Unbelievable (Physics)

Synopsis manuscript "Unbelievable" In September of 1998, I further deepened my exploration into an unanswered question which arose 27 years earlier during my studies of applied physics.

After 2 ½ months of research it was evident to me, that theoretical physics at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century had arrived at two fundamentally erroneous conclusions, thereby distorting the physical insight into the atomic and subatomic world.

Since that time, I have done my utmost to point out to scientists the omissions I found and to request revisions. The enthusiasm of scientists to fix these errors is minimal, since the perspectives of 100 years of theoretical physics need to be changed. Their resistance to review ancient assumptions appears insurmountable To my understanding, it"s important that society be made aware of what mistakes were made. Therefore, I have written down my findings in this book. I describe the process whereby these errors occurred and why and how science has been able to commit them. Theoretical physics may be too mathematical in nature for the non­scientist to comprehend the mistakes and what influence this had on subsequent development The omissions took place over 100 years ago, when the mathematics of theoretical physics was not as advanced, so a knowledge of high school mathematics is sufficient for comprehension by the non­scientist. The analysis unravels the mysteries of Quantum Mechanics and the physics underlying the quantized energy levels of atoms solely with the use of classical physical concepts.

Insight into traditional physics, shows how quantum mechanical effects can occur. The argument of scientists that the knowledge of Quantum Mechanics can not be understood with classical physical concepts is unfounded. The understanding of quantum mechanics for the non­scientist is just as simple as any other science.

The refusal to admit that mistakes were made, prevents non­scientists the opportunity to gain insight into the physics of quantum mechanical phenomena. After reading this book the reader can decide whether or not the existing understanding of theoretical physics adequately describes reality, or whether new insights are needed.

Unbelievable Preface Even in science, errors are made. During my sabbatical I wanted to do something both challenging and interesting. With the passage of time I realized I had chanced upon something special ­ something one can"t ignore something that is very important something that could make a difference something that is a challenge something that doesn"t appear in human life in general.

Now, after 14 years in which I gave everything I had; one year of productive effort and thirteen years of fruitless attempts to be heard, it is time document the struggle and the reasons I felt it necessary to make my discoveries known.

Science claims as fact that time and space are relative, that there are seven dimensions, of which we can only experience three (length, width, height), that analogous worlds and wormholes are necessary besides many, many more mathematically­enforced patterns. According to science, this is the existing reality, which places it on the level of a Grimm"s fairy tale! We, the ordinary people, are not allowed to question the correctness of the findings of the science of theoretical physics.

Theoretical knowledge, scientific conclusions founded on undeniable experimental scientific observations, is speculative and should therefore by definition be labelled as hypothetical. Theoretical assumptions, founded on indisputable observations, are not in themselves indisputable. Regardless, theoretical physics claims otherwise. In this book I demonstrate that scientists drew fundamentally inaccurate conclusions, laying a foundation for the fantastic fairy tale forced on us as the inevitable truth.

The paradigm I propose when the inaccuracies are corrected, is a scientific reality of only three dimensions, without inconceivable paradoxes and unaccountable contradictions. A consistent physical picture in which quantum mechanics are explained in a logical way within the context of classical physics. Nuclear fusion, could provide for society, a realizable source of clean and abundant energy if sound efforts were made in that direction. Up to now, there is a categorical refusal to do so.

Theoretical Physics estranged itself completely from the philosophy of logic through extreme mathematical references which were unintelligible to laymen as well. This science is the only one where common sense is not sufficient to be able to understand the scientific consequences. Mathematics are for many sciences, a competent advantage, but only where it enables the ability to reach scientific conclusions in a logical way. Logic always has the last word. When by mathematical processes, conclusions are reached which cannot withstand testing by philosophic logic, then the conclusions must rejected as untruthful. This is so with all the sciences, other than theoretical physics.

The fact that theoretical physics is dominated completely by mathematics makes the dangers and limitations difficult to understand. Logic and common sense have been sidelined completely. Only the experts or insiders are still able to judge what is right and what is not. When scientists are brought up with conditional theories presented as the absolute scientific truth, then the critical judgment based on experimental proof is ignored.

