Carel van der Togt wrote:
Theoretical physics differs from all other sciences in a general way.
Theoretical physics is not a science in itself. It is merely a part of
physics.
Additionally, below you don't talk about theoretical physics in
general; you talk about *elementary particle physics*, which is
something quite different.
All sciences have simple elementary principles, which combine into the
complex reality.
For example?
The complexity decreases when the abstraction level
increases. In other words the basic of sciences is simple.
Depends on what one means with "simple". E.g. the basics of QM are
quite complex from a mathematical point of view.
The complexity increases enormously when the basic elementary factors
combine into reality.
Theoretical Physics differs in a certain extent. When we analyze
physical phenomena the observed is a combination of (many) different
elementary phenomena. When we observe a simple stone this object is
very complex. The building blocks of the rock are atoms. These atoms
are much less complex than the stone. Analyzing the atoms we find
electrons, protons and neutrons. Again there is simplification when the
abstraction level increases. When we study the (sub) atomic world of
the electron, proton and neutron suddenly, according to theoretical
physics, the complexity suddenly increases exponential.
No, it doesn't. What on earth are you talking about? The sub-atomic
world is governed by the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which is
*more* simple than atomic physics or solid state physics (if we use
the word "simple" in the same way as you did in the paragraph above).
The math is more complicated, true - but apparently you didn't talk
about the complexity of the math when you said above that atoms are
less complex than the stone.
In theory everything is possible.
No, it isn't. Why on earth do you think so?
Physical scientists use this argument
when questions are asked why the outcome of QM is so complex.
What on earth is "the outcome of QM is complex" supposed to mean?
The sudden increase in complexity of physics contradicts all other sciences
where things are more simple, more elementary when the abstraction
level is increased.
And this also happens in elementary particle physics.
Theoretical Physics differs in this perspective from all other sciences.
You apparently still confuse theoretical physics with elementary
particle physics.
The observation of the sudden increase in complexity is not consistent
with other sciences.
What sudden increase?
This is by itself not proof that the theory is false.
Nice.
We however have to ask: why? It can be that the complexity
really increases suddenly
It can also be that it doesn't.
but it is also possible that mistakes have
been made. The SRT assumes time and space are relative.
I strongly suspect that you don't actually know what that means.
This theory increases the complexity of reality enormously.
Wrong. It *decreases* the complexity of reality enormously, by
ensuring that all inertial systems are equivalent.
All the incredible paradoxes SRT implies are clear examples of this.
SRT implies no paradoxes. The effects of SRT merely *look* like
paradoxes to an untrained mind.
The answer of science
is that our senses cannot comprehend reality beyond our senses and that
there is absolutely no reason to assume something is wrong with the
theory.
Indeed.
The ordinary human mind is not trained to analyze phenomena that
contradict our senses, because our senses are not equipped for
understanding sub-atomic processes. We have to analyze the problems
detached of our senses
Indeed.
and therefore only mathematically solutions should be involved.
Non sequitur. One can also give physical interpretations. One merely
has to pay attention that one doesn't use physical concepts based on
macroscopic experiences.
Common sense has no meaning in Theoretical Physics!
Here you seem to confuse theoretical physics with SRT and QM.
Additionally, a small hint: it also contradicts common sense that
the earth goes round the sun. My eyes tell me plainly that the sun
goes round the earth! So physics obviously has to be wrong, and in
reality the sun goes round the earth, right?
This can be true, but what if the theory contains errors?
Then we'll notice that sooner or later, by making experimental
observations which contradict the theoretical predictions.
In that case
we still can find statistically extreme high correlations.
Why should we?
When the omissions are systematic in the end the search for the "best"
mathematical solution will provide an answer that compensates for the
omission.
What omissions are you talking about?
The derived mathematical solutions are than not even close in
describing reality.
If the mathematical predictions agree with the experimental tests, how
can you claim that they don't describe reality adequately? What
measure would *you* use for judging if a theory describes reality
adequately, if not if its predictions agree with experimental tests?
Theoretical physicists want us to believe that the scientific truth is
more fantastic than any know fairytale!
Indeed. And OTOH, cranks constantly tell physicists that they are
closed-minded and can't think out of the box...
This unbelievable truth made me
wonder whether the Standard Model incorporates mistakes that obscure
the reality behind the math.
Why is that unbelievable?
The SRT assumes that electromagnetic waves propagate through space
without medium.
Since that's what the Michelson-Morley experiment, combined with
aberration of star light, showed, this is a quite sensible assumption,
don't you think?
When that is the case the relativity of time and space
is a simple mathematical outcome determined by the assumptions or
axioms on which SRT is based.
Indeed. Although I still suspect that you don't actually know what
"relativity of time and space" means.
One of Einstein's axioms concerning SRT is that dragged ether does
not exist.
Wrong, that wasn't one of his axioms. Try again.
The ether in absolute rest is eliminated as a possibility by
the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley. Dragged ether is denied
by science only because scientists can not imagine dragged ether in
conjunction with stellar aberration.
Congratulations, you got that right.
It appears that dragged ether
explains exact the stellar aberration of any star any time during the
year. The rejection of dragged ether by science in the beginning of the 20th
century was premature. The SRT, after 100 years, only offers not more
than possible explanation. The exact prediction of stellar aberration
of any star any time by the formula of the article "Stellar
Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether" is very strong
experimental prove dragged ether exists
(www.paradox-paradigm.nl/van_der_Togt_stellarab-final.pdf).
