search
top

Incompetent Science – Part 3/3



Incompetent Science - Part 3/3

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

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 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 is 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, and to think the pre­ferred math­e­mat­i­cal solu­tion describes the exact phys­i­cal process is incom­pe­tent sci­ence; espe­cially when these “absolute cor­rect phys­i­cal equa­tions” already con­tain at least two very seri­ous fun­da­men­tal omissions.

After 6 years being denied answers on legit­i­mate ques­tions I have no choice than to address sci­ence dis­re­spect­fully, because it is pos­si­ble that sci­ence through igno­rance, incom­pe­tence and arro­gance with­holds soci­ety of nuclear fusion as a viable alternative.

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 “Quan­tum Mechan­ics and the Ether: The Deriva­tion of Planck’s con­stant”, to be pub­lished in Galilean Elec­tro­dy­nam­ics (GED) in 2009, is the result. The pre­vi­ous papers are an inte­gral part of this. GED is a so called dis­si­dent physics jour­nal an d is com­pletely ignored by main­stream scientists.

Again this paper was rejected by all other jour­nals on basis of not being actual. This prompted me to add this chap­ter con­cern­ing incom­pe­tence to the website.

Com­ment added Novem­ber 2007
The empir­i­cal sig­nif­i­cance of the QM-​formulas is undis­putable. The flaw of QM is that this sci­ence is the­o­ret­i­cally incor­rect, and that is also the rea­son why QM can­not explain sub-​atomic physics with tra­di­tional phys­i­cal con­cepts. The argu­ment of sci­en­tists con­cern­ing this obser­va­tion is that the sub-​atomic (QM) phys­i­cal real­ity obeys dif­fer­ent physic laws not observ­able in our macro-​world and there­fore can­not be explained with tra­di­tional physics. This could be a valid argu­ment but is not nec­es­sar­ily true.

The the­o­ret­i­cal con­clu­sions of QM are based on the phys­i­cal enti­ties of the derived par­ti­cle for­mu­las. The pre­sumed phys­i­cal enti­ties of the QM-​particles are false and there­fore the the­o­ret­i­cal con­clu­sions based on this are too. Because the QM-​formulas are based on invalid premises QM was directed on a false the­o­ret­i­cal path. Sci­ence con­cludes incor­rectly that tra­di­tional physics can­not explain sub-​atomic physics.

The above men­tioned arti­cle explains sub-​atomic physics with tra­di­tional phys­i­cal con­cepts. The derived sub-​atomic phys­i­cal processes are com­pletely con­sis­tent with the experimental/​mathematical find­ings of QM. The phys­i­cal approach in the arti­cle uses valid tra­di­tional the­o­ret­i­cal expla­na­tions for sub-​atomic obser­va­tions. This approach offers the unique pos­si­bil­ity to elim­i­nate the nat­ural con­stant of Planck (h), explain the Fine Struc­ture Con­stant and the observed energy quan­tifi­ca­tion of atoms with old fash­ioned physics.

The­o­ret­i­cal physics, with RT and QM as “the­o­ries”, ends up with a phys­i­cal “real­ity” of rel­a­tiv­ity of time and space, 7 to 12 (!) dimen­sions, par­al­lel worlds, unex­plain­able con­tra­dic­tions etc.

Dragged ether the­ory on the other hand doesn’t imply any dis­crep­an­cies, needs only 3 dimen­sions and elim­i­nates the nat­ural con­stant of Planck (h).

Which the­ory is favored by Occam’s razor?

When sci­ence jour­nals would pub­lish this arti­cle they would have to rec­og­nize that sub­atomic physics can be explained with tra­di­tional phys­i­cal con­cepts. Fur­ther­more they have to dis­cuss the pre­vi­ous men­tioned fun­da­men­tal omis­sions. This appears to be impossible.

Expert sci­en­tists there­fore pre­fer to ignore and be dishonest.

In the past 10 years I have sent many thou­sands of let­ters and emails to sci­en­tists, sci­ence jour­nal­ists, edi­tors etc to con­sider the pos­si­ble unjust denial of ether. The­o­ret­i­cal evi­dence dis­qual­i­fy­ing Quan­tum Mechan­ics (QM) is how­ever denied with­out any comment.

