search
top

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, 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