In my numerous dissemination efforts from 2006 on, (paper submission to scientific Journals, numerous mail contacts with scientists, my website from 2010, YouTube, etc.), I also included ResearchGate as a platform. As a 5 year university degree MSc (see the “About me” menu) I had a career as a scientific researcher. Part of my research activities (publications), during my career as a scientific researcher, can be found on the ResearchGate platform (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Etienne-Brauns/research). As a result of the tenacious resistance, from 2006 on, thus for over 15 years (dated December 2023), by the large number of CPBDs in the CS school (linked to CS paradigms based on photon phenomena), towards my (in fact irrefutable) 2006 findings, I thus also tried to use ResearchGate as an additional dissemination platform. Therefore I created a series of private publications about different CS paradigms, linked to photon phenomena, which I was able to falsify on the basis of my findings (in 2006). Most of these publications are extracted from my book with the recent primary title “A shattered Equivalence Principle for Photons” and the secondary title “The Future History of the Falsification of Multiple Paradigms in “exact” science.” that I wrote from 2006 on. My book is about 450 pages and was also officially registered in front of a notary for author protections reasons. For each of these separate private publications at ResearchGate I introduced a short code Dx (D for Downloadable; x as an index number). Therefore one can read the indications such as e.g. ResarchGate D2, ResarchGate D3, etc. You can find information about my Dx publications at ResarchGate further below. In indicated my book in the past as D1 on my website and in my private publications (see further D2-D11) and I decided (July 2024) to make my “D1” book available in digital format (pdf) at ResearchGate (see the main page of “My Publications” at this website for the ResearchGate download link). I also intend to introduce my book as a printed (soft cover) book (including an ISBN number).
ResearchGate D2
Etienne Brauns, “On multiple anomalies and inconsistencies regarding the description of light phenomena in contemporary science”, January 2017, ResearchGate.
https://www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/MultipleAnomalies_EBrauns.pdf
Abstract
This publication discusses multiple anomalies and inconsistencies within CS (contemporary science) with respect to the CS description of light phenomena in RS (real space). The severe anomalies can be easily demonstrated when introducing photons. Moreover, these massive anomalies can even be proven experimentally through a straightforward laser experiment. The consequences for specific CS paradigms, based on light phenomena, therefore are detrimental. A paradigm is a theory/model that is believed to be true in a specific time era in the history of science. Multiple contemporary paradigms in physics can thus be proven to be totally flawed and therefore should be abandoned and replaced (by better/new paradigms). The existence of flawed paradigms in science has been moreover the normal case, occurring over and over again as e.g. proven in the research by Thomas Kuhn on the history of science. One should definitely not be confident that our contemporary time era would be totally free of flawed paradigms. Multiple indications of flawed light paradigms are given in this publication.
ResearchGate D3
Etienne Brauns, “On a massive anomaly through a straightforward laser experiment falsifying the equivalence principle for light”, January 2017, ResearchGate.
https://www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/ExperAnomLaser_EBrauns.pdf
Abstract
In this short publication/communication the experimental result of a straightforward laser experiment is presented, indicating a massive anomaly within CS with respect to the CS description of light phenomena in RS. The result of the laser experiment in fact falsifies (Karl Popper’s paradigm falsification principle) the equivalence principle within CS regarding light. Publication (2) already shows the existence of a destructive theoretical anomaly which falsifies e.g. the ray-of-light concept within CS as a graphical representation of light phenomena (being used as a model within CS, e.g. as in the Michelson and Morley experiment). Evidently, when combined with the contents of (2), the experimental anomaly as described within this publication has detrimental consequences for specific CS paradigms, based on light phenomena. These paradigms include e.g. the Michelson and Morley null-result, the Lorentz contraction, the light clock etc. Multiple contemporary paradigms thus can be falsified. From the importance of the theoretical anomaly described within (2) and from the result of the straightforward laser experiment, CS should re-perform ASAP the suggested type of laser experiment in order to independently experience/confirm the existence of those major anomalies regarding the CS views on light phenomena. When being confirmed, CS will then be able to conclude and agree on the existence of flawed contemporary paradigms. From these Popper type of falsifications through anomalies, the processes as described by Thomas Kuhn in the case of needed paradigm shifts then can be started.
