20.01.2019

Jan Peter Apel

The Current Status of Physics

or: The Naked Truth

or: The Naked Truth

At the end of the 18th century, it was thought that one knew everything about the mechanics of the world and physics is at the end. Then came Einstein. Today we are at an end again, but not because we finally know now everything, but because it can not go any further. And that, although the unanswered questions get multiply faster than the ones answered. It's as if research is going in the wrong direction. In 2001, in the german weekly magazine 'Die Zeit': "Aus! die Physik ist am Ende" (Out! Physics is at the end.) But this end is not the end of physics, but the end of a dead end in which physics was seduced by Einstein. How could that happen? The reason:

Today's
physics is not at all a science!

A
science is a delimited field of knowledge,

in which it can evolve alone with their rules.

A verifiability has that, what is today called "physics"

not even in the beginning

Every physicist can claim everything possible and impossible to this day.

None of this can be proved or disproven for lack of substantive rules.

That is why it is also forbidden in physical publications

to say wrong or right.

There is no better proof of unscientificness.

A science must say right and wrong!

"Who said that"? is the only valid ratings today about right or wrong.

Factual criteria by exact physical rules? None.

Today's "physics" is neither able to define

what it is itself, nor what is a physical proof.

in which it can evolve alone with their rules.

A verifiability has that, what is today called "physics"

not even in the beginning

Every physicist can claim everything possible and impossible to this day.

None of this can be proved or disproven for lack of substantive rules.

That is why it is also forbidden in physical publications

to say wrong or right.

There is no better proof of unscientificness.

A science must say right and wrong!

"Who said that"? is the only valid ratings today about right or wrong.

Factual criteria by exact physical rules? None.

Today's "physics" is neither able to define

what it is itself, nor what is a physical proof.

For the ancient Greeks, physical axioms (laws) understood themselves as truths. And physical theories must contain truths of nature. However, since with this strict condition no desired progress in the exploration of nature seemed to be possible anymore, this obligation was simply reduced to the mere stipulation that theories need only be free from contradiction. How does it look today?

"According to the laws of physics" is often argued in physical discussions: has anyone ever named one of these "laws" in discussions or followed them? Mostly one use theories instead of laws. But:

Theories
are not "laws" of physics!

Laws of nature are also not a formula such as "mass times acceleration is force". Laws of nature are the rules of nature! This is for example: "For a natural phenomenon, only a single coordinate system, its "natural "coordinate system, is responsible". "One can see it also in any other way!" is absolutely forbidden in physics, if physics will represent the nature! It must be found out how nature sees itself: with its natural coordinate system. Of course, a natural phenomenon can still be considered in different coordinate systems, but ultimately the natural coordinate system has to be selected, namely that which determines the phenomenon only. Only in it are all relevant physical variables to the phenomenon present in there invariant form.

For example is for flying, as Lilienthal already saw, the air, in which an airplane flies, the natural coordinate system and not the wind tunnel, since in them the movements of air and plane are interchanged. "But that's equal!"! For technologie yes, for physics no! Physically is that an exchange of cause and effect: the greatest mistake, that can ever be made in physics!

One truth about the current state of physics is described by Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Prize 1998, 2005 in "A Different Univers - Reinventig Physics from the Button Down" (Retranslating): "As it turns out, our mastery of the universe is largely a bluff - big flap and nothing behind it. The claim that all important laws of nature are known is simply a part of this deception. The border is still near us and it's still pretty illegal".

Newton emotionally recognized mass inertia as the basis for the mechanics of the world. This is still a truth that no one doubts anymore, but that it is still no proof of its correctness. Nature is not a democracy in which a majority decides, nature is a dictator!

Newton found forther, that masses approaching each other. That's another truth. The physics community concluded that there had to be an attraction force, but Newton himself already regarded a force at nonsense. But since otherwise no contradiction took place and falling processes with an attraction force could be mathematically calculated exactly, the existence of an attraction was considered true. A concrete proof of their existence does not exist until today, although one has been looking for it for a long time. Slowly it should be realized that there is no gravitational force, especially since it does not fit into the general image of forces of nature. So the coming together of masses must have a cause other than a force.

Einstein explained the emergence of our weight by accelerating upward. Each accelerometer, working with a sensor mass, measures this acceleration upwards and measuring instruments do never lie. That's a truth. But why is there still a need for an attraction force? We would be twice as hard with it. Nobody cares, the majority believe in an attraction and an accelerometer would measures crap in the vertical. On what grounds can an accelerometer, designed for Newtonian accelerations, be denied the ability to measure in the vertical?

Einstein realized that a released body does not defend itself against its acceleration of gravity with its inertia. This body can therefore view itself as being free in space. After Newton, of course, it goes to earth like the earth also goes a bit towards it. These are still truths. But a Newtonian force can not accelerate a falling body, because it is free of forces. That measures an accelerometer in / on it correctly. So the gravitational force can not be a Newtonian force. What is made? One invents a non-Newtonian force. By what law of physics? There is no!

What did Einstein do? He simply did not care about a force and constructed mathematically a "curvature" of space, so that a body does not have to accelerate gravitationally any more and adhere only to Newton's law of inertia. A free body moves then with constant speed in a straight line. But since that does not look like that, the space around the body would for us curve invisibly, in time and space. "The Emperor's New Clothes" have risen again in an area called science. There is still no real proof of any curvature of space or time. That Einstein's theory would be consistent is also not given, everything contradictory is suppressed. Einstein's theories are light-years away from truths.

These still experienceable examples from the macrocosm on still visible and tangible are still unclear. Nevertheless, today's physics community is not concerned with it anymore, it has simply given up because of lack of prospects for success and seeks their salvation in the microcosm. It's being attempted, out of the surprising number of particles, from which for example the atoms are constructed, to find a mathematical formula which can then describe everything, even the existing inconsistencies of macrophysics.

What forgotten is is, that descriptions are far away from explanations, explanations of the functions of the natural processes. Mathematics would first have to know the funktionel paths inside the natural phenomena, to stay on these paths.

Natural laws mean for the mathematics very substantial restrictions on interpretations out of their formulations. Nature does not even think of following all mathematically possible consequences of formulas. For example, the relativistic factor in nature is exclusively tied to time, because it arise out of the time. Therefore it's not allowed, to "move" it to other physical variables. According to the law of nature, that there can be only one cause for one effect, the relativistic factor, arised out of the time, is bound only on the time, so that it is impossible, that there can be a mass increase or length contraction, and that certainly not even additionally. Both are purely mathematical fictions resulting from the mathematical multiplication rules of the formula for the relativistic impulse, which although leading to nominally correct results, are not at all followed by nature.

The
Hafele-Kaeting experiment unambiguously refutes relativity theories.
What happens? It is publicly lied to in the full consciousness of lying
to even their confirmation, against exact and irrefutable data, which
can not be reconstructed in the least with the formulas of the special
theory of relativity! And that, even though that's the only task of the
special theory of relativity: it does not pass its key test!

And no one dares to oppose against better knowledge, all scientists in occupational dependency relationships would lose their jobs or be placed cold as for example Halton Arp, who wanted to investigate galaxies that contained the danger that existing theories would have to be called into question. But exactly that is by Karl Popper, an Austrian physics philosoph: "Physics is revolutionary: new replaces the old!". That is the best paradigm for physics, the only successful method of research.

In microphysics, mathematics is successful, but only in the sense, that it can still find unknown particles, if they have measurable interactions with other particels as at the time the Neptune was found in addition to the other planets.

However, in order to come to theories about everything from the number and properties of the particles, that is, from bottom to top or from inside to outside, fantasies are invented with more than three dimensions in two-digit numbers and a lot of additionelly universes. Werner Heissenberg saw much helpful in the wisdom of Goethe, who would recommend for today: "To understand the smallest part it needs the overview of the whole." After that also applies:

The laws of nature are
above those of mathematics!

Today's so-called "theoretical physics" is still animated by the belief that nature can be researched by mathematical means on the model of the mathematical discovery of Neptune. However, finding Neptune is no legitimation for discovering new things in nature. The discovery of Neptune is merely the multiplication of known things, namely planets.

The math exploded in the delusion, only itself could represent nature properly. And this with paradigms, that do not know questions about the "why", but only describe the "how". "Why is something so?" are the pivotal questions of physics. To find such anwers is the only but extremely demanding and hitherto unsuccessful task of physics. The means to success is criminalistics and not mathematics: who or what is the culprit, the cause of a natural phenomenon?

In today's physics, a mathematical bubble has formed, in which theories are constantly being invented, even in "towers" built on others that are not natural, but only mathematically based. But:

Every natural phenomenon has its own theory,

which always must reach to the ground of nature.

All natural phenomena are independent of each other!

which always must reach to the ground of nature.

All natural phenomena are independent of each other!

Nevertheless, the term "natural" is used as a quality attribute for mathematical formulas, although they can not have any idea of nature at all. If theories fit well in nature, but not toh the required wishes for there inventions, a technical naturalness is invented. That "natural" must be something, that can be localized and measured is forgotten: what does the "high mathematical physics" care about nature?

The requirements for theories were not only reduced from true axioms to only free of physical contradictions, but even to free of only mathematical contradictions. But even the free of physically contradictions was already the capitulation to finding truth in nature.

About sense or nonsense or even correctness of formulas is argued with "simplicity" and "beauty" as criteria. To expand the search field, "symmetries" are used, which nature should obey. They should then make the formulas even more beautiful. Beauty as a criterion for correctness in physics? The quality of mathematical research has not gotten any better than finding an additional to another known planet. However, true theories are really beautifull, but thankfully not mathematical! But even poking around with the beauty attribute in the mist of yet unknown nature does not even have the success rate of the lottery

Using the term "theory" for mathematical formulations to compute the only external symptoms of natural phenomena meant that Theoretical Physics became nothing more than a theoretical one, not guidet by any true knowledge of nature. In physics, the term "theory" is to be defined for the verbal explanation of natural phenomena by means of cause-and-effect principles. The results of the now over one hundred years of "Theoretical Physics" with their oversized dimensions and multiverses are nothing more but wild speculations. One hundred years lost in mathematical mania without any progress with finding truths of nature, their true inner connections.

A physicist does not seek
formulas but cause-and-effect relationships.

Who does not seek, is not a physicist.

A study of mathematics is for that not required.

Who does not seek, is not a physicist.

A study of mathematics is for that not required.

The only truth, that Einstein found, is:

Our weight arised by an
acceleration from bottom to top.

It is simply ignored.

It is simply ignored.

How to get out of the dead end of physical research? For example, by researching time dilation. Time dilation is simply used, but never asked: what is it anyway? Its existence is true, but only just as gravitation is true and one can calculate with both. But calculating is not physics, only technologie. Physically, both are completely unexplained. But mathematics does not care, it can do without causal knowledge only with the symptoms of natural phenomena. The unknown nature of time dilation led then promptly to false applications of the relativistic factor. By only mathematical laws arise from it spirit worlds with alleged mass multiplications and length contractions, both never has been detected by measurements. They are simply believed without verification, as well as the alleged existence of the undetectable attraction force. "Mathematical physicists" have no armor to evaluate physically theories, namely by "physical rules". They do not even know them, especially because they are not searched. Otherwise they would massively impair the beloved freedom of mathematical search in nature.

Proper mathematical results can in nature, so in physics, prove nothing at all. The fact, that mathematical consistency has no significance in physics is proved by the four modern, very different gravitation theories, which all are mathematically correct, but physically all wrong. None of them can say what gravity is. But that is the main question in physics! For time dilation and gravitation must be find their basic principles. And they are not in the supernatural, but in normal understandable and experimentally verifiable processes. The solutions for both are presented in www.kosmosphysik.de, where the true principle of gravitation with overview reveals how the acceleration from bottom to top on the Earth and other celestial bodies arises.

Correctnesses of physical theories with their compellingly verbal cause-and-effect principles prove themselves exclusively according to the rules of nature. Their criteria are: they must be able to answer more questions than have led to their findings and must be able to verbally answer all "why" questions in their field, always directly starting from their basis principles. Physical theories are either completely right or completely wrong from their start. There is nothing in between. Nature is binary in this respect: improvable or improvement needed theories are without exception fundamentally wrong.

Formulas for natural phenomena only become short, beautiful and correct,

if they arise from the knowledge of the physical course by cause to effect,

controlled by a natural principle.

if they arise from the knowledge of the physical course by cause to effect,

controlled by a natural principle.

Every natural phenomenon is controlled by only one basic principle,

from which all its individual symptoms result in direct consequence.

from which all its individual symptoms result in direct consequence.

An example of wrong theories is the extremely complex aerodynamics theory of flying. It needs several individual theories to explain all her apparitions. Only with the knowledge of the true cause of the lift force arise the "beautiful" theory, based on the basic principle of kinetics, which explains in a direct and stringent consequence unsolicited all individual symptoms, see in www.flugtheorie.de. Only that is the absolute physical proof of a correct theory.

Finally, the language of physics.

Physical theories must contain a true basic principle of nature, for example Newton's theory of force with "force results from changing the momentum". This is a true physical law based on the existence of inertia. How could mathematics express that? It can not, it can only process quantitative correlations. Why they exist, is outside its essence. Without knowing the basic principles of gravitation and time dilation, neither correct theories about the mechanics of the world nor nature-true to life formulas can be found.

Physical theories are purely verbal!

The fact, that the verbal of a language is imperfect and does not match the exactness of mathematics does not allow the use mathematics instead of language, especially since a specialist language requires only exact definitions for required terms which makes the verbal as stringent as mathematics. With the inadequacies of language for desired exactnesses is to live and it works too, because it must! One will probably still be able to understand.

The language of physics is the language!

Rudolph Mössbauer (Nobel Prize 1961) writes in the foreword to the German edition of Richard Feynman's book (Nobel Prize 1965) "On the nature of physical laws":

"He as a theorist, to my great astonishment, forbade me to use mathematical formulations in these discussions by the ground, that mathematics could be made up for once, if the solutions were clear." So first the physics with its laws, then the mathematics, which must follow these physical laws. Physics is master, math the slave!

And in the aforementioned book Richard Feynman writes:

“that ultimately, physics does not require mathematics, that finally the naturs "machinery" will come to light, and that the laws will show oneself to be as simple as the rules of the ostensibly seemingly complex chess game.“

A revision of physics is long overdue!

What is the nature of physics?

Thinking, not calculating!

home