Any challenge to the established order brings into question their competence. No ambitious and successful scientist will tolerate the loss of painfully obtained superiority. Common sense, without access to and understanding of higher mathematics limits the ability to question, to assess, to check and correct science, so errors proliferate.

After 14 years I have to draw the conclusion that it is impossible for me to motivate scientists to go into the omissions I found. Why I didn"t succeed, I can only guess. However, everything that is possible has to be tried out, so that one can"t say later on: "Why didn"t you write it down understandably for everybody who is interested?" In this book I try to realize "the impossible"; to convince you, the reader, that the unbelievably wrong conclusions of theoretical physics are based on false assumptions. It is now for the non­scientists to judge whether my claim that the experts and professionals failed is right or wrong. My purpose in writing the book is no longer an attempt to convince the scientists, but to prevent anyone from asking, "Why didn"t you write it down understandably for everyone who is interested?" The subject is exact and rather dry. To make it somewhat digestible I"m of the opinion that I should not keep out my personal feelings. After all, it concerns not only science but 14 years of emotion, passion and of fighting a losing battle.

In this book I"ve incorporated formulas here and there which describe the final results of the analysis. These equations, I"ll not withhold from the reader. If the formulas mean nothing to you, don"t regard this as a hindrance. If you were able to follow my reasoning you can essentially understand the mathematical derivations. If you wish to examine the derivations or choose for a more exact explanation, or if you want to look at the subjects more closely, then I refer you to www.paradox­paradigm.nl Carel van der Togt @All Copyright Reserved 2012

The beginning of the end

Not long after we left all fairy tales behind us, a fable of unprecedented proportions was forced on us, aside which, Grimm's fairy tales appear to be the epitome of reason. Beware, those who would demonize the religion of the 20th century.

I was 19 years old and engaged in the first year of study of applied physics, when the teacher introduced the Theory of Relativity. Time and space are relative, orates he. Einstein has proven that beyond doubt. A little later, the irrefutable theoretical proof is given. Theoretical it is too big a word. Actually the Special Relativity Theory (SRT) is no more than the arithmetic elaboration of an inequality, which is caused by an incorrect theoretical interpretation of experimental data.

At the end of the course I ask the teacher: "That you arithmetically calculated the relativity of time and space is obvious, if you assume that the vacuum is absolutely empty and light, regardless of the speed of the source, is always c. Arithmetically this is true, but what is the function of the relativity of space and time? Does a relative time and space make any sense? ".

Exact science should always be to the point. No bullshit. Straightforward. The response of the teacher was, "The scientific finding that vacuum is absolute empty space, combined with the constant speed of light, makes the relativity of time and space inevitable." I agree with this conclusion, but not with the assumption that vacuum is absolute empty space. The same afternoon I go to the library of the Technical University of Delft and read the original German article by Einstein in 1905. The article begins with axioms, which have to be met to be able to make valid conclusions. One of the conditions is that dragged aether does not exist.

Intuitively, I believe that this condition is not met. Yes that must be it! "The dragged aether exists", is my standpoint to escape the absurdity of the relativity of time and space, not knowing that 27 years later this position will bring me 13 years of misery.

After studying applied physics I would like to progress further in the subject. I find physics very interesting and I'm good at it, but concerning the theory of relativity there are serious questions. Before being able to decide whether I continue studying in theoretical physics, I first want to know what the scientific experts think about it themselves. I want to continue studying in Astronomy. The mystery and the immense size of the universe, gravity, supernova explosions and more excites me greatly. But first I want to know whether the science of Astronomy stands with both feet on the ground. I contacted the University of Leiden where astronomy is taught, to request further information on it. This results in a conversation with Dr. de Bruine, professor at the University of Leiden, where he teaches special and general relativity.

After shaking hands I say: "Dr. de Bruine I've got something I do not understand. If two stones move towards each other in space, then according to the Special Theory of Relativity the clock from one stone runs differently than the other. We do not know in advance which clock runs slower or faster "That's right", he agrees. I continue: "Suppose I am standing on one of these stones, and you on the other. You have access to a laser beam, so you can communicate with me. You inform me through frequency modulation the frequency of the laser beam. I now know the frequency of the laser beam, which you send to me. I measure a higher frequency than what I have been told, so I must conclude that the clock runs slower on my stone? " "Indeed that is so", agrees Dr. de Bruine. I continue: "Now the stones pass each other and I measure instantly a lower frequency of the laser beam. My clock now runs faster than the clock on your stone. Apparently the clocks, during the passage, changed places. How can that be? What happened in physical terms to explain this change?" Dr.de Bruine smiles and turns his hands with palms open upwards. This is all I get. A detailed physical explanation of what caused this "switch" is not given. "Dr. de Bruine," I continue after it has become clear to me that the gesture with the hands is all I can expect: "Can you explain the Twin Paradox because it is not clear to me." "That is not complicated" he says. " Half of the twins, the one who leaves, accelerates and moves away from the Earth. The internal clock of the rocket runs faster, the twin in the rocket is aging more quickly than his brother he left on Earth." "When the twin in the rocket will return to Earth" he continues, " then he must undergo an acceleration in the direction of the Earth, which is twice as large as when he departed from Earth. First the rocket slows down, so the speed away from the Earth becomes zero, but the acceleration to the Earth must continue to be able to return and go back to Earth with the same speed. The acceleration towards Earth is therefore twice as great as the acceleration when he left from Earth. The clock of the twin in the rocket is now two times slower. Clear?" "Almost. The twin can remember that he accelerates twice as long to the Earth than he accelerated away from the Earth. He "realizes" that after returning in the direction of the Earth he is not aging faster than his twin brother on Earth, but instead is aging twice less old. The astronaut can realize that, but what about the rocket? All atoms and electrons of the spacecraft have to somehow "remember" that they first accelerated away from the Earth and then turn and accelerate twice as long towards Earth. All atoms and electrons in the rocket, and the twin, must therefore have a "memory" feature that remembers all gears. The internal clock of every atom and electron on the spaceship must in one way or another know whether they should run faster or slower than the clock on the Earth. How can atoms remember whether they are accelerated or not?" Dr. de Bruine smiles again and turns his hands, palms upward.

So far goes the understanding of an expert! I decide no longer to test the faith of Dr. de Bruine. Further studies in theoretical physics is not appealing anymore. Economics seems more attractive now. Not an exact study, but in any case much less woozy than theoretical physics.

Sabbatical The study of applied physics is in my blood. I am good at it and find it very interesting. Its study provides insight and answers to questions as to why something is as it is. Ideally I wanted to continue to advance my knowledge of theoretical physics after graduation, but was not impressed with it. In my opinion, this study provides no further insight or understanding. The question "Why?" or "How do you explain that?", are invariably answered with: "The mathematics determines that it is so." This answer is unsatisfactory to me. I have the need to understand.

I therefore decided to study economics, because there is always a new insight to achieve. Human action can often be irrational, but is anything but mysterious. After studying economics, I ended up in the banking industry; securities to be specific. I have no objection to receiving a good salary, but the need to feel at least some level of accomplishment is not available. The salaries in the financial world are enormous, while the performance for the client usually has a negative value. Over the years, the aversion to this became so large that I had to leave the financial world for a while. It was time for something else; time for a sabbatical.

Late August, 1998 on an early night in the French Alps under a starry sky, I pick up hang gliding. In the past 10 years there has not been enough time to pursue it. What am I going to do? It has to be interesting and challenging for a change. Why not see if there is an answer to the question that still puzzles me: "Are time and space really relative or does the aether exist?" I knew what I had to do.

Back home, I go to the library in The Hague and look for a book that gives an overview of "why" science came to the conclusion that space and time are relative. This conclusion is based on the scientific assumption that no aether exists and that therefore vacuum is absolute empty space. What I want to achieve is finding an answer, to the question of whether the aether was rightly or wrongly rejected. It is clear that the answer must lie in whether or not there is an aether. Without aether the conclusion of the relativity of space and time seems inevitable, but for now, I will reject that assumption. The special theory of relativity includes many logical contradictions, which conveniently, are all called paradoxes. The extreme improbability that all logical inconsistencies the theory implies are real, suggests there must be an aether. Without aether, reality becomes so illogical that reality cannot be real!