I'll try to look at it.
When dragged ether is denied unjustified the relativity of time and
space are omissions incorporated in the Standard Model.
If SRT is wrong, why do all its predictions and all the predictions of
the SM agree so nicely with experimental tests?
Apart from this
mistake there is for sure at least one other error incorporated in the
Standard Model. QM concluded, even before Einstein discovered
relativity, that the total mass of the electron could not totally be
explained with the electromagnetic properties of the electron.
QM concluded nothing like that. What on earth are you talking about?
It appears however that QM violates the energy conservation law while
deriving this conclusion
(www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_der_Togt_equiv2ckw.pdf).
I'll try to look at it.
After correction
of the violation the QM-mass of the electron is completely
electromagnetic!
Feel free to explain Bhabha and Moeller scattering, and the anomalous
magnetic moment of the electron, with an electron whose "QM-mass" is
"completely electromagnetic", whatever that is supposed to mean.
The assumption of QM that apart from the electromagnetic mass there
also has to be a mechanical mass is false.
If QM is wrong, why does it agree with all experimental tests?
The above-mentioned
omissions have severe consequences for the physical perspectives the
QM-math (Standard Model) offers.
Again: what omissions are yo talking about?
BTW: "QM-math" and "Standard Model" are by no means equivalent terms.
You still may wonder how it is possible for QM to produce excellent
mathematical solutions when there are severe omissions incorporated. In
theory there are in principle infinite solutions for any observed data.
You mean, an infinite amount of possible theoretical descriptions, or
what?
This automatically implies that the preferred mathematical solution
compensates for incorporated systematic omissions.
What on earth is this supposed to mean???
Math never presents
the exact physical processes. Math is by definition always an
approximation of reality and never presents reality itself.
BFD. Tell me something new.
Normally when scientists observe contradictions they search until they
find the reason and make adjustments. When the theory itself, the SRT,
is false than the search for the truth becomes impossible, because
Theoretical Physics declared the SRT as the undeniable truth
Nonsense. SRT is constantly tested.
and therefore all the observed contradictions SRT implies
What observed contradictions?
become by
definition paradoxes: apparent but not real contradictions.
Indeed. SRT contains no contradictions.
Science and physic journals reject the articles that handle the
omissions with the argument that they are not topical; not relevant.
What about "because only people who don't understand what they are
talking about think that SRT is wrong"?
How can omissions that shaped science so profoundly ever be not
topical! Journals and physicists ignore the omissions after they have
been discovered
Hint: Asserting an omission is not the same as discovering one.
and by doing so they practice incompetent science.
Someone who does not even know the difference between "theoretical
physics", "elementary particle physics" and a lot of other terms is
not in the position to judge what is incompetent science.
The reason for ignoring or denying the omissions is understandable when
scientists during their education, and later during their career, are
convinced in the truth they studied.
Hint: that convincing works by looking at the evidence. In other
words, by doing science.
It is very embarrassing for (top)
scientists, who concocted the Standard Model, to admit they have been
mistaken.
So far, you have presented not the tiniest shred of evidence that they
are mistaken.
In the book "From Paradox to Paradigm" (www.paradox-paradigm.nl) I
explain how with ether physical phenomena like electron, proton,
neutron, photon, synchrotron radiation, time dilation, nuclear force,
gravity etc. can be explained by only two forms of energy;
electrostatic and magnetic energy.
Feel free to address all the experimental evidence with this model,
*quantitatively*. You don't bother, right?
The accompanying math is relatively simple (high school level).
The essential parts of the book are the
arguments. The only purpose of the math is to verify whether the
thoughts are consistent with experiments.
I bet you ignore about 99.9% of the actual experiments and don't even
know about them.
The reason for being very persistent in getting an article published
about ether is that according to physics with dragged ether thermal
nuclear fusion is a dead end.
Then why have all the test runs so far been successful and agreed with
the theoretical predictions?
See? That's already the first set of experiments you ignore and
apparently don't even know about.
The ether indicates an approach opposite
to thermal fusion. Because ether is denied by science it is impossible
to do empirical research on nuclear fusion based on the existence of
ether.
Well, in a few years, hopefully ITER will be built. Then we'll see if
nuclear fusion works or not. If it doesn't work, I think journals will
be very eager to publish explanations for that.
The environmental situation on Earth is fragile. Many decades
more of abuse by modern society may be disastrous. When dragged ether
is acknowledged by science funds for research may be granted.
Convincing scientists to pay attention to ether has been fruitless.
After more than 6 years they still refuse to address the omissions.
Because they exist only in your mind?
The only way to change their mind and behave professional seems to be
public opinion. Scientists can ignore individuals and maintain the
status quo for ever, but when the public starts asking questions they
cannot ignore them anymore.
So you try the creationist approach.
Read "From Paradox to Paradigm"
(www.paradox-paradigm.nl) and ask me any question.
Do you promise to answer every question?
When you understand
the simple elementary physics of ether and wonder why scientists ignore
dragged ether you ask them yourself.
And when I notice that you don't know what you are talking about, what
should I do then?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
