Correspondence with Professor J. F. Nye F. R. S. (H. H. Wills Physics Laboratory) concerning Planck’s constant
When you are interested in physics you must read “Unbelievable“!
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2005 12:48
Subject: Full Circle
Dear Dr. Nye,
I have sent you a number of emails. With this last email I want to show that it all cannot be just a coincidence. It is statistical impossible that the discoveries were made coincidence.
The perspectives of Theoretical Physics with relativity, parallel worlds, paradoxes etc are so unbelievable I acknowledged that physical science had made a mistake in the past accepting SRT. Analyzing SRT the conclusion is that the omission occurred because dragged ether was denied unjustified.
In 1998 I wrote the article “Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether“. This article proves without doubt that dragged ether is undeniable.
Not satisfied with the blank rejection (all) physics journals I determined the characteristics the ether should have to be consistent with observed electromagnetic properties. Incorporating the characteristics of magnetic- and electrostatic fields, particles like electron, positron, neutron and photon this resulted in the elimination of the constant of Planck. The elimination is achieved assuming the photon is a simple oscillation of two moving opposite charges.
The theoretical elimination of the constant of Planck is again very strong evidence that dragged ether exists. The imagined properties of ether are therefore not only consistent with observations. The elimination of the constant of Planck indicates that the assumed properties of ether must be valid in some degree. Pure coincidence is out of the question.
Publishing a manuscript concerning the elimination of the constant of Planck was not a possibility because dragged ether is fiercely denied mainstream science. Trying to publish a manuscript that eliminates the constant of Planck based on the existence of dragged ether would certainly be futile when the article explaining stellar aberration is already rejected all science and physics journals.
Examining the properties of ether it becomes clear you only need two forms of energy/force (electrostatic and magnetic) to describe photons, electrons, protons etc. It became clear that magnetic and kinetic energy are identical.
The article “The Equivalence of Magnetic and Kinetic Energy” proves this. The manuscript was again rejected (all) science journals.
Realizing the articles were totally ignored science I looked for further evidence. I realized the ether offered the possibility to link traditional physics with QM. The manuscript “The hydrogen atom: an electromagnetic free rotator” proves that the ether is responsible for the energy quantification of electrons in atoms. Even the origin of the mathematical natural constants pi and e are located.
This manuscript is again rejected science journals without valid arguments. Three blank rejections made me realize that the approach was futile. Showing respect to science and scientists achieved nothing. I realized from the start that a respectful attitude towards science probably would not achieve anything. Science is mostly conservative and important changes in the past were always ignored and ridiculed. Since a couple of months I show a disrespectful attitude towards scientists. With this approach I already achieved more in a couple of months than in the 6 years before!
The reason why it is so pertinent to have an article, just one, published involving dragged ether is that after elimination of the omissions physical phenomena like photons, elementary particles, synchrotron radiation, time dilatation, relativistic observations, nuclear forces and even gravity are simple explained with ether and just two forms of energy; magnetic and electrostatic energy.
Apart from mathematical formulation the ether offers insight in the physical processes of all physical phenomena. The omissions concerning the denial of ether and the introduction QM of the mechanical mass of particles obscures the basically simple physical processes.
Theoretical physicists always have the argument that QM already has all the answers. For the pure mathematical solutions this is true in some degree, but certainly not for the physical processes. The ether shows that the thermal nuclear fusion process is a dead end for inducing economic profitable nuclear fusion. This insight is not achieved with the mathematical solutions of QM. Society needs nuclear fusion as a clean source of energy soon. The environmental situation on Earth cannot suffer the abuse of modern economic activities for the many decades scientists need to wipe their tracks.
I realize it is hard to oppose authorities knowing they for sure will try to ruin your career when you oppose them. I certainly do not want that, but if they are wrong their wrath is useless. Just reading an article and judging it will bring no harm to you. The spoils are for the few who dare.
Sincerely,
Carel van der Togt
Sent: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:11:37 +0100
Subject: RE: Full Circle
Why don’t you simply derive the physical value of Planck’s constant from other fundamental constants? No more words, just a formula. Such a formula would be more convincing than all this rhetoric.
John Nye
———————————-
Professor J. F. Nye, F. R. S.
H. H. Wills Physics Laboratory
Tyndall Avenue
Bristol BS8 1TL
England
Sent: Thu, 5 May 2005 17:17:30 +0200
Subject: More Than Thousand Words
Dear Professor John Nye,
The constant of Planck is in the attached Word file.
Sincerely,
Carel van der Togt
Sent: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:41:06 +0200
Subject: Noblesse Oblige
Dear Prof. J. F. Nye, F.R.S.,
On Thursday May 5 2005 you sent me an email telling me “Why don’t you simply derive the physical value of Planck’s constant from other fundamental constants? No more words, just a formula. Such a formula would be more convincing than all this rhetoric.”
On May 6 I sent you the formula. I think you did not expect I could sent you the formula for real. This email is to remind you to the obligation you created asking and receiving the more convincing formula. I learned that waiting for scientists to act on their own is waiting for eternity: you have to be proactive when science is concerned. I expect from you some intelligent action and/or comment concerning the (derivation of the) formula of Planck’s constant.
After the rejection of the article “The hydrogen atom: an electromagnetic free rotator” Phys.Rev.A I started to email a select number of science journals and scientists like you with just a few examples of inconsistencies.
The rhetoric mailings, as you call them, have been sent to a (very) limited number of people, yet achieved in a few months more than the 6 years before. Just yesterday I received again a request, this time from David Bradley a science journalist in England, to write a summary of my findings for the website www.sciscoop.com. This reaction is not the only one and will certainly not be the last.
Imagine when not science but science journalists or even the public are going to ask prominent theoretical physicists awkward questions they cannot answer and they start to realize that all the scientific truth like relativity of time and space, parallel worlds, all the paradoxes are real contradictions and the Standard Model of Theoretical Physics is all crap.
The devastation and humiliation of Theoretical Physics will be unprecedented: not because there are some omissions but because of the way theoretical physicists and physic journals try to hide their ignorance, arrogance and incompetence. Hiding such obvious mistakes after being discovered is suicidal.
The present perception of theoretical physics is absurdly complex because of the omissions. Public and science journalists have no idea what is going on (like the scientists themselves) and do not dare to ask questions. They just bend over when scientists open their mouth. Physical scientists have been telling the world for decades they are brilliant and only inaugurated scientists can understand the crap (Sorry to use this language but that will be the classification of the public when science itself will not act).
The physics of ether, from electron to gravity, is basically simple almost everyone can understand. So physics should prepare for embarrassing questions. I do not favor that outcome, but it seems inevitable when science keep ignoring so much evidence and showing so much arrogance.
I do not want physics to be ridiculed to the bone. The opposite is the case. In general I rather respect people but sometimes it is inevitable. More than 6 years respectful mailing to scientists and science journals achieved nothing. In February this year I changed my policy and the aim of my rhetoric is to show scientists their wisdom is flawed.
I’m willing to delete my Incompetent chapter and forget all what happened (you do not want to hear the names I have been called) when my article is published or going to be in short term. Theoretical Physics will be able to keep respect when science itself recognizes and handles the omissions.
For me it is understandable that the omissions occurred. When science corrects the omissions no harm will be done. Respect will endure because what Theoretical Physics achieved is extraordinary according to me. When science is forced to the correction public opinion the humiliation will be devastating and deserved because scientists are responsible themselves. I do not know whether the editors of APS, Physics Letters A etc and you realize this.
Two weeks from now, when I do not receive a satisfactory answer, I will add the correspondence with you on the website www.paradox-paradigm.nl in the Incompetence chapter. I will increase the mailing list at least tenfold (in 1/2 hour I collected 30 more email addresses of scientists at H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory). After a worldwide extensive mailing I do not think respect for theoretical physicists will hold much longer.
You, as a prominent scientist promoting ethical science and technology, should act on it now and proof they are not only empty words. When you stumble on omissions of this magnitude it is unethical not to act.
I regret it to be so persistent and disrespectful but Theoretical Physics does not leave me any choice.
Sincerely,
Carel van der Togt
Sent: Tue, 10 May 2005 09:56:20 +0100
Subject: RE: Noblesse Oblige
Dear Mr Togt
I have created no obligation to you. However, I think you will find that the formula you sent me for Planck’s constant is merely a numerical approximation and is not exact.
John Nye
———————————-
Professor J. F. Nye, F. R. S.
Late: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:01:52 +0200
Subject: RE: Noblesse Oblige
Dear Profesor Nye,
I think you know what margin errors are.
Carel van der Togt
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 10:11:52 +0100
Subject: RE: Noblesse Oblige
Dear Mr Togt
I do not understand your reply or the term ‘margin errors’. The fine structure constant is, I believe, measured to many places of decimals, and it is not equal to 4*pi/12**3, as is implied your formula. Therefore your formula is false.
John Nye
———————————-
Professor J. F. Nye, F. R. S.
Sent: Sun, 15 May 2005 13:52:31 +0200
Subject: Invalid Arguments
Dear Prof. Nye,
You say my formula for Planck’s constant is merely a numerical approximation and for that you conclude the formula is false.
The theoretical derivation of h is factor 1.0035 of the empirical derived value. That is very close and when you are serious you would acknowledge that. The correspondence is a waste of time for you and me because you do not want to consider alternatives anyway.
First I want you to know that there is a huge difference between the empirical derived value of h and the theoretical calculated value of h. The theory and formula according to you are false because the theoretical derived value of Planck’s constant deviates 0.35% from the empirical value. I remember the drag factor of Fizeau was confirmed the experiment of Fizeau where the empirical drag factor deviates 10% from the theoretical value!
The margin error of the natural constants in the formula of Planck I sent you is approx. between 10^-5 and 10^-6. The margin error for the theoretical derived value becomes than between 5.10^-5 to 5.10^-6. There is a factor 100 to be explained.
When comparing the experimental value with the theoretical value one has to consider the physical process. I do not want to lecture because you should know as professor in theoretical physics the difference. The calculated margin error for the theoretical formula of h is approx. the factor 5.10^-5 to 5.10^-6. This mathematical margin error, to be comparable with the deviation of the empirical value of h, has to be multiplied with 12^3=1728 because of the physical process the formula describes (the margin error in the theoretical value is systematical repeated). Therefore the margin error of the theoretical derived value becomes (5.10^-5…5.10^-6)*1728= (8.6.10^-2…8.6.10^-3). Compared to the approx. theoretical margin error of 3.5.10^-3 this error is therefore well within the experimental margin error. The theoretical value of h is completely consistent with experiments.
If you really do not understand I will prove this but I think you know. You use false arguments only because you want to argue the theory/formula is false without ever reading a word. You did not bring up one valid argument yet.
To write down the analyses between the theoretical margin error and the empirical margin error is a lot of work. If you seriously want to know I will send you the derivation.
Carel van der Togt
