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 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 ether. QM and ether coincide perfectly. The quantification of physics QM originates at the Planck-distance where vacuum must be considered inhomogeneous.
The above mentioned arguments, pro “ether”, I found 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 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, 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 not taking the ether serious.