(2) ResearchGate D2
ResearchGate D4
Etienne Brauns, “On the flawed Michelson and Morley experiment null-result paradigm”, August 2017, ResearchGate.
https://www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/MichelsonMorley_EBrauns.pdf
Abstract
In this shortened publication the core information about the Michelson and Morley experiment “null-result” paradigm was specifically extracted from section 8 within my book (1). It is shown that this paradigm is flawed and should be re-evaluated.
(1) Etienne Brauns, “A shattered Equivalence Principle in Physics and a future History of multiple Paradigm Big Bangs in “exact” science.”, my book
ResearchGate D5
Etienne Brauns, “On a flawed Lorentz contraction paradigm caused by an erroneous Michelson-Morley model and null-result“, August 2017, ResearchGate.
https://www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/Lorentz_EBrauns.pdf
Abstract
In this short publication the CS Lorentz contraction paradigm is discussed. The Lorentz contraction was/is already discussed broadly in section 8 of (1) and previously at the website indicated in [a)]. In this publication the core information from section 8 of (1) was extracted to demonstrate that the Lorentz contraction is flawed. From (1,2,3) it should be clear that a straightforward type of laser experiment showed that multiple CS paradigms based on light/photons are flawed as a result of the massive anomaly demonstrated by that laser experiment. Moreover the multiple theoretical inconsistencies and anomalies reported in (1,2) also clearly show that CS paradigms based on light are flawed and should be reconsidered. When using photons in the analysis, this all becomes clear.
(1) Etienne Brauns, “A shattered Equivalence Principle in Physics and a future History of multiple Paradigm Big Bangs in “exact” science ?”, my book
(2) ResearchGate D2 / (3) ResearchGate D3
ResearchGate D6
Etienne Brauns, “On the inconclusiveness of the results from the Eddington 1919 solar eclipse mission to measure the bending of light”, August 2017, ResearchGate.
https://www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/Eddington_EBrauns.pdf
Abstract
In this publication the inconclusiveness of the results, as obtained by Eddington and Dyson in their solar eclipse mission in 1919 with respect to the bending of star light by the sun, is shown. Those results in 1919 were proclaimed as the first experimental proof of Einstein’s relativity theory. However, that “proof” is no longer supported as indicated in this publication. In order to better understand the “bending of a star’s ray of light by the sun” such “bending” is explained/calculated in four different approaches (the CS equivalence principle for light phenomena, the Newton’s gravity based derivation, an Euler based calculation method and Einstein’s calculation in his 1911 paper). The bending effect involves only a minuscule 0.875 arc seconds in the case of Newton’s gravity approach and also a minuscule 1.75 arc seconds according to Einstein’s theory. The consequences of such an extremely small value to be detected and measured with respect to an inconclusiveness of the results from the measurement set-up, as used by Eddington and Dyson during the 1919 solar eclipse mission, are pointed to in this publication.
ResearchGate D7
Etienne Brauns, “The Mercury perihelion precession: a critique on the anomaly and a plausible additional effect of the sun“, August 2017, ResearchGate.
https://www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/Mercury_Anomaly_EBrauns.pdf
Abstract
More than a century ago the theoretical/calculated precession value (based on Newton’s gravity laws) was considered to be “anomalous” with respect to the observed value of the perihelion precession of Mercury. There is a very small difference of only 43 arc seconds per 100 years between the observed/measured perihelion precession value (per 100 years only a minute 575 arc seconds = 0.159°, thus per year only 0.00159°) and the theoretically calculated value (per 100 years 532 arc seconds=0.147°; thus per year only 0.00147°). Einstein suggested in 1915 that this “anomaly” was also a test case for his relativity theory. Einstein derived later an equation from his relativity theory, predicting exactly the value of the “missing” 43 arc seconds, thus in an incredible precise way. In this publication however a critique on the contemporary Mercury perihelion precession “anomaly” paradigm is given. At first it should be stressed that in contemporary science there is simply no exact solution (model) for Newton’s gravitational configuration of a N-body system (N>2; thus also not for the system of the 8 planets and the sun). A model calculation evidently should be able to save the real phenomena occurring in real space. Therefore the question can definitely be raised what the meaning is of the “calculated” value of 532 arc seconds per 100 years (being calculated at that time) regarding its degree of “saving the real precession phenomenon in real space of the perihelion of Mercury”. If the latter calculated value in fact thus originates from a theoretical/mathematical non-exact solution (model calculation producing a non-exact model value) and if there isn’t any reference value from an exact solution: how can one consider an “anomaly” to exist between the observed value and a “calculated value”? Secondly and even more important it seems that the calculated value was generated (moreover at that time since Einstein already used that value) by model calculations in which the sun was considered to be that massive that the assumption was made that the sun can be considered to be in a fixed position in the model. In the literature therefore even only an oblateness of the sun is mentioned as being studied in the past in eventually trying to explain the Mercury “anomaly”. It thus seems that contemporary science did not consider much more than an oblateness of the sun with respect to a possible additional role of the sun in the perihelion precession of Mercury. As a result, a study was undertaken to investigate the validity of the simple CS assumption of a fixed position of our sun in the configuration in real space of the 8 planets and the sun. An Euler based method was therefore applied to model the orbits of the planets in the solar planetary system without the assumption of a fixed sun. These model/simulation results reveal that our sun cannot be considered as to be located in a rigid position, as assumed wrongly in the (contemporary) calculations with respect to the precession of the Mercury perihelion. A contemporary approach in placing the sun in a rigid position in the origin of the model reference frame is then flawed. When implementing in the Newton’s gravity based mathematical model the sun to participate in the global movement of the celestial bodies an eventual significant wobbling effect of the sun in real space shows up. The expected wobbling effect of the sun is larger than the sun’s diameter according to the preliminary model results (thus of course much more important than a marginal oblateness of the sun). It is thus suggested that specialized centers should re-calculate in much more detail in a three-dimensional model on more powerful computers the expected significant wobbling effect and to investigate the possibility of a sun’s wobbling as a plausible real cause of the so-called perihelion precession “anomaly” of Mercury.
ResearchGate D8
Etienne Brauns, “On the totally flawed contemporary light clock paradigm and on Paul Langevin’s twin paradox being to the point”, October 2017, ResearchGate
https://www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/LightClock_EBrauns.pdf
Abstract
In this publication the CS light clock paradigm and Paul Langevin’s twin paradox are discussed. The light clock is already discussed broadly in section 8 of (1) (at pages 193-233) and previously at the website indicated in (1). In this publication the core information from section 8 in (1) was extracted in order to demonstrate that the CS light clock paradigm is totally flawed and that Paul Langevin was right. From (1,2,3,4) it should be clear that multiple contemporary paradigms are flawed as a result of the massive experimental anomaly, proven by a straightforward laser experiment (MWF2). This publication and the preceding publications (2,3,4,5,6,7) are extracted from (1) and are intended as a series of publications in the project being indicated at ResearchGate as “Karl Popper’s type of falsification, through theoretical and experimental anomalies, of multiple contemporary paradigms based on light phenomena”. All the information in (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) and at the website was registered in front of a notary, and in combination with the patent text thus resulting in an author’s copy right protection. Moreover the multiple theoretical inconsistencies and anomalies reported in (1,2,3,4,5) also clearly show that numerous CS paradigms based on light are flawed and should be reconsidered. When using photons in the analysis, this all becomes evident. The principle and result of the laser experiment was already published in the (notary registered) patent text, in (1) and also at www.absolute-relativity.be. The extended publication (1) is informing in more detail about the existence/proofs of multiple flawed paradigms within CS, as well about important applications (on our planet and in space) resulting from those views.
