|
Submissions | Add Your Comments | Physics Site Links | Home Page |
| Email: Carel van der Togt |
Carel van der Togt
In 1905
Einstein published his first paper on Special Relativity Theory (SRT). While not
the most obvious solution, it became the most acceptable in view of the
scientific assumption that space was absolutely empty.
Had this
not been the case, the theory would not have been conceived since the idea of
the relativity of time and space with an all-prevailing ether would be
ridiculous. The famous Michelson and Morley experiment precluded the possibility
of an absolute ether. The other possibility considered, the dragged ether, was discounted
because of an inability to imagine how it could explain stellar aberration, yet
after 100 years, SRT provides no more than a possible explanation. Scientists
are still unable to explain the observed stellar aberration of any star for any
time of the year.
The
prevailing philosophy of positivism, the principle that
anything in theory is possible, may have allowed science to accept SRT but only
under the presumption of an absolutely empty space. Positivism occurs however
simultaneously with negativism; any legitimate argument
not consistent with SRT is claimed to be bogus without justification. Scientists
who purposely ignore the serious omissions of the past practice incompetent science.
The paper
Stellar
Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether (PDF-file)
proves without any
doubt that a dragged ether is completely consistent with stellar aberration and
the Doppler-effect. It is therefore a far more probable explanation than that
provided by SRT and is not plagued by the logical inconsistencies inherent in
that theory.
Regardless
of this, the paper has been completely ignored since 1998 and publication by
journals has been refused for the reason that it is not topical; not
relevant.
How can an omission that shaped physical
science so profoundly ever be not topical?
Before
Einstein “discovered” relativity, physical science concluded that the “field
momentum” of a moving charge could not explain the mass of the electron (R.P.
Feynman, Lectures on Physics Volume II, chapter 28-2 and 28-3). The false
assumption that the electromagnetic mass of a charged bulb cannot explain the
mass of the electron results in the addition of a “mechanical”
mass.
The article
The Equivalence
of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy (PDF-file) proves that the above mentioned
mathematical derivation of the electromagnetic mass is invalid since the
conservation law of energy is violated when that mass is calculated. This
omission casts very serious doubt on Quantum Mechanics’ treatment of
(charged) particles and its ability to “explain” the electron and other
particles within electromagnetic theory. Attempts to modify Maxwell’s theory of
electrodynamics failed dramatically (R.P. Feynman, Lectures on Physics Volume
II, chapter 28-4 and 28-5).
The
positivistic attitude of science elevates the empirical science of QM to a
theoretical absolute. The empirical mathematical solutions of QM are considered
to be the exact truth! Scientists, science journalists, referees and editors are
again not prepared to consider the possible consequences of this very early
omission that shapes the perspective of QM so dramatically. They reject the
above paper on magnetic energy also on the argument that it is not topical; not
relevant.
How can an omission that shaped physical
science so profoundly ever be not topical?
The
physical perspectives of SRT and QM are seriously flawed because of these
omissions. Although omissions are a common occurrence in all fields,
deliberately ignoring them when discovered is unacceptable.
Attempts at
publication, or even evaluation of the papers since 1998 have proven to be
fruitless. It is absolutely clear that no valid arguments have been raised
against them, but it appears impossible to have them published. They are
dismissed for reasons that have nothing to do with science. The most prevalent
argument (implicit or otherwise) is that theories already exist which provide
“perfect” solutions for everything and there is no need to look for
alternatives. Scientists are afraid to discuss
these topics. Science has taken on the infallibility of religion
and because of that scientists believe they are not accountable anymore. Only
faith and obedience are required to practice physical science
nowadays.
Technical
progress over the last 100 years has been enormous. The mathematical solutions
are stunning. The omissions however, distort the theoretical perspectives in
such a way that the imagined physical process of nuclear
fusion can be seriously flawed. Scientists consider this to be impossible
because the mathematics of QM accurately describe reality. In their
“infallibility” physicists forget that there are in principle, infinite
mathematical solutions for any observed data. Are
the infinite solutions all absolute correct? A mathematical correct
solution does not necessarily apply to a physical process, to think it does is a
mistake, to think the preferred mathematical solution describes the exact
physical process is absolute incompetent
science.
After 6 years being denied answers on legitimate questions I have no choice than to address science disrespectfully, because it is not impossible that science through ignorance, incompetence and arrogance withholds nuclear fusion as a viable alternative from society .
The present
perspective is a world where the scientific reality is even more fantastic than
any known fairytale. Science proclaims the reality of relativity of time and
space, unimaginable paradoxes to be true, parallel worlds to exist and more. If
the omissions are addressed all this fictional “science” will
disappear.
The
arguments of physics journals not to publish the mentioned articles on basis of
not being actual, prompted me to look for the
link between traditional physics and QM. The paper, “The hydrogen atom: a
electromagnetic free rotator” is the result. The previous papers are an integral
part of this. This paper is again
ignored without reason and therefore prompts me to add this chapter of
incompetence to the website.
Physics
journals and science journalists have a social task and obligation to inform
about developments in their respective fields. It is my opinion that they do not
live up to their professional and moral duty when they arbitrarily ignore
articles without giving valid arguments. An editor cannot hide behind the
anonymous referee, when that referee’s arguments are bogus. Their arguments to
refuse publication of articles, that reveal serious omissions, on the basis of
being not topical, or not
relevant must be considered incompetent science and for that I
“honor” these institutions and editors with their own place of incompetence on this website.
The
correspondence is available for everyone who wants to
know: