disproves only absolute ether and not dragged ether. With dragged ether the exact stellar aberration of any star any time during the year is predicted; undeniable experimental evidence dragged ether exists.

The article is refused by physics journals with the argument that the article is not actual, not relevant. How can a paper that disproves SRT ever be not actual or not relevant!

Before Einstein discovered relativity QM accepted the premise that the electron, apart from the electromagnetic mass, must also have a mechanical mass. The paper "The Equivalence of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy" (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_der_Togt_equiv2ckw.pdf) proves that this premise is false because the Energy Conservation Law is brutally violated. The mass of an electron is completely explained by classical physics; the Electromagnetic Theory. This article is again rejected. How can an article that disproves a premise at the core of QM ever be not actual or not relevant!

It is therefore, considered the above-mentioned, not surprising that the paper “Quantum Mechanics and the Ether: The Derivation of Planck’s constant” (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Quantum%20Mechanics%20and%20the%20Ether.htm) explaining the quantification of subatomic physics is rejected. With the derivation of Planck’s constant the quantification by QM is explained with traditional physics.

Why do theoretical physicists reject these articles?

By accepting SRT Theoretical Physics introduced many contradictions. These contradictions have never been solved. To stop the ever-lasting demand for explanations science elevated SRT to the absolute truth (Positivism). Theoretical Physics found an easy way out.

Theoretical physicists claim that QM is the most successful theory ever. The mathematical solutions of QM are staggering. How can QM be so successful while a basic premise is false? The answer is that QM is more an experimental than a theoretical science. Many, many scientists search for years and years for mathematical solutions every day. Statistically now and then staggering mathematical solutions should be found. QM also implies many contradictions that cannot be explained. The so successful elevation of SRT to the absolute truth silenced all opposition, so this strategy is also applied to QM.

In the present situation RT and QM are both elevated to undeniable scientific truth. RT and QM have become indisputable. Science ends up with the unbelievable fairytale of relativity of time and space, 12 dimensions, parallel worlds, unacceptable contradictions etc. When each of both theories has a basic premise proven false, all theoretical conclusions should be reconsidered.

How can any self-respecting scientist admit that premises on which RT and QM are based are false when they have elevated these theories and therefore the premises to the absolute truth? How can they admit that the “truth” is just 3 dimensions and an independent natural constant (h) less? How can they admit that complete explanation by classical physics is possible after declaring that this is impossible? Theoretical physicists think they only can save their face when they ignore and deny the omissions occurred and therefore reject manuscripts on bogus arguments.

Probably you will think this impossible to believe, but consider that the mentioned relatively simple articles prove the premises are false. Simple math is undeniable. When premises are proven false all the conclusions based on it have to be reconsidered.

As the mentioned omissions occurred in the early days of RT and QM, it is not necessary to be a (theoretical) physicist or an expert to be able to comprehend the consequences. Time has come to reveal the incompetence of theoretical physicists. They refuse to address the omissions.

When you are a scientist and not a priest you should wonder why the omissions are not addressed. Save your profession from being ridiculed to the bone because that will happen when Theoretical Physics refuses to budge. All physic disciplines will suffer when the truth comes out.

The stubbornness of theoretical physicists will become a disgrace for all physic disciplines. The easiest and fastest way to get an impression is to read the chapter “Incompetence Science” of the book “From Paradox to Paradigm” (www.paradox-paradigm.nl). This chapter displays the correspondence with science and physic journals.

Forward this thhread to colleagues and friends so Theoretical Physics will be forced to budge and change their fairytale into something useful.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt