search
top

Conclusion



Conclusion

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

The con­tent of “From Para­dox to Par­a­digm” is plau­si­ble, but spec­u­la­tive. How­ever the actual indi­ca­tions why sci­ence should look in depth into the pos­si­bil­i­ties of the ether the­ory are numerous:

  • In the 19th and 20th cen­tury sci­ence did not give enough atten­tion to the pos­si­bil­ity of the dragged ether after this medium was denied pre­ma­ture and unjus­ti­fied. With the dragged ether described in this book one cal­cu­lates the exact stel­lar aber­ra­tion of any star any time dur­ing the year. The exper­i­men­tal evi­dence for dragged ether is there­fore over­whelm­ing. Sci­ence should admit the dragged ether offers a pos­si­ble valid alter­na­tive theory.
  • The drag coef­fi­cient of Fres­nel was con­firmed by the exper­i­ment of Fizeau. This con­fir­ma­tion had no sci­en­tific mean­ing at all, because the drag coef­fi­cient was intro­duced ad hoc with­out a valid phys­i­cal expla­na­tion. It was already cer­tain a “drag fac­tor” would be mea­sured after Arago’s obser­va­tions. The per­fect match of the exper­i­ment of Fizeau with dragged ether pro­vides again strong empir­i­cal evi­dence in favor of dragged ether and should puz­zle scientists.
  • The ether the­ory, illus­trated in a sim­ple way in the pre­vi­ous chap­ters, gives all the expla­na­tions one needs to explain rel­a­tivis­tic and Quan­tum Mechan­ics observations .
  • The the­o­ret­i­cal proof of the equiv­a­lence of mag­netic and kinetic energy sup­ports the impli­ca­tion of the ether that there only has to be mag­netic and elec­tro­sta­tic energy to explain all forms of observed energy and forces.
  • The inert qual­i­ties of the ether give an expla­na­tion of the observed, yet unex­plained, syn­chro­tron radiation.
  • Often one hears sci­en­tists declare that the sim­pler a the­ory is the more valid it becomes. The ether the­ory, with only two forms of energy and related forces, is extremely sim­ple and explains a lot. Why do sci­en­tists reject the ether the­ory with­out arguments?
  • The eas­i­ness with which the ether the­ory explains the rev­e­la­tion of sta­ble par­ti­cles from ether should mean some­thing to sci­en­tists and cause wondering.
  • The, in a sim­ple way, derived radius of the neu­tron com­bined with the basic equa­tion of the energy of an oscil­la­tion elim­i­nates the con­stant of Planck and derives a sim­ple clas­si­cal non-​relativistic pre­sen­ta­tion of the mys­te­ri­ous pho­ton. What would be the chance this could hap­pen, if it should be all pure coincidence?
  • The spec­u­la­tive, yet sim­ple and con­sis­tent, expla­na­tion of grav­ity emerg­ing from atomic nuclei in mat­ter opens the pos­si­bil­ity that the ether the­ory will become “the the­ory of every­thing” when sci­ence will give it proper attention.
  • In the newly (August 2004) added chap­ter “Quan­tum Mechan­ics and the Ether” the undis­putable exper­i­men­tal posi­tion of QM is con­firmed by ether. QM and ether coin­cide per­fectly. The quan­tifi­ca­tion of physics by QM orig­i­nates at the Planck-​distance where vac­uum must be con­sid­ered inhomogeneous.
The above men­tioned argu­ments, pro “ether”, I found by assum­ing there might be ether after all. The described ether is able to explain many other not men­tioned phe­nom­ena. It is not hard to see that it is impos­si­ble for a pro­ton to merge with an elec­tron in not extreme dense con­di­tions. The prop­er­ties of the mys­te­ri­ous neu­trino become clear. The macro­scopic phe­nom­e­non like the alter­ing mag­netic field of the Earth become obvious.

Also in favor of the ether the­ory are con­tra­dic­tions like:

  • The Rel­a­tiv­ity The­ory and Quan­tum Mechan­ics con­tra­dict each other. There must be some­thing wrong somewhere!
  • The Amer­i­can space­crafts, the Pio­neer 10 and 11 move through space in an other direc­tion than cal­cu­lated with the Rel­a­tiv­ity The­ory. The dif­fer­ences are small but unde­ni­able and unex­plained. Cor­rec­tions based on RT or ether will dif­fer and pos­si­ble explains the deviation.
  • In astron­omy cal­cu­la­tions carry large uncer­tain­ties. The esti­ma­tions of the age of the uni­verse are between 7 and 20 bil­lion years. Fac­tors of impor­tance in astron­omy are speed, dis­tance, mass and time. All astro­nomic mea­sure­ments need rel­a­tivis­tic cor­rec­tions, which dif­fer when ether is assumed. Maybe the accu­racy increases when astro­nomic data are cor­rected accord­ing to ether in a slightly dif­fer­ent way?
  • The energy in “vac­uum” might explain the nec­es­sary “dark mass” and “dark energy”.
  • And “last but not least”: there are the para­doxes the Rel­a­tiv­ity The­ory and Quan­tum Mechan­ics imply. If there is no other expla­na­tion, the para­doxes have to be real, but with­out hav­ing to explain the para­doxes and con­tra­dic­tions the out­come of sci­ence, based on ether, is much clearer , sim­pler and straight­for­ward and there­fore much more preferable.

When I started to write “From Para­dox to Par­a­digm” I just knew in what direc­tion I had to look. I was not sat­is­fied with the per­cep­tion of sci­ence of a world we do not expe­ri­ence. When one does not agree with their per­spec­tives, sci­en­tists quickly use the invalid argu­ment that every­thing is pos­si­ble and that it is too dif­fi­cult to under­stand for some­one not inau­gu­rated. They do not have the answers and they hide.

When we look at what sci­ence achieved the last cen­tury we are impressed. The infor­ma­tion tech­nol­ogy and math­e­mat­ics opened a world that was rapidly explored. Sci­en­tists eager to explore the unknown had found the code to decrypt the inex­plic­a­ble. It had to be the truth what they dis­cov­ered because the math matched the expe­ri­ence so well and sud­denly what we expe­ri­enced was no longer valid. Sci­en­tists use the valid argu­ment that what we expe­ri­ence is not nec­es­sar­ily cor­rect. But they mis­use a sim­i­lar argu­ment when they say that math describes the data and there­fore must be true. They don’t bear in mind that math is only a sci­en­tific tool to describe the events observed and there­fore only describes the math­e­mat­i­cal solu­tion of that par­tic­u­lar observed part of reality.

Quan­tum Mechan­ics describe ade­quately the expe­ri­enced atomic and sub­atomic world in a math­e­mat­i­cal way. The achieve­ment of sci­ence in this area is enor­mous. One has to be impressed, but sci­ence is also the achieve­ment of men and there­fore has a chance of over­es­ti­mat­ing itself: sci­ence itself can become arro­gant. Sci­ence should be aware of its lim­i­ta­tions. Quan­tum Mechan­ics describe the behav­ior of (sub) atomic physics ade­quately. This how­ever does not mean that Quan­tum Mechan­ics are the answer to the whole truth. It is not, noth­ing is. It describes only a part, the observed, in a math­e­mat­i­cal way, and can there­fore not be absolute.

Quan­tum Mechan­ics are even more lim­ited in their rev­e­la­tions when derived rela­tions are extrap­o­lated. The value of extrap­o­lated math­e­mat­i­cal solu­tions is seri­ously lim­ited by the fact that one does not know what the math is exactly describ­ing. It is a math­e­mat­i­cal solu­tion for a lim­ited part of the process. Quan­tum Mechan­ics describe only the rela­tion between observed data and does not describe the under­ly­ing phys­i­cal events. So it has no val­i­da­tion to pre­tend it is describ­ing the real phys­i­cal processes, although almost no one ven­tures to main­tain that anymore.

Phys­i­cal sci­ence had no option but to hide behind the math after it had gone in the wrong direc­tion. The denial of the ether only left pure math as a tool to describe the physics beyond our senses.

