search
top

Incompetent Science



Incompetent Science

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

At the end of 2004 it was obvi­ous Sci­ence com­pletely ignored the book and the arti­cles although no sci­en­tist, edi­tor, sci­ence jour­nal­ist or oth­ers were able to present a sin­gle valid argu­ment why the pro­posed par­a­digm was invalid.

It became clear that Sci­ence, for what­ever rea­sons, didn’t want to con­sider to cor­rect mis­takes made in the past. There­fore I intro­duced this chap­ter so novices could read and com­pre­hend based on sim­ple argu­ments why the Rel­a­tiv­ity The­ory and Quan­tum Mechan­ics are incor­rect theories.

In Part I the Spe­cial Rel­a­tiv­ity The­ory is refuted with sim­ple straight for­ward argu­ments.
In Part II the argu­ments why all the­o­ret­i­cal con­clu­sions of Quan­tum Mechan­ics are false is given.
In Part III it is argued and demon­strated that with ether all phys­i­cal phe­nom­ena can ratio­nal, with­out con­tra­dic­tion, be explained.

In Cor­re­spon­dence you can read the “argu­ments” of sci­en­tists, ref­er­ees and edi­tors why the arti­cles were rejected.

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

At the end of 2004 it was obvious Science completely ignored the book and the articles although no scientist, editor, science journalist or others were able to present a single valid argument why the proposed paradigm was invalid.

It became clear that Science, for whatever reasons, didn’t want to consider to correct mistakes made in the past. Therefore I introduced this chapter so novices could read and comprehend based on simple arguments why the Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics are incorrect theories.

In Part I the Special Relativity Theory is refuted with simple straight forward arguments.
In Part II the arguments why all theoretical conclusions of Quantum Mechanics are false is given.
In Part III it is argued and demonstrated that with ether all physical phenomena can rational, without contradiction, be explained.

In Correspondence you can read the “arguments” of scientists, referees and editors why the articles were rejected.

top