Theoretical Physics Reviewed

[Carel van der Togt]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Imagine that theoretical physicists are wrong and there is no relativity of time and space, just 3 dimensions and not 12, no parallel worlds etc. Would that not be the story of the century?

Theoretical physicists claim they understand people who try to comprehend Quantum Mechanics (QM) with the help of classical physics. They know this is not possible. Could it be that they are mistaken?

In principle a theory is based on axioms which are considered to be true. When a theory has been developing in the course of time, the theoretical conclusions are valid as long as the premises, on which the theory is based, are still holding. When one or more axioms are proven not to be valid anymore, scientists have to reconsider all conclusions the theory implies.

The simple article "Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether" (http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/van_d...arab-final.pdf) proves without doubt that the premise of nonexistence of dragged ether, a specific axiom of SRT, is false. And it states that the Michelson and Morley experiment (1887) disproves only absolute ether and not dragged ether. With dragged ether the exact stellar aberration of any star any time during the year is predicted; undeniable experimental evidence dragged ether exists.

The article is refused by physics journals with the argument that the article is not actual, not relevant. How can a paper that disproves SRT ever be not actual or not relevant!

Before Einstein discovered relativity QM accepted the premise that the electron, apart from the electromagnetic mass, must also have a mechanical mass. The paper "The Equivalence of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy" (http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_d..._equiv2ckw.pdf) proves that this premise is false because the Energy Conservation Law is brutally violated. The mass of an electron is completely explained by classical physics; the Electromagnetic Theory. This article is again rejected. How can an article that disproves a premise at the core of QM ever be not actual or not relevant!

It is therefore, considered the above-mentioned, not surprising that the paper “Quantum Mechanics and the Ether: The Derivation of Planck’s constant” (http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Quant...he%20Ether.htm) explaining the quantification of subatomic physics is rejected. With the derivation of Planck’s constant the quantification by QM is explained with traditional physics.

Why do theoretical physicists reject these articles?

By accepting SRT Theoretical Physics introduced many contradictions. These contradictions have never been solved. To stop the ever-lasting demand for explanations science elevated SRT to the absolute truth (Positivism). Theoretical Physics found an easy way out.

Theoretical physicists claim that QM is the most successful theory ever. The mathematical solutions of QM are staggering. How can QM be so successful while a basic premise is false? The answer is that QM is more an experimental than a theoretical science. Many, many scientists search for years and years for mathematical solutions every day. Statistically now and then staggering mathematical solutions should be found. QM also implies many contradictions that cannot be explained. The so successful elevation of SRT to the absolute truth silenced all opposition, so this strategy is also applied to QM.

In the present situation RT and QM are both elevated to undeniable scientific truth. RT and QM have become indisputable. Science ends up with the unbelievable fairytale of relativity of time and space, 12 dimensions, parallel worlds, unacceptable contradictions etc. When each of both theories has a basic premise proven false, all theoretical conclusions should be reconsidered.

How can any self-respecting scientist admit that premises on which RT and QM are based are false when they have elevated these theories and therefore the premises to the absolute truth? How can they admit that the “truth” is just 3 dimensions and an independent natural constant (h) less? How can they admit that complete explanation by classical physics is possible after declaring that this is impossible? Theoretical physicists think they only can save their face when they ignore and deny the omissions occurred and therefore reject manuscripts on bogus arguments.

Probably you will think this impossible to believe, but consider that the mentioned relatively simple articles prove the premises are false. Simple math is undeniable. When premises are proven false all the conclusions based on it have to be reconsidered.

As the mentioned omissions occurred in the early days of RT and QM, it is not necessary to be a (theoretical) physicist or an expert to be able to comprehend the consequences. Time has come to reveal the incompetence of theoretical physicists. They refuse to address the omissions.

When you are a scientist and not a priest you should wonder why the omissions are not addressed. Save your profession from being ridiculed to the bone because that will happen when Theoretical Physics refuses to budge. All physic disciplines will suffer when the truth comes out.

The stubbornness of theoretical physicists will become a disgrace for all physic disciplines. The easiest and fastest way to get an impression is to read the chapter “Incompetence Science” of the book “From Paradox to Paradigm” (www.paradox-paradigm.nl). This chapter displays the correspondence with science and physic journals.

Forward this thhread to colleagues and friends so Theoretical Physics will be forced to budge and change their fairytale into something useful.

Sincerely,

Carel van der Togt

[Melusine]

Dear Sir/Madam,

When you are a scientist and not a priest you should wonder why the omissions are not addressed. Save your profession from being ridiculed to the bone because that will happen when Theoretical Physics refuses to budge. All physic disciplines will suffer when the truth comes out.

The stubbornness of theoretical physicists will become a disgrace for all physic disciplines. The easiest and fastest way to get an impression is to read the chapter “Incompetence Science” of the book “From Paradox to Paradigm” (www.paradox-paradigm.nl). This chapter displays the correspondence with science and physic journals.

Carel, you've made some good points here, though I am not quite capable of addressing them with aplomb. I find it all very interesting, as I've been reading on the matter of parallel words via Kaku. I can't say I completely grasp the arguments you have noted above. But we of the English major variety (you know, the humanities), have our theories about theoretical physicists and mathematicians. It is simply this: sometimes (most notably) theoretical physicists are so busy counting and calculating the angles of a box, or creating strings where none exist, or can't readily admit they just don't really understand energy, that they don't see the answers that lie before them. We know this, of course, and we are often correct even though it's difficult to "quantify" why we are correct.

You are not so far off to suggest that theoretical physicists should not be so stubborn, lest they get egg on their face. That could hurt all branches of science--you are most right, Sir!

There's another way of explaining my thoughts on the matter, which a wonderful deceased Englishman said quite nicely:

O Attic shape! Fair attitude! with brede
Of marble men and maidens overwrought,
With forest branches and the trodden weed;
Thou, silent form, dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Welcome, Carel, to BAUT!

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]But we of the English major variety (you know, the humanities), have our theories about theoretical physicists and mathematicians. It is simply this: sometimes (most notably) theoretical physicists are so busy counting and calculating the angles of a box, or creating strings where none exist, or can't readily admit they just don't really understand energy, that they don't see the answers that lie before them. We know this, of course, and we are often correct even though it's difficult to "quantify" why we are correct.[Snip!]

Examples, please, of scientific answers that "English major types" discovered "lying before them" that theoretical physicists have missed. I'm really looking forward to hearing of a few.

[Melusine]

Examples, please, of scientific answers that "English major types" discovered "lying before them" that theoretical physicists have missed. I'm really looking forward to hearing of a few.

Maybe later, Celestial, right now I have some photos to comment on and upload. Perhaps "lying before them" was not the most prudent choice of words; maybe it should be "lying within them." But you know, I did say that it is "difficult to quantify," and being that this is the ATM section, I don't have a lot of solid evidence to prove much to you. You just have to trust that I'm right. And of course, you won't do that.

I do trust the BA and Fraser, that they will not think my posts in this thread are some sudden, flippant anti-science-nonsense. My feet are definitely planted on the ground...like cows.

[Tinaa]

Welcome to BAUT Carel van der Togt. Please read the rules here and the special ATM rules here.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Examples, please, of scientific answers that "English major types" discovered "lying before them" that theoretical physicists have missed. I'm really looking forward to hearing of a few.

Maybe later, Celestial, right now I have some photos to comment on and upload. Perhaps "lying before them" was not the most prudent choice of words; maybe it should be "lying within them." But you know, I did say that it is "difficult to quantify," and being that this is the ATM section, I don't have a lot of solid evidence to prove much to you.

That's OK, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer in ATM.

You just have to trust that I'm right. And of course, you won't do that.

No, I won't. Not without the examples I asked for.

I do trust the BA and Fraser, that they will not think my posts in this thread are some sudden, flippant anti-science-nonsense.[Snip!]

I don't think your posts are, either, but one must not be taken in by the latest theoretical-physics-must-be-wrong-because-it-doesn't-make-sense-to-me physics wannabe who propounds some "final theory". I haven't looked at der Tog's site yet, I'll do it when I get home and can browse safely with Firefox under OS/2. But I am 99.9 percent sure that I will find the usual half-baked collection of theory and rhetoric with only a minimum of mathematics, and half of the math all wrong.

[nutant gene 71]

Very astute observations, Carel. I've often wondered why rational reasonable challenges to currently accept mainstream physics theories are rejected on unreasonable grounds, i.e., it doesn't agree with current theory, so kill it. Granted, this is a valid response in a field so plagued with bad alternative ideas too; who wants another bad idea to replace a bad idea? But it seems to me that good ideas get thrown out with the bath water, so it becomes a herculean task to unseat what look more like irrational beliefs than solid ideas. I think Einstein's first postulate is wrong, meaning the observer's reference frame is always preferred; I'm not sure about his second postulate, still open to much debate.

If I could make an observation, it is far more difficult to dislodge a bad idea with reason than holding onto it through passionate pursuits. I think this is the error current physics has stumbled into, and there is no reasonable hope of dislodging this error. Of course, the alternative, that we appeal to passions to unseat it is not acceptable either, so it is once again a conundrum.

In my view, which I cannot validate (without 'stealing' this thread), I suspect that once we examine gravity better at some meaningful distance from our known Earth, we will be surprised that Newton was wrong to (naively) assume his gravity G constant is a universal constant. And if it proves so, empirically, then much of current confusion in physics will evaporate like a bad deleterious fog, and return once again to the cold light of reason, to what is real science.

I also suspect that the 'ether dragging' experiment with gravity probe-b will yield disappointing results. However, none of this means anything, no matter how well argued and modeled with or without math, until gravity is actually tested. That will be the empirical 'proof in the pudding', which will either leave the old new-physics as truly ATM in the new physics, or the newer-new physics leaves ATM in the dust. Facts, only facts, will clear up the confusion... and narrow eyes are carefully watching. Once the G 'universal constant' drops out (if so proven with real data), watch a whole structure of ill conceived ideas, starting with cosmic light redshift (non-Doppler space expansion), the BBT, multiverse string theory, the Twins paradox, so-called neutron stars gravity energy interactions, or falling (stretched) into (time stopping) black holes , all go through very serious revisions; ending with why Mercury precesses as observed, all crumbling quietly. Then we may have to start from scratch all again, but we will be on a path to physics that will evolve beyond its current impasse. That new-new physics will be not only much simplified but also completely intuitive without having to (observational transference) jiggle the rulers of time and space. Perhaps then reason will finally unseat the passions of today's 'fairtales' in physics, and by extension in astronomy.

Remember the word "theoretical" in Theoretical Physics. Until there is proof, real data proof from real falsifiable tests, it is all merely theory, and conversation, no matter what the mainstream tells you to believe. But now I must beg off, since I neither have the necessary proof to change the plot in the accepted oft repeated story.

[clj4]

I also suspect that the 'ether dragging' experiment with gravity probe-b will yield disappointing results.

You must be meaning "frame dragging", something totally different from "ether dragging". Ether dragging, an amtirelativistic concept has been disproven by the Hammar experiment. Long ago. See here:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v48/i5/p462_2

And since the GP-B results have not been yet analyzed and published, you can only speculate. So fat, all the tests of SR and GR have turned up overhelmingly in favor of SR and GR. See here:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0103/0103036.pdf

[nutant gene 71]

You must be meaning "frame dragging", something totally different from "ether dragging". Ether dragging, an amtirelativistic concept has been disproven by the Hamar experiment. Long ago. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamar_experiment

Yes, frame dragging is the correct term, where 'space and time' are pulled by accelerating rotations. My above reference to "ether dragging" was meant as dragging the SRT postulated "space-time", what replaced the 'space ether'. Here's Wiki's:

Rotational frame-dragging (Lense-Thirring effect) is the inevitable result of the general principle of relativity, applied to rotation. The relativisation of rotational effects means that a rotating body ought to pull light around with it, in a manner somewhat reminiscent of old "aether-dragging" models. It is now the best-known effect, partly thanks to the Gravity Probe B experiment.

They are related, both addressing the same space-time-ether pehonomenon, but not strictly the same, as you point out. Thanks.

[clj4]

Yes,

They are related, both addressing the same space-time-ether pehonomenon, but not strictly the same, as you point out. Thanks.

You are welcome.

[P.Asmah]

The article is refused by physics journals with the argument that the article is not actual, not relevant. How can a paper that disproves SRT ever be not actual or not relevant!

Call me a cynic, but this doesn't surprise me. To question SRT can be to declare yourself insane in the eyes of many!

Thank you for some interesting links. I look forward to studying them further when I have more time.

Oh, and I don't buy into the MM null result claim...

[papageno]

Very astute observations...

What is so abstute about misrepresenting the scientific community, accusing physicists of covering up their incompetence?

How did engineers miss that GPS does not actually work when they use relativistic formulas?
How did engineers miss that microelectronic devices designed using band-structure engineering do not actually work?

The simple article "Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether" (http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/van_d...arab-final.pdf) proves without doubt that the premise of nonexistence of dragged ether, a specific axiom of SRT, is false. And it states that the Michelson and Morley experiment (1887) disproves only absolute ether and not dragged ether. With dragged ether the exact stellar aberration of any star any time during the year is predicted; undeniable experimental evidence dragged ether exists.

Under the assumption that a luminiferous ether exists:
1. Stellar aberration implies that the ether is not dragged by the Earth's surface.
2. Michelson-Morley experiment implies that the ether is dragged by the Earth's surface.
This is a paradox as bad as Gibbs' paradox in classical Statistical Mechanics.
So, how do you solve it?

[agingjb]

I'm not quite certain what is being claimed here, so please correct me if I'm wrong or misrepresenting this.

We can make an aesthetic judgement about the nature of the world in which we find ourselves, but also that judgement must not require specialised knowledge. The world is, despite many puzzles, such that an average person with an average education will be able to comprehend it, and it is so because it does, it must, conform to a generally acceptable standard of beauty.

I'm moderately sure I got these claims wrong, but I think I need the underlying philosophy to be spelled out a little more.

[nutant gene 71]

What is so abstute about misrepresenting the scientific community, accusing physicists of covering up their incompetence?

How did engineers miss that GPS does not actually work when they use relativistic formulas?

Nice to hear from you, paps!

I think it is 'astute' of a humanist layman to peer into the exogenous world of theoretical physics and resolve that this physics is beyond comprehension except by a select cadre of the accepting few who will not suffer any dissent even from their own. The challenge to physicists is to simplify the thousands of confusing mathematical equations into something an intelligent mind can understand, even if not part of the initiates. What I find so astute in Carel's observation is that the con-theories are squashed and not given a voice because the accepted form only allows for agreement, with accepted premises, and does not allow for expressions in dissent (challenging these basic premises). His voice, as are many more like him, are a cry for sanity and clarity, for clear reason, and not off hand rebuff, viz., "you don't understand it, so you think it must be wrong."

On the second, yes GPS yields relativistic results, but so do slowing oscillations in traveling cesium atomic clocks. My highschool math teacher, that ancient white haired Mr. Woods, said there are two ways to do geometric proofs, either direct or Germanic. The Germanic got the same answer but only through many circuitous unnecessarily complicated steps; while direct proof could be done simply. And what made that especially memorable was that the more direct proof was understandable! So, perhaps GPS time factor adjustments are due to 'Germanic' Einsteinian-Lorentzian mathematical metrics, or perhaps they happen for the simply 'direct' reason that atomic oscillations slow while traveling in a gravitational field, any gravitational field, and always. The insane (change the rulers) reasoning that time slows will still give the same results as the sane (not changing the rulers) reasoning that atomic oscillations slow.

[Metricyard]

We can make an aesthetic judgement about the nature of the world in which we find ourselves, but also that judgement must not require specialised knowledge. The world is, despite many puzzles, such that an average person with an average education will be able to comprehend it, and it is so because it does, it must, conform to a generally acceptable standard of beauty.

Why should everything in the world around us be simple?

I look out my window now and see that the lilac bushes are starting to bud. Can you explain in simple to understand terms why? Is it because it's spring time and they're expected to? For alot of people that is enough of an explanation. For others, they want to know about the chemical reactions involved, how photosynthesis works, etc. Should the scientists just stop looking at these processes just because it gets more complex, or should they just except the fact that it's springtime and move on?

Nature, by it's very nature, is very complex. There are no simple answers when you start looking at things at the quantum level or the larger galactic level. Why should there be? The more we learn, the more we grow as a species.

Let's put things into a different perspective. At one time, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and others were all considered ATM'ers of their generation. There were plenty of people that questioned and down right refused to except their theories. Obviously, people still do. And other scientists in the future will come up with more complex theories. Some will be correct, others tossed aside. It may take decades, even centuries to see if they are valid. Look at Einsteins theories. They're still being tested to this day, with more accurate and more sophisticated equipment. And for the most part, Einsteins theories have been proven successful. Same with quantum mechanics. To this day, there probably hasn't been a theory with such a successful history as QM.

[agingjb]

Why should everything in the world around us be simple? ...

Well indeed I don't think it should. I happen to suspect that the world is, what was it, more complex that we can imagine. It's certainly more complex than I can imagine. I'm numerate; I'm even a graduate with maths as a component; but General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are beyond me. Yet I accept them; I think that between them they describe what we know; and I believe that a full description of the world will contain, reconcile and transcend them both.

No, what we have in this thread is something different. "Beauty is truth, truth beauty, - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know". The problem is just how hard it is for ordinary mortals to access that beauty, and I'd like those who believe that access to be generally accessible to expand and explain their intuitions.

[papageno]

I think it is 'astute' of a humanist layman to peer into the exogenous world of theoretical physics and resolve that this physics is beyond comprehension except by a select cadre of the accepting few who will not suffer any dissent even from their own.

Where is the evidence to support this claim?

The challenge to physicists is to simplify the thousands of confusing mathematical equations into something an intelligent mind can understand, even if not part of the initiates.

How do you know that this can be done?

What I find so astute in Carel's observation is that the con-theories are squashed and not given a voice because the accepted form only allows for agreement, with accepted premises, and does not allow for expressions in dissent (challenging these basic premises).

Are you referring to the premises of the theories that have withstood all experimental tests to date?
Where is the evidence that "con-theories" are squashed out of hand, instead of being examined and found to be wrong?
Where is the evidence that dissenting opinions are not allowed to be expressed?

His voice, as are many more like him, are a cry for sanity and clarity, for clear reason, and not off hand rebuff, viz., "you don't understand it, so you think it must be wrong."

He is yet another ATM proponent who thinks he found simple proofs refuting the most succesfully tested theories in Physics and claims there is a big-bad-conspiracy in the scientific "mainstream" to squash dissent, because they won't allow him to publish his ideas.
Yes, we have seen many more like him, and usually the thought they might be wrong does not occur to them.

I would like to see him support his claim that a "complete explanation by classical physics is possible", considering that Gibbs' paradox shows clearly that classical mechanics it is not self-consistent.

On the second, yes GPS yields relativistic results, but so do slowing oscillations in traveling cesium atomic clocks. My highschool math teacher, that ancient white haired Mr. Woods, said there are two ways to do geometric proofs, either direct or Germanic. The Germanic got the same answer but only through many circuitous unnecessarily complicated steps; while direct proof could be done simply. And what made that especially memorable was that the more direct proof was understandable! So, perhaps GPS time factor adjustments are due to 'Germanic' Einsteinian-Lorentzian mathematical metrics, or perhaps they happen for the simply 'direct' reason that atomic oscillations slow while traveling in a gravitational field, any gravitational field, and always. The insane (change the rulers) reasoning that time slows will still give the same results as the sane (not changing the rulers) reasoning that atomic oscillations slow.

You do know that GPS has special-relativistic corrections, as well as general-relativistic corrections, don't you?

Also, you might want to explain how band-structure engineering works with quantum mechanics being based on wrong premises.

[Tensor]

The challenge to physicists is to simplify the thousands of confusing mathematical equations into something an intelligent mind can understand, even if not part of the initiates.

What you mean is something that a mind inside a lazy person can understand. If you want to understand GR or QM, you have to work at it.

Tossing aside modesty, I'd say (and those who know me personally have said) I'm fairly intelligent. I've continued to study both GR and QM on my own. But, it took 5 years of hard work (and quite a few college classes)to get to the point where I could begin to understand either of those theories. I don't claim to be an initiate, much less someone who has a complete grasp on the theories, so I continue to work on it. Notice, I am still working on it, but can understand a lot of it.

So, I would say that physicists have met that challenge. But those who want to learn, have their own challenge to meet. They have to work at learning it, not expecting it to drop into their lap.

If all you want is a condensed verison of the theory, don't be surprised that there are ideas that don't seem to make sense. Almost all of the ATM challenges here (and from what I've seen elsewhere) use that condensed, simplified version as a takeoff point to show the actual theory has a problem. Those people then cannot show, within the theory, what is wrong, because they don't fully understand it.

What probably gets to a lot of people here (especially those who have bothered to actually work at it) are those who haven't worried about studying the theory itself (beyond some popularized version of it) who then spout off about how a particular theory is wrong, without being able to show, within the actual theory, what is wrong, except for some vague handwaving. At that point, they usually claim suppression, failure to understand their point, or some other thing, without realizing where they went wrong.

[nutant gene 71]

How do you know that this can be done?

History had done this before. When James Clerk Maxwell first wrote out his mathematical equations for electricity and magnetism, they were unwieldy and subsequently simplified by both himself and Hertz, so they became the useful math in today's electronics. This can happen to our equations for relativistic physics, which is what I would expect should we find empirical evidence that we don't have gravity right. Ockham's razor would dictate that. We may have made the universe unnecessarily complicated. I trust in a simplicity that will unify all the forces, in the future. I repeat, in the future.

Are you referring to the premises of the theories that have withstood all experimental tests to date? Where is the evidence that "con-theories" are squashed out of hand, instead of being examined and found to be wrong? Where is the evidence that dissenting opinions are not allowed to be expressed?

I'll defer this to those who feel wronged. Their fight.

He is yet another ATM proponent who thinks he found simple proofs refuting the most succesfully tested theories in Physics and claims there is a big-bad-conspiracy in the scientific "mainstream" to squash dissent, because they won't allow him to publish his ideas.

No, not conspiracy. To fight to hang onto what one had spent years of study to (almost) understand will naturally generate its own resistance to change. That is merely human nature. When you have invested heavily in understanding something based on questionable premises, you are less likely to go back and check those premises. In effect, like Tensor (above), you will stand your ground on the basis that you have committed great effort to (almost) understanding this, and it does not serve to question the postulates on which the whole structure is built. What Carel points out is that even questioning the premises, objectively, is forbidden. Just human nature, no blame, and certainly not conspiracy. We as a species hang onto what we have come to believe as true, and it takes a lot of work to undo that. In the old days, they burned you at the stake for even trying. But I do not wish to engage in theology here.

You do know that GPS has special-relativistic corrections, as well as general-relativistic corrections, don't you?

Also, you might want to explain how band-structure engineering works with quantum mechanics being based on wrong premises.

Yes, I know of the GPS corrections, but no, they do not have to be only for the reasons stated in relativity. I made my point clear above, that atomic oscillations slowing while traveling in a gravity field happen. Same as comic light redshift, it happens. These may be totally natural phenomenon, where the relativistic interpretations are spurious, if not self serving.

On the band-structure engineering stuff, I have no idea what you are talking about, too lazy, so cannot answer that one.


I am very curious to see what they find in the Gravity Probe-B experiment, so can't wait for them to show their results. Frame Dragging Confirmed, article in Universe Today, they make a case that this experiment was already confirmed. This is why I am interested in Probe-B's results. It may be possible, real ATM here, that the observed frame dragging of the LAGEOS spacecraft may happen for reasons more to do with planet's momentum transfer than 'frame dragging', since the drag was in the direction of Earth's spin. But I don't know. I don't know lots of things. That's why empirical evidence, all delightful modeling aside, is so important to confirm modern physics. Or, to disprove it, no matter how beautiful and elegant the math may be. Like I said before... in the future.

[swansont]

No, not conspiracy. To fight to hang onto what one had spent years of study to (almost) understand will naturally generate its own resistance to change. That is merely human nature. When you have invested heavily in understanding something based on questionable premises, you are less likely to go back and check those premises. In effect, like Tensor (above), you will stand your ground on the basis that you have committed great effort to (almost) understanding this, and it does not serve to question the postulates on which the whole structure is built. What Carel points out is that even questioning the premises, objectively, is forbidden. Just human nature, no blame, and certainly not conspiracy. We as a species hang onto what we have come to believe as true, and it takes a lot of work to undo that. In the old days, they burned you at the stake for even trying. But I do not wish to engage in theology here.

Questionable premises that are questioned. It seems fairly obvious that many of the ATM crowd have no appreciation of the "trial by fire" nature of science. Both by the attitude that scientists are defending the orthodoxy out of human nature, and the contention that questioning is not permitted. "Sorry but you are wrong" is not saying that you can't question, it's saying that the question you have asked is flawed.

You have an alternate theory for whatever phenomenon? Great! But a make it a real theory: give me experimental evidence that supports it, and tell me how it can be tested (and possibly falsified) by making predictions.

[Carel van der Togt]

Dear nutant gene 71,

You are correct, there is no conspiracy of mainstream against dissident physics.

The main problem dissident physics encounters are the mathematical “proof” mainstream science claims it has. For any experimental data mathematical solutions can be found whether there is no theory, a correct theory or a false theory.

When mainstream science finds a mathematical solution this is considered validation of the mainstream theories; math is undeniable. How can the theory be wrong when the derived mathematical solutions appear to be correct?

The general argument is therefore that QM and RT must be correct because the math describes the observations stunningly well. We have to consider that empirical science is also capable of deriving stunning mathematical solutions. As far as we know Newtons’s gravity equation is empirical “stunningly” correct. Does this formula describe the fundamental causes of gravity? The answer is: No. Yet it is beautiful pure empirical science.

Most QM’s solutions are beautiful and practical. But do these equations also describe the physical processes? Theoretical Physics claims they do. We know that Theoretical Physics is plagued by inconsistencies and contradictions. These inherent problems of TP are put aside dogmatically with the argument that anything is possible (Positivism). Science ends up with a stunning fairytale.

I’m blamed that in my articles there are no references to recent science. So the physics journals are correct in refusing the articles as being not actual or not relevant! When an omission occurs in theory all conclusions based on the omission have to be reconsidered from that point on.

To make my case I argue that QM concluded unjustly that the EM-properties of the electron cannot be explained by a charged sphere.

J.J. Thomson (1881) derived with help of the EM-theory that the electron couldn’t be a charged bulb (4/3-probem). Thomson’s derivation convinced science until today that his derivation, and therefore the conclusion that an electron cannot be a charged bulb, is correct. However Thomson wrongly interpreted the EM-theory and violated the energy conservation law. This mistake is copied until today.

There is no other conclusion, despite the empirical correctness of the QM-equations, that the theoretical conclusions based on QM-formulas are seriously flawed. But then again you get the argument: “This is impossible because QM-math is so stunning”.

To be able to defuse this bogus argument the following argumentation is necessary:

1) QM incorrectly concluded that the mass of an electron cannot be totally electromagnetic (See http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_d..._equiv2ckw.pdf and
Feynman, Lectures on Physics Volume II chapter 28 “The Electromagnetic Mass”) This is undisputable when you check these articles.
2) QM (Feynman), in conjunction with Thomson, concluded that the total momentum p of a moving charge could only explain 2/3 of the impulse of an electron.
3) This meant 1/3 of the mass/energy had to be explained by an unidentified “mechanical” mass.

The argumentation of QM is that it is impossible that the assumption of a “mechanical” is invalid because the math of QM would not be able to produce such stunning formulas. This is not true. Despite the false assumption correct (empirical) mathematical equations can be found.

4) By violating the energy conservation law QM “missed” 1/3 of the electrostatic mass of the charged bulb electron. By adding this 1/3 “missing” mass in the form of a presumed “mechanical” mass, QM “corrected” the “energy loss” and closed the books.
5) The total energy/mass QM accredited to the assumed QM-electron is therefore equal to the mass of the real electron. QM compensates the violation of the energy conservation law by means of adding the missing mass with the concocted “mechanical mass”.

Despite the violation of the energy conservation law the QM-accountant can close the books because the missing part of the mass was “corrected”. Mathematically the mass of the QM-electron has become equal to the mass of the real electron. However this was only achieved with a trick. Other accountants who checked the books did not find something was missing and QM and all conclusions became based on a false premise.

Assumed mathematical incorrect physical properties can be mathematically corrected or compensated. The physical inconsistencies related to the incorrect mathematical assumptions however cannot be corrected in a “proper” way. It becomes possible you need “theoretically” 12 dimensions, parallel worlds etc etc etc. These theoretical conclusions based on the correct emperical math have become totally incorrect.

Carel

[tusenfem]

I think it is 'astute' of a humanist layman to peer into the exogenous world of theoretical physics and resolve that this physics is beyond comprehension except by a select cadre of the accepting few who will not suffer any dissent even from their own. The challenge to physicists is to simplify the thousands of confusing mathematical equations into something an intelligent mind can understand, even if not part of the initiates.

Oh, boohoohoo, I want to do and understand physics, but I don't want to learn math. That is as stupid as saying I want to speak and write chinese, but I don't want to learn the language. I think the chinese should simplify their characters so than more than only the 1 billion initiated know how to pronounce them.

Apart from this trite rebuttal, it should be pointed out that there are numerous popular scientific books and magazines, where excellent physicists explain for the general public what they do. But if you really want to talk to Lau Shi, you need to learn chinese.

[Tensor]

To fight to hang onto what one had spent years of study to (almost) understand will naturally generate its own resistance to change. That is merely human nature. When you have invested heavily in understanding something based on questionable premises, you are less likely to go back and check those premises. In effect, like Tensor, you will stand your ground on the basis that you have committed great effort to (almost) understanding this, and it does not serve to question the postulates on which the whole structure is built.

LOL, This is so funny. How often do you see ATM types ignore observational evidence or refuse to accept where they have been shown to be wrong. What I have learned in my continued study, are the actual shortcomings of the theory, not some half-baked ATM idea of what is wrong. You'd probably be surprised to find some of the ATM ideas I hold, based on evidence. Gravitationally, I've looked into Whitehead's and Brans-Dicke among others. Celestial Mechanic, who defends GR quite well, has said he would prefer a scalar-tensor gravitational theory. I'm quite interested in QLG, simply because it has the promise of solving those problems that GR actually has.

What I (And maybe CM and others, I don't pretend to speak for them) object to (and probably where you think all we are doing is standing our ground) is that the ATM objections to current theory are almost always based on some misunderstanding of what the actual theory says. The funniest thing I've seen was on Van Flandern's (who is nowhere near a mainstream supporter) website. An ATM type was making some objection to GR and Van Flandern was put in the uncomfortable (for him) position of defending GR, simply because the ATM type didn't understand GR. Listen, make all the objections you want to any theory, just make sure you understand the theory and make sure your objection is actually within the theory, and you have some kind of actual observational evidence that the premise the theory is based on is faulty. And don't think were standing our ground when we point out where your idea is faulty.

What Carel points out is that even questioning the premises, objectively, is forbidden.

Again, this is so funny and ignores any kind of science history. All those advances in history have come from people with ATM(at the time) ideas. What most current ATM types either ignore or don't know, is that those people thoroughly understood the current (at the time) ideas that they were overturning. I have yet to see, on these forums, ATM types questioning premises objectively. Most of the time the ATM types want us to accept their ideas blindly, either based on their faulty understanding of the theory or against observational evidence that refutes their idea.

Yes, I know of the GPS corrections, but no, they do not have to be only for the reasons stated in relativity. I made my point clear above, that atomic oscillations slowing while traveling in a gravity field happen. Same as comic light redshift, it happens. These may be totally natural phenomenon, where the relativistic interpretations are spurious, if not self serving.

