search
top

Incompetent Science – Part 1/3



Incompetent Science - Part 1/3

When you are inter­ested in physics you must read “Unbe­liev­able”!

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 all-​prevailing ether would be ridicu­lous. The famous Michel­son and Mor­ley exper­i­ment pre­cluded the pos­si­bil­ity of 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 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 arti­cle Stel­lar Aber­ra­tion and the Unjus­ti­fied Denial of Ether (Galilean Elec­tro­dy­nam­ics 16, 7577 July/​August 2005) proves with­out any doubt that dragged ether is com­pletely con­sis­tent with stel­lar aber­ra­tion and the Doppler-​effect. It is there­fore a far more accept­able expla­na­tion than that pro­vided by SRT and is not plagued by the incon­sis­ten­cies inher­ent in that the­ory. Fur­ther­more the exper­i­ment of Fizeau is an other exper­i­ment of the first order that ver­i­fies dragged ether exactly. There is NO exper­i­men­tal data of the first order that ver­i­fies SRT.

In spite of all this, the paper has been com­pletely ignored since 1998 and pub­li­ca­tion by jour­nals has been refused under the pre­text it being not top­i­cal; not relevant.

How could it ever be pos­si­ble that a paper dis­cussing an omis­sion that shaped phys­i­cal sci­ence so pro­foundly would be not topical?

Com­ment added Novem­ber 2007: the fal­si­fi­ca­tion of SRT

The above men­tioned arti­cle was writ­ten for pub­li­ca­tion in a physic jour­nal. Out of respect for the­o­ret­i­cal physi­cists the the­o­ret­i­cal con­se­quences of this arti­cle were not stated. How­ever since it is clear, after 9 years, the­o­ret­i­cal physi­cists are unwill­ing to address the omis­sion I now explic­itly men­tion the argu­ments as non-​expert read­ers can­not be expected to deduct these con­clu­sions by themselves.

Since Bradley mea­sured stel­lar aber­ra­tion in 1727 sci­en­tists were look­ing for an expla­na­tion. In the 19th and the begin­ning of the 20th cen­tury sci­en­tists looked explic­itly for the pos­si­bil­ity of dragged ether. They con­cluded how­ever that dragged ether could not explain the phe­nom­e­non “stel­lar aberration”.

How is it pos­si­ble these sci­en­tists weren’t able to deduce that dragged ether was com­pletely con­sis­tent with stel­lar aber­ra­tion as is demon­strated in the above article?

It is the­o­ret­i­cal pos­si­ble to imag­ine two forms of dragged ether; 1) an ether that is dragged by the Earth around the Sun where the ether also drags the light and 2) an ether that is dragged but where the pho­tons are not dragged by the ether.

Sci­en­tists have only been ana­lyz­ing the pos­si­bil­ity of dragged ether where the light is also dragged. They did not con­sider the pos­si­bil­i­ties of dragged ether where the light isnot dragged. This is the rea­son why sci­ence denied dragged ether being a viable expla­na­tion for stel­lar aber­ra­tion and con­cluded that ether could not exist.

Lorentz deduced his famous Lorentz-​transformation for rel­a­tivis­tic cor­rec­tions with­out a phys­i­cal expla­na­tion. In 1905 Ein­stein pub­lished his first paper con­cern­ing SRT; a pos­si­ble expla­na­tion was at hand. After almost 200 years SRT offered sci­ence a pos­si­ble expla­na­tion for stel­lar aber­ra­tion resp. the Lorentz-​contraction. This pos­si­bil­ity was embraced,

How­ever:

  • Sci­en­tists did not take into con­sid­er­a­tion the fact that the observed stel­lar aber­ra­tion on Earth is depen­dent on the incli­na­tion angle of the star with the plane of the Earth around the Sun. Einstein’s SRT can only “explain” the observed stel­lar aber­ra­tion of stars with an incli­na­tion angle of 90 degrees with the plane of the Earth around the Sun. Stars have observed stel­lar aber­ra­tion that is depen­dent on the incli­na­tion angle. Explain­ing stel­lar aber­ra­tion of stars, where the incli­na­tion angle is rel­e­vant, is not pos­si­ble with SRT, because the incli­na­tion angle can­not be intro­duced or explained with SRT. The rel­a­tive speed V is the only the­o­ret­i­cal expla­na­tion SRT offers. Sci­en­tists are not able to explain with SRT the depen­dence on the incli­na­tion angle. This obser­va­tion by itself is enough to dis­qual­ify SRT as a viable the­ory for explain­ing stel­lar aber­ra­tion resp. the Lorentz-​contraction.


