Correspondence
with Professor J. F. Nye F. R. S. (H. H. Wills Physics Laboratory) concerning
Planck’s constant
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2005 12:48
Subject: Full Circle
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear Dr. Nye,
I have sent you a number of emails. With this last email I want to show that it
all cannot be just a coincidence. It is statistical impossible that the discoveries
were made by coincidence.
The perspectives of Theoretical Physics with relativity, parallel worlds,
paradoxes etc are so unbelievable I acknowledged that physical science had made
a mistake in the past by accepting SRT. Analyzing SRT the conclusion is that
the omission occurred because dragged ether was denied unjustified.
In 1998 I wrote the article "Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial
of Ether"(www.paradox-paradigm.nl/van_der_Togt_stellarab-final.pdf).
This article proves without doubt that dragged ether is undeniable.
Not satisfied with the blank rejection by (all) physics journals I determined
the characteristics the ether should have to be consistent with observed
electromagnetic properties. Incorporating the characteristics of magnetic- and
electrostatic fields, particles like electron, positron, neutron and photon
this resulted in the elimination of the constant of Planck. The elimination is
achieved by assuming the photon is a simple oscillation of two moving opposite
charges.
The theoretical elimination of the constant of Planck is again very strong
evidence that dragged ether exists. The imagined properties of ether are
therefore not only consistent with observations. The elimination of the
constant of Planck indicates that the assumed properties of ether must be valid
in some degree. Pure coincidence is out of the question.
Publishing a manuscript concerning the elimination of the constant of Planck (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/The%20photon%20and%20the%20constant%20of%20Planck.htm)
was not a possibility because dragged ether is fiercely denied by mainstream
science. Trying to publish a manuscript that eliminates the constant of Planck
based on the existence of dragged ether would certainly be futile when the
article explaining stellar aberration is already rejected by all science and
physics journals.
Examining the properties of ether it becomes clear you only need two forms of
energy/force (electrostatic and magnetic) to describe photons, electrons,
protons etc. It became clear that magnetic and kinetic energy are identical.
The article "The Equivalence of Magnetic and Kinetic Energy" (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_der_Togt_equiv2ckw.pdf
) proves this. The manuscript was again rejected by (all) science journals.
Realizing the articles were totally ignored by science I looked for further
evidence. I realized the ether offered the possibility to link traditional
physics with QM. The manuscript "The hydrogen atom: an electromagnetic
free rotator" (www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Quantum%20mechanics%20and%20the%20ether.htm)
proves that the ether is responsible for the energy quantification of electrons
in atoms. Even the origin of the mathematical natural constants pi and e are
located.
This manuscript is again rejected by science journals without valid arguments.
Three blank rejections made me realize that the approach was futile. Showing
respect to science and scientists achieved nothing. I realized from the start
that a respectful attitude towards science probably would not achieve anything.
Science is mostly conservative and important changes in the past were always
ignored and ridiculed. Since a couple of months I show a disrespectful attitude
towards scientists. With this approach I already achieved more in a couple of
months than in the 6 years before!
The reason why it is so pertinent to have an article, just one, published
involving dragged ether is that after elimination of the omissions physical
phenomena like photons, elementary particles, synchrotron radiation, time
dilatation, relativistic observations, nuclear forces and even gravity are
simple explained with ether and just two forms of energy; magnetic and
electrostatic energy.
Apart from mathematical formulation the ether offers insight in the physical
processes of all physical phenomena. The omissions concerning the denial of
ether and the introduction by QM of the mechanical mass of particles obscures
the basically simple physical processes.
Theoretical physicists always have the argument that QM already has all the
answers. For the pure mathematical solutions this is true in some degree, but
certainly not for the physical processes. The ether shows that the thermal
nuclear fusion process is a dead end for inducing economic profitable nuclear
fusion. This insight is not achieved with the mathematical solutions of QM.