Well, see that's a problem, for me. Right now we have one theory that can predict both (and match observation) and you would have us ignore that. Isn't it a bit of a stretch to think that all these disparate observations just happen to match the predictions for GR for no reason?

I am very curious to see what they find in the Gravity Probe-B experiment, so can't wait for them to show their results. Frame Dragging Confirmed, article in Universe Today, they make a case that this experiment was already confirmed. This is why I am interested in Probe-B's results. It may be possible, real ATM here, that the observed frame dragging of the LAGEOS spacecraft may happen for reasons more to do with planet's momentum transfer than 'frame dragging', since the drag was in the direction of Earth's spin. But I don't know. I don't know lots of things.

That's why empirical evidence, all delightful modeling aside, is so important to confirm modern physics.

LOL. If this is the case, then why do so many ATM types ignore such evidence? In the above case, you have a prediction of a theory, an observation that matches that prediction (within current error bars) and also makes predictions that match many other observations, (and BTW, frame dragging is always in the direction of spin), yet you won't accept it and resort to a handwaving idea, with no kind of actual support for that idea.

Or, to disprove it, no matter how beautiful and elegant the math may be.

Let's go a bit further. In the past, (and I'm assuming currently) you've pushed the idea that G may not be universal and we need to check it deep space. Again, here, you ignore observational evidence. 25,000 light years away, there is a double binary, whose observations match predictions of a theory that uses a universal G. In that binary, you have two objects, both around 1.4 solar masses, their orbital separation varies from 1.1 to 4.8 solar radii. The conditions within that system and ours couldn't be more different, yet GR predictions (which include a univeral G) match observations in both systems. So why don't you accept it?

Who, exactly, is hanging on to ideas? The big difference as I see it, is I am(along with almost all other mainstream types) completely willing to accept something else, if there is irrefutable evidence against current theory or for the ATM idea. ATM types seem to want to hang on to their ideas, even against evidence.

[clj4]

Dear nutant gene 71,

You are correct, there is no conspiracy of mainstream against dissident physics.

The main problem dissident physics encounters are the mathematical “proof” mainstream science claims it has. For any experimental data mathematical solutions can be found whether there is no theory, a correct theory or a false theory.

When mainstream science finds a mathematical solution this is considered validation of the mainstream theories; math is undeniable. How can the theory be wrong when the derived mathematical solutions appear to be correct?

The general argument is therefore that QM and RT must be correct because the math describes the observations stunningly well. We have to consider that empirical science is also capable of deriving stunning mathematical solutions. As far as we know Newtons’s gravity equation is empirical “stunningly” correct. Does this formula describe the fundamental causes of gravity? The answer is: No. Yet it is beautiful pure empirical science.

Most QM’s solutions are beautiful and practical. But do these equations also describe the physical processes? Theoretical Physics claims they do. We know that Theoretical Physics is plagued by inconsistencies and contradictions. These inherent problems of TP are put aside dogmatically with the argument that anything is possible (Positivism). Science ends up with a stunning fairytale.

I’m blamed that in my articles there are no references to recent science. So the physics journals are correct in refusing the articles as being not actual or not relevant! When an omission occurs in theory all conclusions based on the omission have to be reconsidered from that point on.

To make my case I argue that QM concluded unjustly that the EM-properties of the electron cannot be explained by a charged sphere.

J.J. Thomson (1881) derived with help of the EM-theory that the electron couldn’t be a charged bulb (4/3-probem). Thomson’s derivation convinced science until today that his derivation, and therefore the conclusion that an electron cannot be a charged bulb, is correct. However Thomson wrongly interpreted the EM-theory and violated the energy conservation law. This mistake is copied until today.

There is no other conclusion, despite the empirical correctness of the QM-equations, that the theoretical conclusions based on QM-formulas are seriously flawed. But then again you get the argument: “This is impossible because QM-math is so stunning”.

To be able to defuse this bogus argument the following argumentation is necessary:

1) QM incorrectly concluded that the mass of an electron cannot be totally electromagnetic (See http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_d..._equiv2ckw.pdf and
Feynman, Lectures on Physics Volume II chapter 28 “The Electromagnetic Mass”) This is undisputable when you check these articles.
2) QM (Feynman), in conjunction with Thomson, concluded that the total momentum p of a moving charge could only explain 2/3 of the impulse of an electron.
3) This meant 1/3 of the mass/energy had to be explained by an unidentified “mechanical” mass.

The argumentation of QM is that it is impossible that the assumption of a “mechanical” is invalid because the math of QM would not be able to produce such stunning formulas. This is not true. Despite the false assumption correct (empirical) mathematical equations can be found.

4) By violating the energy conservation law QM “missed” 1/3 of the electrostatic mass of the charged bulb electron. By adding this 1/3 “missing” mass in the form of a presumed “mechanical” mass, QM “corrected” the “energy loss” and closed the books.
5) The total energy/mass QM accredited to the assumed QM-electron is therefore equal to the mass of the real electron. QM compensates the violation of the energy conservation law by means of adding the missing mass with the concocted “mechanical mass”.

Despite the violation of the energy conservation law the QM-accountant can close the books because the missing part of the mass was “corrected”. Mathematically the mass of the QM-electron has become equal to the mass of the real electron. However this was only achieved with a trick. Other accountants who checked the books did not find something was missing and QM and all conclusions became based on a false premise.

Assumed mathematical incorrect physical properties can be mathematically corrected or compensated. The physical inconsistencies related to the incorrect mathematical assumptions however cannot be corrected in a “proper” way. It becomes possible you need “theoretically” 12 dimensions, parallel worlds etc etc etc. These theoretical conclusions based on the correct emperical math have become totally incorrect.

Carel

Carel,

I think this is your paper in discussion:

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cvdteq.pdf

I think that this guy noticed some math errors and you stopped answering him:

http://www.wbabin.net/comments/westra.htm

[Carel van der Togt]

Carel,

I think that this guy noticed some math errors and you stopped answering him:

http://www.wbabin.net/comments/westra.htm

Dear CLJ4,

You say this guy noticed some math errors. Did you confirm that?

The argumentation that I make math errors is solely based on his argument that normally with vector product calculations the angle between the vectors is involved.