  • Stel­lar aber­ra­tion can, accord­ing to the The­ory of Rel­a­tiv­ity, only be depen­dent on the rel­a­tive speed V. So with dou­ble stars, where one star orbits another star, the rel­a­tive speed of the Earth to and from this dou­ble star must depend on the com­bined cycle of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and the orbit of the dou­ble star. There­fore the observed stel­lar aber­ra­tion, when SRT is a valid the­ory, must be depen­dent on the com­bin­ing speed of the Earth cir­cling the Sun and the speed of dou­ble star cir­cling its com­pan­ion. SRT is in basic very sim­ple; the only fac­tor of influ­ence is the rel­a­tive speed V. Astronomers do not mea­sure that the stel­lar aber­ra­tion is in any way depen­dent on the speed of the dou­ble star. Only the speed of the Earth around the Sun is of influ­ence. This obser­va­tion exper­i­men­tally dis­qual­i­fies SRT as a valid theory.


  • In SRT there are many con­tra­dic­tions. When sci­en­tists “explain” even the most sim­ple Twin-​contradiction (They call it the Twin-​paradox) they induce other con­tra­dic­tions they can­not explain. They are hope­lessly lost and because of that they can­not give answers to valid ques­tions. For their own peace of mind they call the con­tra­dic­tions “para­doxes”. Their only “defense” is that their expla­na­tions are too dif­fi­cult to under­stand for lay­men. With these argu­ments The­o­ret­i­cal Physics entered the “Twi­light Zone”.

Sci­ence claims there are many more obser­va­tions that ver­ify SRT. This is not true. All exper­i­men­tal data claim­ing to ver­ify SRT are indi­rect obser­va­tions where the Lorentz-​contraction is sig­nif­i­cant. All these so called other ver­i­fy­ing exper­i­ments con­cern obser­va­tions where SRT is not contradicted.

SRT has already been dis­qual­i­fied for explain­ing stel­lar aber­ra­tion resp. the Lorentz-​contraction. If these indi­rect obser­va­tions “ver­ify” SRT, than these obser­va­tions also “ver­ify” all other the­o­ries that incor­po­rate the Lorentz-​contraction. (Exam­ples of these obser­va­tions are the cor­rec­tion for global posi­tion satel­lites, all astro­nom­i­cal data, etc)

Dragged ether on the other hand pre­dicts exactly the stel­lar aber­ra­tion of any star any time. This is very strong first order exper­i­men­tal data ver­i­fy­ing dragged ether. The observed stel­lar aber­ra­tion of any star is in all cir­cum­stances exactly matched by the the­o­ret­i­cal cal­cu­lated stel­lar aber­ra­tion with dragged ether. SRT doesn’t explain stel­lar aber­ra­tion and there­fore there are no exper­i­men­tal data of the first order that sup­port this the­ory. All exper­i­men­tal data sup­pos­edly ver­i­fy­ing SRT are merely circumstantial.

Sci­en­tists embraced SRT because it could “explain” the stel­lar aber­ra­tion of stars right angled with the plane of the Earth around the Sun. On the other hand sci­en­tists ignored unam­bigu­ous exper­i­men­tal data dis­qual­i­fy­ing SRT.

For sev­eral years I have been try­ing to com­mu­ni­cate with many expert sci­en­tists about these the­o­ret­i­cal incon­sis­ten­cies but no one was will­ing to dis­cuss them.

Expert sci­en­tists know that SRT is exper­i­men­tal dis­qual­i­fied by these obser­va­tions, but they do not want to dis­cuss this. Because if they did, they would have to admit they had been wrong for more than 100 years and that is too embar­rass­ing. Sci­en­tists pre­fer to ignore and be dishonest.

When you are interested in physics you must read “Unbelievable“!

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 all-prevailing ether would be ridiculous. The famous Michelson and Morley experiment precluded the possibility of 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 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 article Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether (Galilean Electrodynamics 16, 75-77 July/August 2005) proves without any doubt that dragged ether is completely consistent with stellar aberration and the Doppler-effect. It is therefore a far more acceptable explanation than that provided by SRT and is not plagued by the inconsistencies inherent in that theory. Furthermore the experiment of Fizeau is an other experiment of the first order that verifies dragged ether exactly. There is NO experimental data of the first order that verifies SRT.

In spite of all this, the paper has been completely ignored since 1998 and publication by journals has been refused under the pretext it being not topical; not relevant.

How could it ever be possible that a paper discussing an omission that shaped physical science so profoundly would be not topical?