When The­o­ret­i­cal Physics ignores the­o­ret­i­cal evi­dence the integrity of that sci­ence has been lost. When a Sci­ence dis­ci­pline is cor­rupted cor­rec­tion of omis­sions has become impossible.

In the 21st cen­tury nuclear fusion, a clean and abun­dant source of energy, is des­per­ately needed for viable envi­ron­men­tal, eco­nomic and social devel­op­ments in the near and dis­tant future. The cor­rupted state of the sci­ence The­o­ret­i­cal Physics makes it impos­si­ble to inves­ti­gate the sci­en­tific pos­si­bil­i­ties ether physics offers to achieve nuclear fusion as an alter­na­tive energy source.

A Fun­da­men­tal Physics Exper­i­ment should be per­formed. The per­for­mance of this exper­i­ment is out of my reach. I hope some exper­i­men­tal physi­cists can real­ize this exper­i­ment and will be able to pub­lish the results.

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 with physics jour­nals is avail­able for every­one who wants to know.

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

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 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 is 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, and to think the preferred mathematical solution describes the exact physical process is incompetent science; especially when these “absolute correct physical equations” already contain at least two very serious fundamental omissions.

After 6 years being denied answers on legitimate questions I have no choice than to address science disrespectfully, because it is possible that science through ignorance, incompetence and arrogance withholds society of nuclear fusion as a viable alternative.

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 “Quantum Mechanics and the Ether: The Derivation of Planck’s constant”, to be published in Galilean Electrodynamics (GED) in 2009, is the result. The previous papers are an integral part of this. GED is a so called dissident physics journal an d is completely ignored by mainstream scientists.

Again this paper was rejected by all other journals on basis of not being actual. This prompted me to add this chapter concerning incompetence to the website.

Comment added November 2007
The empirical significance of the QM-formulas is undisputable. The flaw of QM is that this science is theoretically incorrect, and that is also the reason why QM cannot explain sub-atomic physics with traditional physical concepts. The argument of scientists concerning this observation is that the sub-atomic (QM) physical reality obeys different physic laws not observable in our macro-world and therefore cannot be explained with traditional physics. This could be a valid argument but is not necessarily true.

The theoretical conclusions of QM are based on the physical entities of the derived particle formulas. The presumed physical entities of the QM-particles are false and therefore the theoretical conclusions based on this are too. Because the QM-formulas are based on invalid premises QM was directed on a false theoretical path. Science concludes incorrectly that traditional physics cannot explain sub-atomic physics.

The above mentioned article explains sub-atomic physics with traditional physical concepts. The derived sub-atomic physical processes are completely consistent with the experimental/mathematical findings of QM. The physical approach in the article uses valid traditional theoretical explanations for sub-atomic observations. This approach offers the unique possibility to eliminate the natural constant of Planck (h), explain the Fine Structure Constant and the observed energy quantification of atoms with old fashioned physics.

Theoretical physics, with RT and QM as “theories”, ends up with a physical “reality” of relativity of time and space, 7 to 12 (!) dimensions, parallel worlds, unexplainable contradictions etc.

Dragged ether theory on the other hand doesn’t imply any discrepancies, needs only 3 dimensions and eliminates the natural constant of Planck (h).

Which theory is favored by Occam’s razor?

When science journals would publish this article they would have to recognize that subatomic physics can be explained with traditional physical concepts. Furthermore they have to discuss the previous mentioned fundamental omissions. This appears to be impossible.

Expert scientists therefore prefer to ignore and be dishonest.

In the past 10 years I have sent many thousands of letters and emails to scientists, science journalists, editors etc to consider the possible unjust denial of ether. Theoretical evidence disqualifying Quantum Mechanics (QM) is however denied without any comment.

When Theoretical Physics ignores theoretical evidence the integrity of that science has been lost. When a Science discipline is corrupted correction of omissions has become impossible.

In the 21st century nuclear fusion, a clean and abundant source of energy, is desperately needed for viable environmental, economic and social developments in the near and distant future. The corrupted state of the science Theoretical Physics makes it impossible to investigate the scientific possibilities ether physics offers to achieve nuclear fusion as an alternative energy source.

Fundamental Physics Experiment should be performed. The performance of this experiment is out of my reach. I hope some experimental physicists can realize this experiment and will be able to publish the results.

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 with physics journals is available for everyone who wants to know.

top