The propagation of light

Very many things that we perceive, we take for granted. Why would you analyze everything? Some things are as they are. On the question of whether God exists, will probably never be answered. Many wars have been waged in the name of God. Why not just leave this question unanswered and stop the bloodshed? However it is in the nature of man to be curious and especially to pretend to know the answers to questions. The believer professes to know that God exists and tries to convince the unbeliever, even though he has no proof. Nevertheless, he believes that the other person must take him at his word, because no one can prove that God does not exist. Thank God there is such a thing as science that ends the everlasting debate on questions that otherwise cannot be answered. Science brings knowledge. Yes, science and religion are different things. Isn"t that so? We, the ordinary people, see light and normally we do not wonder how it can possibly exist. For scientists however, it is their job to think about many things and make a distinction between reality and fantasy. Technological development is owed to science. No doubt, it is the evidence that science makes sense; that science brings knowledge.

People are not infallible. Science is man­made and therefore by definition, fallible. Science can be wrong, but do not worry because science is self­correcting. If errors creep into science, they are discovered and eliminated by other scientists. The system of "peer review" will eliminate scientific errors. The work of scientists is screened by colleagues who will discover errors; and omissions will not go unnoticed. Science can not be fictional. Of the latter, I have serious doubts.

Stellar aberration

We hear sound and know, that sound propagates through the air around us. We know this because science has made it clear to us. The evidence for this is when we pump out the air around us, then cannot hear.

How about light? We can still see without any air. The thought that then arises is that light reaches us through a different medium. Science assumed, therefore, that in a vacuum, space without air, a medium must be present by which light propagates. This medium, that is logically derived, is given the name "aether" by scientists. There must be an aether for how can the light otherwise propagate? Stellar aberration is an apparent change in the position of the stars in the sky. It was first observed in 1727 by James Bradley, a British astronomer. This apparent change in position appeared to be dependent on the angle a star made with the elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun and the time of year. Every season will show that they have slightly changed their position.

In the figure below, we must have in mind that Bradley is standing on the Earth looking through his telescope at the star y­Draconis. The star stands, relative to the orbital plane at an angle of about 75 degrees. Bradley recorded the angle of the star through a telescope for a whole year and the unexplained discrepancy he found became known as stellar aberration. It changed according to the position of the Earth in orbit, the season, and the angle of the star. The change is small and not visible to the naked eye.

Since his discovery, scientists have been working hard to find an explanation. The logical explanation of this phenomenon appeared more difficult than anyone had expected. In the early 20th century, over 175 years after Bradley"s discovery, the scholars were still unable to explain this phenomenon and it remains a persistent mystery to this day. It has become a source of despondency and frustration.

We see the light of the stars, so we know that light travels through the vacuum of space. How does light propagate? The general thought at the beginning of the twentieth century, was that there is in the vacuum, a medium (similar to air for sound) by which means, light is capable of moving.

Figure 1: The rays of the star y­Draconis reach the Earth The assumed medium in which the light in vacuum can propagate is called the "aether". Science presupposes two possible forms:

1. dragged aether 2. aether in absolute rest The dragged aether can, as the word implies, be dragged by the Earth in the orbit around the Sun. This aether will move with the Earth, like a moving car drags air and a boat drags water. The aether at absolute rest, which is in opposition, and can therefore not be affected by anything. Both aethers relate as black to white, 0 to 1, and as Yin and Yang.

The speed of light is immense, incredibly large at 300,000 kilometer per second. The motion of Earth around the Sun is "only" 30 kilometers per second; about 1/10.000 of the speed of light. This is extremely slow by comparison, but despite this, is still a speed that cannot be matched by humans. It is large enough to be observed relative to an aether. Initially the scholars thought that the aether and light would be similar to air and sound waves.

When scientists attempted to imagine how the intervention of a dragged aether could produce the observed stellar aberration, the physical analysis, and logical explanation was not in accordance with what is measured or theorized. The change in the apparent position of the star did not match, and even appeared opposite to what was expected.

Figure 2: The observed and expected stellar aberration with dragged aether The aether is dragged by the Earth in the path around the Sun, and you would think intuitively the effect would be as shown in Figure 2 under "Expected aberration". Since the observed aberration is the opposite of this, it suggests that light is not dragged by the Earth. Light appears to come more from the front, while you would expect it to come more from above, and conversely, the light appears to come more from above when the Earth moves away from the star while you would expect it to be more from behind (Figure 2 bottom).

If the aether is dragged by the Earth, then you might expect that light is also dragged. In conclusion, science states that a dragged aether cannot explain stellar aberration and therefore, it is a false supposition. The above mentioned expectations of scholars, regarding the stellar aberration, concerns an aether where the Earth drags the aether and the aether drags the light.

Aether, when it exists, is hiding in the vacuum and therefore must possess the physical properties of the vacuum. The vacuum is however, not capable of dragging or changing the direction or path of a beam of light. A dragged aether, as suggested above by science, can not exist because the vacuum cannot influence the impulse responsible for the direction of light. In addition, it has been observed that stellar aberration is opposite to what is expected. The dragged aether can not be present in vacuum seems the inescapable conclusion.

This conclusion is however premature and incorrect; a fallacy. Since Bradley discovered stellar aberration in 1727, theoretical physicists collectively overlooked something. Inexplicable, but true. The above analysis concerns only aether that is dragged by the Earth and where the aether also drags light. The aether proposed by scholars is physically incompatible with observations and the physical properties of the vacuum. It is therefore excluded in advance.

However, it is also possible to imagine an aether that is dragged by the earth, where the aether does not drag light. That is, a dragged aether consistent with the physical properties of the vacuum. Due to premature conclusions scientists made an unforgivable mistake by which the correct solution of the problem is no longer a possibility. It is beyond understanding why scientists in their analysis did exclude a dragged aether that is consistent with vacuum. This is a blatant omission, because if it is assumed that the dragged aether can not change the impulse and therefore the direction of light waves, which corresponds to the physical qualities of the vacuum, then the scientists would have discovered that this aether exactly explains the observed stellar aberration.

Figure 3 shows how stellar aberration physically is explainable with aether which leaves the direction and momentum of the photon untouched.

Figure 3: The Doppler Effect and stellar aberration with dragged aether Consider a photon on its way from y­Draconis to Earth, which travels through a dragged aether. In this case, the Earth drags the aether in its path. Assume the photon from y­Draconis (aether I) penetrates and continues in the same direction in aether II, then after 1 second, the Earth will have dragged the light beam 30 km to the right. This is not possible because a vacuum can not drag light, so there must be stellar aberration to compensate for the movement of the aether surrounding the Earth. How the momentum and direction of the photon are preserved, is illustrated in Figure 3.

In Figure 3 a beam of light coming from the star y­Draconis (aether I) enters the aether dragged by the Earth. When the photon from y­Draconis enters aether II, the aether under the influence of, and dragged by Earth, must allow the photon to keep the same impulse and direction for an observer at rest with Earth. Aether II is identical to aether I. The only difference is that aether II moves with 30 km/sec sideways relative to aether I (X direction). The observer in aether II moves along with the Earth. Direction and momentum of the photon to the observer before and after penetration aether II must be preserved. To achieve this, the moment the photon penetrates aether II, the speed of the Earth around the Sun must be added in the X­direction. By adding the speed of the Earth the angle of the light beam changes (Figure 3). This is stellar aberration.

When the lateral speed of the Earth is added to the speed of the photon, then the speed of the photon in aether II becomes greater than the speed of light c. Experimental observations have shown that light never goes faster or slower than its limiting speed c. The speed of the photon in Figure 3 must therefore be reduced to c. This adjustment causes the Doppler effect. The illustrated aberration and Doppler Effect in Figure 3 leads to the following mathematical formulas:

and for the stellar aberration

for the Doppler­effect.

Both formulas calculate exactly what is observed, which is convincing empirical evidence for the scientific possibility of the existence of dragged aether, consistent with the physical properties of vacuum.