Comment added November 2007: the falsification of SRT

The above mentioned article was written for publication in a physic journal. Out of respect for theoretical physicists the theoretical consequences of this article were not stated. However since it is clear, after 9 years, theoretical physicists are unwilling to address the omission I now explicitly mention the arguments as non-expert readers cannot be expected to deduct these conclusions by themselves.

Since Bradley measured stellar aberration in 1727 scientists were looking for an explanation. In the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century scientists looked explicitly for the possibility of dragged ether. They concluded however that dragged ether could not explain the phenomenon “stellar aberration”.

How is it possible these scientists weren’t able to deduce that dragged ether was completely consistent with stellar aberration as is demonstrated in the above article?

It is theoretical possible to imagine two forms of dragged ether; 1) an ether that is dragged by the Earth around the Sun where the ether also drags the light and 2) an ether that is dragged but where the photons are not dragged by the ether.

Scientists have only been analyzing the possibility of dragged ether where the light is also dragged. They did not consider the possibilities of dragged ether where the light isnot dragged. This is the reason why science denied dragged ether being a viable explanation for stellar aberration and concluded that ether could not exist.

Lorentz deduced his famous Lorentz-transformation for relativistic corrections without a physical explanation. In 1905 Einstein published his first paper concerning SRT; a possible explanation was at hand. After almost 200 years SRT offered science a possible explanation for stellar aberration resp. the Lorentz-contraction. This possibility was embraced,

However:

  • Scientists did not take into consideration the fact that the observed stellar aberration on Earth is dependent on the inclination angle of the star with the plane of the Earth around the Sun. Einstein’s SRT can only “explain” the observed stellar aberration of stars with an inclination angle of 90 degrees with the plane of the Earth around the Sun. Stars have observed stellar aberration that is dependent on the inclination angle. Explaining stellar aberration of stars, where the inclination angle is relevant, is not possible with SRT, because the inclination angle cannot be introduced or explained with SRT. The relative speed V is the only theoretical explanation SRT offers. Scientists are not able to explain with SRT the dependence on the inclination angle. This observation by itself is enough to disqualify SRT as a viable theory for explaining stellar aberration resp. the Lorentz-contraction.


  • Stellar aberration can, according to the Theory of Relativity, only be dependent on the relative speed V. So with double stars, where one star orbits another star, the relative speed of the Earth to and from this double star must depend on the combined cycle of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and the orbit of the double star. Therefore the observed stellar aberration, when SRT is a valid theory, must be dependent on the combining speed of the Earth circling the Sun and the speed of double star circling its companion. SRT is in basic very simple; the only factor of influence is the relative speed V. Astronomers do not measure that the stellar aberration is in any way dependent on the speed of the double star. Only the speed of the Earth around the Sun is of influence. This observation experimentally disqualifies SRT as a valid theory.


  • In SRT there are many contradictions. When scientists “explain” even the most simple Twin-contradiction (They call it the Twin-paradox) they induce other contradictions they cannot explain. They are hopelessly lost and because of that they cannot give answers to valid questions. For their own peace of mind they call the contradictions “paradoxes”. Their only “defense” is that their explanations are too difficult to understand for laymen. With these arguments Theoretical Physics entered the “Twilight Zone”.

Science claims there are many more observations that verify SRT. This is not true. All experimental data claiming to verify SRT are indirect observations where the Lorentz-contraction is significant. All these so called other verifying experiments concern observations where SRT is not contradicted.

SRT has already been disqualified for explaining stellar aberration resp. the Lorentz-contraction. If these indirect observations “verify” SRT, than these observations also “verify” all other theories that incorporate the Lorentz-contraction. (Examples of these observations are the correction for global position satellites, all astronomical data, etc)

Dragged ether on the other hand predicts exactly the stellar aberration of any star any time. This is very strong first order experimental data verifying dragged ether. The observed stellar aberration of any star is in all circumstances exactly matched by the theoretical calculated stellar aberration with dragged ether. SRT doesn’t explain stellar aberration and therefore there are no experimental data of the first order that support this theory. All experimental data supposedly verifying SRT are merely circumstantial.

Scientists embraced SRT because it could “explain” the stellar aberration of stars right angled with the plane of the Earth around the Sun. On the other hand scientists ignored unambiguous experimental data disqualifying SRT.

For several years I have been trying to communicate with many expert scientists about these theoretical inconsistencies but no one was willing to discuss them.

Expert scientists know that SRT is experimental disqualified by these observations, but they do not want to discuss this. Because if they did, they would have to admit they had been wrong for more than 100 years and that is too embarrassing. Scientists prefer to ignore and be dishonest.

top