It would be arro­gant to state that the ether is a bet­ter way to under­stand physics, but it is not arro­gant to state it might be. As long as sci­ence denies the pos­si­bil­i­ties of the ether with­out valid argu­ments, sci­ence is arro­gant. In The­o­ret­i­cal Physics there are many con­tra­dic­tions that can­not be explained and are stan­dard given the sta­tus of a para­dox, and there­fore set aside with­out a valid expla­na­tion! The pos­si­bil­i­ties of the ether the­ory to com­bine the uncer­tainty prin­ci­ple and dual­ity of quan­tum mechan­ics and the deter­min­is­tic aspects of clas­si­cal physics are vast.

Of course I want to know what is wrong with the ether the­ory. Until now no one can tell me and that is annoy­ing. The main rea­son to write this book is not be “right” or “wrong”. If sci­ence takes a path that is not cor­rect, the per­cep­tion that the math­e­mat­i­cal inter­pre­ta­tion of the under­ly­ing physics is giv­ing may not be valid. The con­se­quence will be that we are not able to rec­og­nize that some inter­pre­ta­tions are not cor­rect. We can­not adjust, because the only hold we have is the math and math only describes the direct rela­tion of the data in a math­e­mat­i­cal way.

The ether described in this book gives strong indi­ca­tions that nuclear fusion will not be achieved, in an eco­nomic prof­itable way, by means of ther­mal nuclear fusion. The approach accord­ing to the ether should be dif­fer­ent. Nobody denies the urgent neces­sity of abun­dant and clean nuclear fusion energy for our mod­ern soci­ety. The high costs, pol­lu­tion, global warm­ing and lim­ited reserves of nat­ural energy resources will become dis­as­trous in due time. And yet sci­ence denies soci­ety to explore this pos­si­bil­ity by not tak­ing the ether serious.

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

The content of “From Paradox to Paradigm” is plausible, but speculative. However the actual indications why science should look in depth into the possibilities of the ether theory are numerous:

  • In the 19th and 20th century science did not give enough attention to the possibility of the dragged ether after this medium was denied premature and unjustified. With the dragged ether described in this book one calculates the exact stellar aberration of any star any time during the year. The experimental evidence for dragged ether is therefore overwhelming. Science should admit the dragged ether offers a possible valid alternative theory.
  • The drag coefficient of Fresnel was confirmed by the experiment of Fizeau. This confirmation had no scientific meaning at all, because the drag coefficient was introduced ad hoc without a valid physical explanation. It was already certain a “drag factor” would be measured after Arago’s observations. The perfect match of the experiment of Fizeau with dragged ether provides again strong empirical evidence in favor of dragged ether and should puzzle scientists.
  • The ether theory, illustrated in a simple way in the previous chapters, gives all the explanations one needs to explain relativistic and Quantum Mechanics observations .
  • The theoretical proof of the equivalence of magnetic and kinetic energy supports the implication of the ether that there only has to be magnetic and electrostatic energy to explain all forms of observed energy and forces.
  • The inert qualities of the ether give an explanation of the observed, yet unexplained, synchrotron radiation.
  • Often one hears scientists declare that the simpler a theory is the more valid it becomes. The ether theory, with only two forms of energy and related forces, is extremely simple and explains a lot. Why do scientists reject the ether theory without  arguments?
  • The easiness with which the ether theory explains the revelation of stable particles from ether should mean something to scientists and cause wondering.
  • The, in a simple way, derived radius of the neutron combined with the basic equation of the energy of an oscillation eliminates the constant of Planck and derives a simple classical non-relativistic presentation of the mysterious photon. What would be the chance this could happen, if it should be all pure coincidence?
  • The speculative, yet simple and consistent, explanation of gravity emerging from atomic nuclei in matter opens the possibility that the ether theory will become “the theory of everything” when science will give it proper attention.
  • In the newly (August 2004) added chapter “Quantum Mechanics and the Ether” the undisputable experimental position of QM is confirmed by ether. QM and ether coincide perfectly. The quantification of physics by QM originates at the Planck-distance where vacuum must be considered inhomogeneous.
The above mentioned arguments, pro “ether”, I found by assuming there might be ether after all. The described ether is able to explain many other not mentioned phenomena. It is not hard to see that it is impossible for a proton to merge with an electron in not extreme dense conditions. The properties of the mysterious neutrino become clear. The macroscopic phenomenon like the altering magnetic field of the Earth become obvious.

Also in favor of the ether theory are contradictions like:

  • The Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics contradict each other. There must be something wrong somewhere!
  • The American spacecrafts, the Pioneer 10 and 11 move through space in an other direction than calculated with the Relativity Theory. The differences are small but undeniable and unexplained. Corrections based on RT or ether will differ and possible explains the deviation.
  • In astronomy calculations carry large uncertainties. The estimations of the age of the universe are between 7 and 20 billion years. Factors of importance in astronomy are speed, distance, mass and time. All astronomic measurements need relativistic corrections, which differ when ether is assumed. Maybe the accuracy increases when astronomic data are corrected according to ether in a slightly different way?
  • The energy in “vacuum” might explain the necessary “dark mass” and “dark energy”.
  • And “last but not least”: there are the paradoxes the Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics imply. If there is no other explanation, the paradoxes have to be real, but without having to explain the paradoxes and contradictions the outcome of science, based on ether, is much clearer , simpler and straightforward and therefore much more preferable.

When I started to write “From Paradox to Paradigm” I just knew in what direction I had to look. I was not satisfied with the perception of science of a world we do not experience. When one does not agree with their perspectives, scientists quickly use the invalid argument that everything is possible and that it is too difficult to understand for someone not inaugurated. They do not have the answers and they hide.

When we look at what science achieved the last century we are impressed. The information technology and mathematics opened a world that was rapidly explored. Scientists eager to explore the unknown had found the code to decrypt the inexplicable. It had to be the truth what they discovered because the math matched the experience so well and suddenly what we experienced was no longer valid. Scientists use the valid argument that what we experience is not necessarily correct. But they misuse a similar argument when they say that math describes the data and therefore must be true. They don’t bear in mind that math is only a scientific tool to describe the events observed and therefore only describes the mathematical solution of that particular observed part of reality.

Quantum Mechanics describe adequately the experienced atomic and subatomic world in a mathematical way. The achievement of science in this area is enormous. One has to be impressed, but science is also the achievement of men and therefore has a chance of overestimating itself: science itself can become arrogant. Science should be aware of its limitations. Quantum Mechanics describe the behavior of (sub) atomic physics adequately. This however does not mean that Quantum Mechanics are the answer to the whole truth. It is not, nothing is. It describes only a part, the observed, in a mathematical way, and can therefore not be absolute.

Quantum Mechanics are even more limited in their revelations when derived relations are extrapolated. The value of extrapolated mathematical solutions is seriously limited by the fact that one does not know what the math is exactly describing. It is a mathematical solution for a limited part of the process. Quantum Mechanics describe only the relation between observed data and does not describe the underlying physical events. So it has no validation to pretend it is describing the real physical processes, although almost no one ventures to maintain that anymore.

Physical science had no option but to hide behind the math after it had gone in the wrong direction. The denial of the ether only left pure math as a tool to describe the physics beyond our senses.

It would be arrogant to state that the ether is a better way to understand physics, but it is not arrogant to state it might be. As long as science denies the possibilities of the ether without valid arguments, science is arrogant. In Theoretical Physics there are many contradictions that cannot be explained and are standard given the status of a paradox, and therefore set aside without a valid explanation! The possibilities of the ether theory to combine the uncertainty principle and duality of quantum mechanics and the deterministic aspects of classical physics are vast.

Of course I want to know what is wrong with the ether theory. Until now no one can tell me and that is annoying. The main reason to write this book is not be “right” or “wrong”. If science takes a path that is not correct, the perception that the mathematical interpretation of the underlying physics is giving may not be valid. The consequence will be that we are not able to recognize that some interpretations are not correct. We cannot adjust, because the only hold we have is the math and math only describes the direct relation of the data in a mathematical way.

The ether described in this book gives strong indications that nuclear fusion will not be achieved, in an economic profitable way, by means of thermal nuclear fusion. The approach according to the ether should be different. Nobody denies the urgent necessity of abundant and clean nuclear fusion energy for our modern society. The high costs, pollution, global warming and limited reserves of natural energy resources will become disastrous in due time. And yet science denies society to explore this possibility by not taking the ether serious.

top