Society needs nuclear fusion as a clean source of energy soon. The
environmental situation on Earth cannot suffer the abuse of modern economic
activities for the many decades scientists need to wipe their tracks.
I realize it is hard to oppose authorities knowing they for sure will try to
ruin your career when you oppose them. I certainly do not want that, but if
they are wrong their wrath is useless. Just reading an article and judging it
will bring no harm to you. The spoils are for the few who dare.
Sincerely,
Carel van der Togt
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:11:37 +0100
Subject: RE: Full Circle
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Why don't you simply derive the physical
value of Planck's constant from other fundamental constants? No more words, just
a formula. Such a formula would be more convincing than all this rhetoric.
John Nye
----------------------------------
Professor J. F. Nye, F. R. S.
H. H. Wills Physics Laboratory
Tyndall Avenue
Bristol BS8 1TL
England
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Thu, 5 May
2005 17:17:30 +0200
Subject: More
Than Thousand Words
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear Professor
John Nye,
The constant of Planck is in the attached Word file.
Sincerely,
Carel van der Togt
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:41:06 +0200
Subject: Noblesse Oblige
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear Prof. J. F. Nye, F.R.S.,
On Thursday May 5 2005 you sent me an email telling me "Why don't you
simply derive the physical value of Planck's constant from other fundamental
constants? No more words, just a formula. Such a formula would be more
convincing than all this rhetoric."
On May 6 I sent you the formula. I think you did not expect I could sent you
the formula for real. This email is to remind you to the obligation you created
asking and receiving the more convincing formula. I learned that waiting for
scientists to act on their own is waiting for eternity: you have to be
proactive when science is concerned. I expect from you some intelligent action
and/or comment concerning the (derivation of the) formula of Planck’s constant.
After the rejection of the article "The hydrogen atom: an electromagnetic
free rotator" by Phys.Rev.A I started to email a select number of science
journals and scientists like you with just a few examples of inconsistencies.
The rhetoric mailings, as you call them, have been sent to a (very) limited
number of people, yet achieved in a few months more than the 6 years before.
Just yesterday I received again a request, this time from David Bradley a science
journalist in England, to write a summary of my findings for the website
www.sciscoop.com. This reaction is not the only one and will certainly not be
the last.
Imagine when not science but science journalists or even the public are going
to ask prominent theoretical physicists awkward questions they cannot answer
and they start to realize that all the scientific truth like relativity of time
and space, parallel worlds, all the paradoxes are real contradictions and the
Standard Model of Theoretical Physics is all crap.
The devastation and humiliation of Theoretical Physics will be unprecedented:
not because there are some omissions but because of the way theoretical
physicists and physic journals try to hide their ignorance, arrogance and
incompetence. Hiding such obvious mistakes after being discovered is suicidal.
The present perception of theoretical physics is absurdly complex because of
the omissions. Public and science journalists have no idea what is going on
(like the scientists themselves) and do not dare to ask questions. They just
bend over when scientists open their mouth. Physical scientists have been
telling the world for decades they are brilliant and only inaugurated
scientists can understand the crap (Sorry to use this language but that will be
the classification of the public when science itself will not act).
The physics of ether, from electron to gravity, is basically simple almost
everyone can understand. So physics should prepare for embarrassing questions.
I do not favor that outcome, but it seems inevitable when science keep ignoring
so much evidence and showing so much arrogance.
I do not want physics to be ridiculed to the bone. The opposite is the case. In
general I rather respect people but sometimes it is inevitable. More than 6
years respectful mailing to scientists and science journals achieved nothing.
In February this year I changed my policy and the aim of my rhetoric is to show
scientists their wisdom is flawed.
I'm willing to delete my Incompetent chapter and forget all what happened (you
do not want to hear the names I have been called) when my article is published
or going to be in short term. Theoretical Physics will be able to keep respect
when science itself recognizes and handles the omissions.