I quote here what he said:

D. B. Westra: Apr. 9, 2006:
”The paper of "Carel van der Togt" with the title "The equivalence of magnetic and kinetic energy" contains calculational errors. See page 2 for example: the norm of the outer product between e_v and e_r does not contain the familiar Sin(theta) and the volume element given on the same page also does not contain the Sin of an angle. Therefore this paper, with all its allegations against Quantum Mechanics is erronous and its conclusions are false. ”

He says that the outer product does not contain the familiar Sin(theta). Yes sin(theta) it FAMILIAR but that does not mean that it is always correct.
I referred to chapter 4. of the article “The electromagnetic mass” where it is clear that in this case the FAMILIAR sin(theta) violates the energy conservation law.

I stopped answering because he wants his FAMILIAR sin(theta) just because he is used to that!
Just mindless applying math is not ALWAYS correct. His answer to my comment starts with:” Either there is an inner-product, or an outer-product.”

He did not even bother to look at this chapter 4, nor did you.
In chapter 4 it becomes very clear what happens. Physics is more than just the use of BRAINLESS MATH.

Carel

[papageno]

I think it is 'astute' of a humanist layman to peer into the exogenous world of theoretical physics and resolve that this physics is beyond comprehension except by a select cadre of the accepting few who will not suffer any dissent even from their own.

Where is the evidence to support this claim?

So, where is the evidence to support your claim that "a select cadre of the accepting few who will not suffer any dissent even from their own"?
If you cannot support your claim, retract it.

History had done this before. When James Clerk Maxwell first wrote out his mathematical equations for electricity and magnetism, they were unwieldy and subsequently simplified by both himself and Hertz, so they became the useful math in today's electronics.

The modern version of Maxwell's equations still require a couple of semesters of calculus.
It seems that your "intelligent mind, even if not part of the initiates" still needs some College-level maths to understand Physics.
Now, what you have to do is to show that the same simplification can be done with modern theories in Physics.
So, go ahead and show us.

This can happen to our equations for relativistic physics, which is what I would expect should we find empirical evidence that we don't have gravity right.

GPS formulas are not simplified enough?

Ockham's razor would dictate that. We may have made the universe unnecessarily complicated.

What makes you think the we made the Universe complicated.
Isn't it possible that the Universe is complicated on its own?

I trust in a simplicity that will unify all the forces, in the future. I repeat, in the future.

But in the meantime you are happy ranting against modern Physics.

Are you referring to the premises of the theories that have withstood all experimental tests to date?
Where is the evidence that "con-theories" are squashed out of hand, instead of being examined and found to be wrong?
Where is the evidence that dissenting opinions are not allowed to be expressed?

I'll defer this to those who feel wronged. Their fight.

You are dodging the question.
Either support your claim that "the con-theories are squashed and not given a voice because the accepted form only allows for agreement, with accepted premises, and does not allow for expressions in dissent (challenging these basic premises)", or retract it.

He is yet another ATM proponent who thinks he found simple proofs refuting the most successfully tested theories in Physics and claims there is a big-bad-conspiracy in the scientific "mainstream" to squash dissent, because they won't allow him to publish his ideas.

No, not conspiracy. To fight to hang onto what one had spent years of study to (almost) understand will naturally generate its own resistance to change. That is merely human nature.

As is grudge against the people that you feel wronged you.
But then, this is under the assumption that the resistance is unjustified, not due to the new ideas being wrong.

In the scientific community there is more glory to come up with a new theory that explains observations better well-established theories, than to defend acritically established theories.

When you have invested heavily in understanding something based on questionable premises, you are less likely to go back and check those premises. In effect, like Tensor (above), you will stand your ground on the basis that you have committed great effort to (almost) understanding this, and it does not serve to question the postulates on which the whole structure is built.

You assume that the premises are questionable.
But current theories have withstood decades of experimental tests, and each of them could have refuted the premises they are based on.
You are simply misrepresenting how the scientific community operates, because you like considering ATM proponents as modern day Galileos, who will be vindicated "in the future".

What Carel points out is that even questioning the premises, objectively, is forbidden. Just human nature, no blame, and certainly not conspiracy.

But this is not how science actually works: it's just a strawman.
Every experiment that tests a theory, implies questioning the premises.
The scientists consider the premises strong, but not unquestionable, because the theories have withstood the experimental tests so far.

We as a species hang onto what we have come to believe as true, and it takes a lot of work to undo that. In the old days, they burned you at the stake for even trying. But I do not wish to engage in theology here.

Oh no! You are just trying to paint ATM proponents as modern day Galileos, fighting against the evil establishment who is trying to squash all questioning of the mainstream.
You missed the part where Galileo supported his claims with sound science, unlike many of the modern ATM proponents.

You do know that GPS has special-relativistic corrections, as well as general-relativistic corrections, don't you?

Also, you might want to explain how band-structure engineering works with quantum mechanics being based on wrong premises.

Yes, I know of the GPS corrections, but no, they do not have to be only for the reasons stated in relativity. I made my point clear above, that atomic oscillations slowing while traveling in a gravity field happen. Same as comic light redshift, it happens. These may be totally natural phenomenon, where the relativistic interpretations are spurious, if not self serving.

I see the claim, but nothing that supports it.

On the band-structure engineering stuff, I have no idea what you are talking about, too lazy, so cannot answer that one.

Yet you feel to be in the position to criticize modern theories in Physics.
How can you criticize something you don't know?

I am very curious to see what they find in the Gravity Probe-B experiment, so can't wait for them to show their results. Frame Dragging Confirmed, article in Universe Today, they make a case that this experiment was already confirmed. This is why I am interested in Probe-B's results. It may be possible, real ATM here, that the observed frame dragging of the LAGEOS spacecraft may happen for reasons more to do with planet's momentum transfer than 'frame dragging', since the drag was in the direction of Earth's spin. But I don't know. I don't know lots of things. That's why empirical evidence, all delightful modeling aside, is so important to confirm modern physics. Or, to disprove it, no matter how beautiful and elegant the math may be. Like I said before... in the future.

You don't know a lot of things, yet you presume you can tell if modern theories make sense.
And experimental results have been testing successfully the current theories for decades.

How come ATM proponents tend to ignore observations that disprove their ideas, and say "I'll be vindicated... in the future!" ?

[papageno]

Carel van der Togt,
you seem to think that a "complete explanation by classical physics is possible".
Would you mind solving Gibbs' paradox then?

Also, it would be good if you adressed this:

How did engineers miss that GPS does not actually work when they use relativistic formulas?
How did engineers miss that microelectronic devices designed using band-structure engineering do not actually work?

[Eta C]

This web page has some commentary that would appear to be germane to some of the topics discussed here including:

* Mathematical inconsistencies in GR/SR
* Judging the quality of a theory on purely aesthetic grounds
* The need for mathematics in a physical theory
* The perceived "close mindedness" that ATM types attribute to scientists.