The observed stellar aberration of a star is dependent on the position, angle of the star relative to the plane of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun; the inclination. In Figure 4, Star A is perpendicular to the plane of the orbit of Earth around the Sun and exhibits throughout the year, the maximum possible stellar aberration of 20.5 arcseconds. Star B is in the plane of the ellipse. The stellar aberration of Star B is in this situation nil.

Figure 4: Different positions of stars relative to the path of the Earth around the Sun The derived formulas for the stellar aberration and Doppler effect are generally applicable. The following Figure 5 shows the maximum stellar aberration of the inclination of a star with the plane of the Earth around the Sun. The higher the star in the sky, the greater the inclination, the greater the aberration.

Figure 5: The maximum stellar aberration of the inclination During the year that Bradley observed the stellar aberration of the star y­Draconis he recorded only the inclination of the angle of the star with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. In Figure 6 we plotted the calculated stellar aberration of the inclination of the star y­Draconis. The calculations correspond exactly to what Bradley registered.

1 sept 1 dec 1 march 1 june 1 sept Figure 6: The calculated stellar aberration of the star y­Draconis for one year In addition to vertical aberration, the aberration of the inclination, there is also horizontal aberration. In Figure 4, the Earth moves at maximum speed towards Star B. This star is located in the plane of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. In the situation shown, where a star is in the plane of the Earth around the Sun, there is never any vertical aberration because the star is in the plane of the orbit around the Sun where the inclination is 0 degrees during the year. When the Earth, three months later, moves a maximal sideways relative to Star B, then the horizontal aberration is 20.5 seconds of an arc.

When the calculated vertical and horizontal aberration of a star are determined, we can calculate the exact stellar aberration of any star during the year (Figure 7). At an inclination of 90 degrees during the year, the aberration amounts to a circle of 2 times 20.5 arcseconds. With decreasing inclination, an ellipse is obtained that becomes flatter as the inclination decreases, but of which, the long axis always covers 2 times 20.5 arcseconds.

At zero degrees inclination the total aberration during the year is a horizontal line of 2 times 20.5 arcseconds.

The observed stellar aberration is now fully explained and described.

Figure 7: The stellar aberration throughout the year as a function of the inclination

The apparent change in the direction of the photon You, the reader, might be wondering how it is possible that an angle change takes place in a vacuum, which is unable to influence the direction and momentum of a light beam? The answer is that the photon does not actually change direction. In the following figure it is shown how it is possible that stellar aberration occurs, while the direction of the light beam remains unchanged.

Figure 8: The apparent change of direction of the photon At point A in the graph, the light beam enters the aether under the influence of the Earth. At this instant, the adjustment takes place as outlined in Figure 3. At the time the photon penetrates the aether under the influence of the Earth, the photon is at point A in Figure 8. At the moment the photon coming from y­Draconis penetrates the aether under the influence of the Earth, the Earth is at position Earth A in Figure 8. The photon needs time to travel from A to Earth to be observed. During the time that the photon is en route to Earth, the Earth moves to the right. When the Earth is at "Earth B" in the figure, the photon and stellar aberration, can be observed.

The photon seems to the observer to come from the direction of B, but that is an illusion. The beam has actually retained the direction it had in aether I. The direction of the light is not changed. The proposed aether explains exactly the observed stellar aberration. The physical process and the derived formulas describing stellar aberration is exactly what is observed; very convincing empirical evidence that aether exists.

The above physical process is observed by anyone when a plane flies over. The air around us is the medium in which sound propagates. When we hear a plane and look in the direction of the sound we do not see the aircraft. After some searching, the aircraft is clearly somewhere different than where we suspect the plane to be according to the direction of the sound. With sound, aberration also takes place and that is one reason why the plane is not located where we initially look.

The aberration of sound takes place in accordance with the previously described process. The air, the medium for sound waves, doesn"t change the momentum and direction of a sound wave. The Doppler effect also occurs with sound waves. The pitch of an approaching train is noticeably higher, than when the train passed. The outlined physical process of stellar aberration and Doppler effect is not as strange or outlandish as you might have thought.

The aether in absolute rest Now you have to forget how stellar aberration occurs, because we're going back in time when scientists had no idea how it was caused.

The wrongful denial of dragged aether left open for science only the possibility of an absolutely quiescent aether. Absolutely at rest should be considered as not influenced by anything and thus this aether can, when it exists, be considered as an absolute reference frame in space. Light will travel in this aether, if it exists, in all directions with the velocity c. The Earth moves around the Sun at a speed of 30 km/sec. In a year, the time in which the Earth travels around the Sun, the Earth can never be continuously at rest with the quiescent aether. The motion of the Earth, when an absolute aether exists, must at a given time be observed.

In 1887 Michelson and Morley performed a measurement with which the motion of the Earth relative to an absolute quiescent aether should be observed. Michelson and Morley realized that when they turned the alignment of the apparatus 360 degrees, the effect should occur; so they did not need to wait a year for the results. The bewilderment of scientists was great when Michelson and Morley found a null result. They therefore must conclude that an aether at absolute rest can not exist. They found minimal deviation during the rotation of 360 degrees.

The Earth cannot move and be at rest at the same time. The conclusion must be that the aether at absolute rest does not exist. The negation of absolute aether and dragged aether only leaves the possibility of a vacuum with no medium for light in which to propagate. The panic was enormous, for how can light, gravity and electric fields manifest in nothing? There must be a medium through which forces can be transmitted remotely? How can the Sun attract the Earth without a medium? The experiment of Michelson and Morley was repeated many times, always giving the same result.

Positivism

In the second half of the 19th century the philosophy of Positivism was widespread. Positivism is the philosophy that knowledge, science, can only be based on observable, empirical facts. Religious or metaphysical statements are not classified as knowledge by this philosophy. Observations are considered the only valid source of knowledge and scientific knowledge is only obtained by reproducible observations.

The logical interpretation of empirical facts can yield insights on how the experimental results can be explained physically. The logical understanding of empirical observations is the originator of theoretical science. Without a theoretical interpretation of empirical data there is only empirical knowledge, and no unification for scientific understanding.

Empirical knowledge is for example the observation that a boat floats, as long as it does not leak, or was capsized by being filled with water or was overloaded. Scientific insight is obtained by interpreting these empirical data. Archimedes, a Greek scholar of around 200 BC, concluded by observing and deducing that objects wholly or partially immersed in water encounters an upward force equal to the weight of the water displaced. This is the famous Law of Archimedes and is a theoretical representation of the insight obtained by deduction from empirical observations. All observations are undisputed when the measurements are done properly, are reproducible and are verifiable. The theoretical interpretation of empirical data is derived knowledge; deduced science. But theoretical science should be open for discussion because deductive errors can always be made, which makes it by definition, fallible.

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the science of theoretical physics was in very turbulent water. Seemingly inexplicable observations should have been explained, but the human imagination failed when logical solutions should have been found for stellar aberration and quantum mechanical observations. These failings to find logical explanations for physical observations changed the philosophical insights.

When observations are reproducible, then there is irrefutable empirical evidence. This is obvious. Empirical knowledge is interpreted by humans as theoretical knowledge, understanding, but it is not infallible. Incorrect conclusions can be drawn.

Normally, incorrect theoretical conclusions will be rejected by means of logical reasoning when false theoretical interpretations are made. Logic separates foolish thoughts from those that make sense. Illogical, religious or metaphysical interpretations would be filtered and rejected.

Due to an omission in reasoning, we have seen that science wrongly concluded that dragged aether can not explain the cause for stellar aberration and therefore, it cannot exist. Logical omissions can have very, very serious consequences and can relegate theoretical science to fiction. In theory, everything is possible. In theory God can exist and metaphysics can be precise!

The lifeboat

Absolutely empty space (One of the original assumptions Einstein made when he derived the special theory of relativity­SRT) and the observation that the speed of photons is always the same, regardless of the motion of the light source, caused a problem. When the speed of the source disappears, is not observable, then there is something mysterious going on. SRT became inevitable when in 1887 Michelson and Morley's measurements crushed the last hope for science; an aether at absolute rest. Only absolute empty space was scientifically considered a possibility after both aether, dragged and absolute, were denied.