For me it is understandable that the omissions occurred. When science corrects
the omissions no harm will be done. Respect will endure because what
Theoretical Physics achieved is extraordinary according to me. When science is
forced to the correction by public opinion the humiliation will be devastating
and deserved because scientists are responsible themselves. I do not know
whether the editors of APS, Physics Letters A etc and you realize this.
Two weeks from now, when I do not receive a satisfactory answer, I will add the
correspondence with you on the website www.paradox-paradigm.nl in the
Incompetence chapter. I will increase the mailing list at least tenfold (in 1/2
hour I collected 30 more email addresses of scientists at H.H. Wills Physics
Laboratory). After a worldwide extensive mailing I do not think respect for
theoretical physicists will hold much longer.
You, as a prominent scientist promoting ethical science and technology, should
act on it now and proof they are not only empty words. When you stumble on omissions
of this magnitude it is unethical not to act.
I regret it to be so persistent and disrespectful but Theoretical Physics does
not leave me any choice.
Sincerely,
Carel van der Togt
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Tue, 10
May 2005 09:56:20 +0100
Subject: RE:
Noblesse Oblige
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear Mr Togt
I have created no obligation to you. However, I think you will find that
the formula you sent me for Planck's constant is merely a numerical
approximation and is not exact.
John Nye
----------------------------------
Professor J. F. Nye, F. R. S.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Late: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:01:52 +0200
Subject: RE:
Noblesse Oblige
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear Profesor
Nye,
I think you know what margin errors are.
Carel van der Togt
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 10:11:52 +0100
Subject: RE: Noblesse Oblige
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear Mr Togt
I do not understand your reply or the term 'margin errors'. The fine structure
constant is, I believe, measured to many places of decimals, and it is not
equal to 4*pi/12**3, as is implied by your formula. Therefore your formula is
false.
John Nye
----------------------------------
Professor J. F. Nye, F. R. S.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Sun, 15
May 2005 13:52:31 +0200
Subject: Invalid
Arguments
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Dear Prof. Nye,
You say my formula for Planck's constant is merely a numerical approximation
and for that you conclude the formula is false.
The theoretical derivation of h is factor 1.0035 of the empirical derived
value. That is very close and when you are serious you would acknowledge that.
The correspondence is a waste of time for you and me because you do not want to
consider alternatives anyway.
First I want you to know that there is a huge difference between the empirical
derived value of h and the theoretical calculated value of h. The theory and
formula according to you are false because the theoretical derived value of
Planck's constant deviates 0.35% from the empirical value. I remember the drag
factor of Fizeau was confirmed by the experiment of Fizeau where the empirical
drag factor deviates 10% from the theoretical value!
The margin error of the natural constants in the formula of Planck I sent you
is approx. between 10^-5 and 10^-6. The margin error for the theoretical
derived value becomes than between 5.10^-5 to 5.10^-6. There is a factor 100 to
be explained.
When comparing the experimental value with the theoretical value one has to
consider the physical process. I do not want to lecture because you should know
as professor in theoretical physics the difference. The calculated margin error
for the theoretical formula of h is approx. the factor 5.10^-5 to 5.10^-6. This
mathematical margin error, to be comparable with the deviation of the empirical
value of h, has to be multiplied with 12^3=1728 because of the physical process
the formula describes (the margin error in the theoretical value is
systematical repeated). Therefore the margin error of the theoretical derived
value becomes (5.10^-5...5.10^-6)*1728= (8.6.10^-2...8.6.10^-3). Compared to
the approx. theoretical margin error of 3.5.10^-3 this error is therefore well
within the experimental margin error. The theoretical value of h is completely
consistent with experiments.
If you really do not understand I will prove this but I think you know. You use
false arguments only because you want to argue the theory/formula is false
without ever reading a word. You did not bring up one valid argument yet.
To write down the analyses between the theoretical margin error and the
empirical margin error is a lot of work. If you seriously want to know I will
send you the derivation.
Carel van der Togt