And so on. Some of you will find this amusing. Unfortunately, not all will.

[Tensor]

And so on. Some of you will find this amusing. Unfortunately, not all will.

LOL. That was great.

[nutant gene 71]

To all, what I am seeing here in the collective of your (non-ATM) posts is a rejection of challenges to TMS (the mainstream) because those who (perhaps with only a humanist-layman perspective) have not understood all the complexities of the mathematics involved. The challenges, and oft heard complaint, to those TMSrs is to simplify, to make your theories more understandable, and to take them away from the ivory structures in which they had become enshrined. This is a question of either alienation of the general public, the humanist-laymen, or the TMS demand that they conform, through extensive study, to the currently accepted physics theory. This complaint from the mainstream of humanity is universal, while the response from the cadre of initiates (who had heavily invested in current physics) is that mainstream physics is correct, and they are not trying hard enough to lean it. Remember we are talking here about “theoretical” physics, what we use to interpret the events of the heavens, and not “real” physics, such as used in bridge construction, or the electronics that run so much of our technologies. So there is a distinction here, between the real and the theoretical, which the non-ATM respondents are quick to mix together. But that is evasive action, since we are talking about two very different types of physics here. I don’t think the humanist-laymen crowd has any problems with mainstream physics when it comes to real physics; I hear the complaint, however, from a growing crowd of rational and intelligent people saying that the premises, and mathematics, on which the theoretical physics rests may be a closed circle, a kind of circular reasoning, where the resulting observations are taken only within the context of the math involved. In effect, like Einstein’s relativity, it works within its “domain of application” where the math is used to explain what the math says we observe. I think the objection, and what this thread titled “Theoretical Physics Reviewed” is hoping to reveal, is that we had become “married” to the math side, which may obscure some real physics at both the quantum scale as well as in astronomical scales. Does anyone object to my phrasing it this way? In other words, our theoretical physics may be masking what reality is really doing with itself, and they are crying foul, that the current explanations are not good enough. Is this largely an “intuitive” response by the un-initiated? Yes, but we should be mindful of the fact that no bridges are being built with “theoretical” physics.

So when I see the above chorus of rebuttals by Tensor, or papageno, or Metricyard, Celestial Mechanic, Swansont, clj4, tusenfem; is that there is an implied acceptance, nay nearly a belief, that the underlying mathematics of this theoretic physics has been shown to be correct through countless tests and observations of real phenomena. Implied in this is that the universe works mathematically, so that if the math balances out, and is exact in its self defined formalism, then it reflects reality. Furthermore, based on the evidence collected by science, all the evidence points to the mathematics being correct, so that it verifies the assumed premises. This would include conservation of energy (which once was believed was conservation of both mass and energy), the first and second postulates of Einstein’s relativity, and the assumed premise that Newton’s G is a universal constant. Within the context of these premises the mathematics then makes predictions that are verified experimentally and observationally to prove the premises are correct. But this once again reverts back to how the universe is a mathematically defined reality, so if the math is correct, it must be correct in real terms as well. What the laymen mainstream find, intuitively, objectionable here is the premise that this is so, that a mathematically correct context validates the reality it strive to describe. Hence, in my examples above, if atom oscillations and light redshift are natural phenomena, rather than look for a deeper cause and effect of these phenomena, we default to the math. Because it is believed, implicitly, that if the math is correct and it correctly describes what we observe, i.e., GPS time corrections, then it must be right, and we should look no further. The other objection that follows is that once we are content with the accepted premises, including the premise that the math correctly reflect reality, we stop looking for other, viz. ATM causes. I think it is this point that this thread represents, and the TMSr responses it elicits, to prove this point, is that once we know what we know, we need not know it differently, because our math says it works. End result is that TMS tells the layety to learn the math. But this obscures the real problem for ATMrs, that for them to present an alternative explanation for observed phenomena, they must, I repeat must, invoke the mathematical explanations in order to make their case, or it will be ignored. So what we see (I’m not a physicist) as the collective rebuttal to any lay questions in theoretical physics is “learn the math!”, or at the very least rewrite all the known physics. That is unacceptable. Nor is it a fully valid response, not because one is unwilling to learn the math, but because this response assumes of necessity that only through this math can the secrets of nature be revealed. This is an implied premise, that you must use math to challenge doctrine, and one which no argument can vault over in any reasonable way, unless that premise is accepted in advance. So if I say that GPS adjustments are not because time slows down but because cesium atoms slow down, that statement falls on deaf ears. Of if I say that we need to test in situ for Newton’s G anomalies, that too falls on deaf ears because we had ‘poven’ through myriad pathways that it is a universal constant. (Conveniently, flat galactic rotation curves, Pioneer anomaly, atmospheric densities for outer solar bodies, Bouquer gravitational anomalies, are all forgotten because the neutron star gravitational dynamics –which were figured using a constant G- prove that even thousands of lightyears away, physics is isotropic and homogenous.) But this is a closed circle! The rebuttals fall back upon the same accepted premise, that if the math is right, then it is right. So, what about dark matter?

So if Carel suggests that perhaps there is some violation in QM to energy conservation which was circumnavigated with a fix, that too falls on deaf ears, and will not be published. I repeat, it will not be published, because no one wants to hear it. Why? Because it violates the basic premise that if the math was right, the rest of the theoretical physics must be right too. And they have reems of data on smashed atoms to prove it.

Now, I’m giving you a humanist-laymen response here, a challenge to theoretical physicists to check your premises. If your response is “do better” or "learn the math", I must advise that it is not a suitable response. Make yourself more transparent to the outside world, or the outside world may turn its back on you. Finally, the only real proof is not the math, nor the observations validating this math, but the actual data that comes from dedicated scientific tests. Real data will always be the bottom line. And if these tests show a basic premise, like Newton’s G or some other constant, or that conservation of energy is adjusted somehow; if this is different from what we had assumed mathematically, it cannot be ignored; because then the ‘isotropic and homogenous’ universe begins to look like crumb cake.

BTW, I am most greatful to real physics for all the wonderful things we enjoy in the world, from the great pyramids to my hybrid electric-gasoline SUV, with its GPS navigation so I don't get lost. And I don't know the math that runs it! But that is the real physics, isn't it?

I trust in my above, lengthy discussion, that I have answered your collective rebuttals, that they are in essence the same rebuttal, and that I need retract nothing. Do I hear a Greek chorus?