When there is no medium to account for the observation that light always travels with the same speed c, independent of speed of the source, there is an inconsistency. That an object moves is empirically observable and therefore knowledge. When the moving object emits a beam of light it is empirically demonstrated that the speed of the object is not observable in the speed of the light beam coming from the moving object. Observable and not observable, both empirically determined, should therefore both be right. This inconsistency must be eliminated.

SRT is basically no more or less than logic based on simple calculations. In the following illustration, Figure 9, Monkey 1 travels to Monkey 2 with speed V. Now the empirical knowledge comes into play, which states that for Monkey 1 and Monkey 2 the speed of light is always the same and amounts to c. This is a conclusive experimentally established fact. The distance from Monkey 1 to Monkey 2, at the time that the light leaves Monkey 1, is known to both monkeys and is X. Monkey 1 sees the light leave and knows that after X/(c+v) seconds Monkey 2 receives the light beam, because the light moves away from him at c. And since the light, empirically proven, propagates with c away from Monkey 1 the time for the light to reach Monkey 2 at distance X must be t1=X/(c+v) seconds.

There is no discussion possible, because it is irrefutable empirical science that prescribes this. Monkey 2 knows that he will receive the light after t2=X/c seconds, because the light comes to him at c and the distance is X. Anyone who can count knows that t1 can not be equal to t2. There is an inconsistency, an inequality, as Monkey 2 receives the light beam only once. So a mathematical synchronization must be conducted to ensure that both monkeys experience the event as one and the same.

Figure 9: Different perceptions by different observers Einstein could have solved the inequality by assuming that only the time is relative by removing X from the equations for t1 and t2.

The equations X=ct2 and X=(c+v) t1 show after elimination of the distance X, time t2 in terms of time t1: t2= t1(c+v) /c.

Had Einstein"s arithmetic addressed the problem this way then the conclusion from simple calculations would have been that only time is relative. Space would still be absolute. I use the above interpretation to show how arbitrary theoretical conclusions can be.

Before Einstein published his first article on SRT in 1905, the Dutch physicist Lorentz had already derived his Lorentz transformations. The derivation is mathematically based on the Michelson and Morley experiment. With the Lorentz transformations, the inconsistency, the arithmetic inequality, that both Monkeys appear not to simultaneously observe the same event is equally dispersed over time and distance. Einstein, who claimed not to have been aware of the derivation of Lorentz, came to the same mathematical result.

The difference between Einstein and Lorentz, is that Lorentz mathematically derives formulas to correct the inconsistency without making theoretical assumptions, while Einstein concludes theoretically that time and space for both monkeys are different.

The Special Relativity Theory (SRT) and stellar aberration

Dragged and absolute aether are rejected by science as possible theories because of the inability to explain stellar aberration. SRT is widely accepted. You would expect, because this theory is accepted, that it explains stellar aberration in a satisfactory manner.

Which theoretical explanation does SRT actually give for stellar aberration? The answer is that the SRT actually gives no logical explanation. SRT only contributes a mathematical factor known as the Lorentz contraction or Lorentz factor.

The Lorentz factor: v1 – v2/c2

With the Lorentz factor, when the speed of the Earth around the Sun and the speed of light c are substituted, the maximum stellar aberration of 20.5 arc seconds can be calculated. This and this alone is for the science theoretical physics, conclusive evidence to suggest that the SRT explains stellar aberration.

Only the fact that the Lorentz factor occurs in the formulas derived by Einstein is apparently enough evidence! A physical explanation how stellar aberration occurs with SRT remains a mystery. Actually scientists using SRT, are still completely in the dark how stellar aberration is physically achieved. But without the possibility of another scientific explanation, SRT is elevated to an absolute scientific truth.

Maximum stellar aberration is observed only at stars perpendicular to the plane of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Objectively, SRT only provides a factor by which the maximum observed stellar aberration can be calculated; that's all. No explanation is given for the dependence of stellar aberration on the angle of the star in the plane of the orbit around the Sun. Also no explanation is given for the dependence of stellar aberration with the seasons during the year. SRT does not explain in any way, how stellar aberration can physically be justified.