(1) Etienne Brauns, “A shattered Equivalence Principle in Physics and a future History of multiple Paradigm Big Bangs in “exact” science ?”, my book
(2) ResearchGate D2 / (3) ResearchGate D3 / (4) ResearchGate D4 / (5) ResearchGate D5 / (6) ResearchGate D6 / (7) ResearchGate D7
ResearchGate D9
Etienne Brauns, “On a device, measuring in real space the real velocity of an object and on Mach’s flawed relativity thought experiment“, October 2017, ResearchGate
https://www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/RealVelocityDevice_EBrauns.pdf
Abstract
In this publication the principle of a Real Velocity Measuring Device (RVMD) in real space (RS) is explained. The RVMD’s principle is already published in a patent text, at www.absolute-relativity.be and in section 8 of (1). This publication and the preceding publications (1-8) are part of a series of publications in the project being indicated at ResearchGate as “Karl Popper’s type of falsification, through theoretical and experimental anomalies, of multiple contemporary paradigms based on light phenomena”. In this publication the core information from the three sources was extracted in order to point to the feasibility of constructing a RVMD which enables the measurement of the full RV vector of a material object travelling in RS. Mach’s relativity paradigm stating “there is no method available to measure the velocity of a material object Obj1 travelling in space, without having a reference material object Obj2 to measure the, then relative to Obj2, velocity of Obj1 ” is thus flawed. The suggested RVMD is indeed able to even measure e.g. a space ship’s full RV vector in RS in the closed confinement of the interior of the space ship, thus without the need of any Obj2 “reference”, outside the space ship. From (1,2,3,4,5,8) it should be clear that multiple contemporary paradigms are flawed as a result of a massive experimental anomaly, as proven by a straightforward laser experiment (1,3) (MWF2). Next to the experimental proof through that laser experiment, the multiple theoretical inconsistencies and anomalies reported in (1-5) also clearly show that numerous CS paradigms based on light are flawed and definitely should be reconsidered. When using photons in the analysis, this all becomes evident. The extended publication (1) is informing in more detail about the existence/proofs of multiple flawed paradigms within CS, as well about important applications (on our planet and in space) resulting from those views. All the information within the RVMD patent text, in (1), at the website and in the publications (2-8) was registered in front of a notary, therefore resulting in an author’s copy right protection.
(1) Etienne Brauns, “A shattered Equivalence Principle in Physics and a future History of multiple Paradigm Big Bangs in “exact” science ?”, my book
(2) ResearchGate D2 / (3) ResearchGate D3 / (4) ResearchGate D4 / (5) ResearchGate D5
(6) ResearchGate D6 / (7) ResearchGate D7 / (8) ResearchGate D8
ResearchGate D10
Etienne Brauns, “On Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity thought experiment as a flawed contemporary paradigm“, October 2017, ResearchGate
https://www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/RelativSimult_EBrauns.pdf
Abstract
In this publication the core information about Einstein’s flawed relativity of simultaneity thought experiment paradigm was specifically extracted from section 12.6 in the extended publication (1). This flawed contemporary paradigm was/is also explained at www.absolute-relativity.be. Einstein introduced in his thought experiment a train (track), an “Observer1 at rest” and an Observer2 travelling in a train compartment. Observer1 is located along the train track (railway embankment) in location_M which is precisely the midpoint M between a location_A on the train track to the left of Observer1 and a location_B on the train track to the right of Observer1. The train and Observer2 are travelling at a constant velocity in the direction of location_B. Precisely at the time instance that Observer2 passes Observer1 at the location_M, a lightning strike A occurs in location_A. Precisely at the same time instance another lightning strike B occurs in location_B. Einstein then reasons in his thought experiment that Observer1 must observe the lightning strike A and the lightning strike B at the same time instance in the midpoint location_M. However, Einstein claims that Observer2 observes the lightning strike B earlier than the lightning strike A. He claims such from “Observer2 moves towards the lightning strike B and observes the lightning strike B earlier than the lightning strike A”. He then states that Observer2 must conclude that the two lightning strikes were not simultaneous while Observer1 concludes that the two lightning strikes were simultaneous. He calls such the “relativity of simultaneity” for both observers. According to Einstein, moving observers will experience the relativity of simultaneity for events happening simultaneous. In contemporary science, Einstein’s thought experiment is still considered as a proof of that “relativity of simultaneity”. However, in this publication it will be demonstrated that his thought experiment is flawed and that his relativity of simultaneity claim is wrong. Moreover, this publication and the preceding publications (1-9) are part of a series of publications in the project being indicated at ResearchGate as “Karl Popper’s type of falsification, through theoretical and experimental anomalies, of multiple contemporary paradigms based on light phenomena”. From (1-5,8,9) it should be clear that multiple contemporary paradigms are flawed as a result of a massive experimental anomaly, proven by a straightforward laser experiment (1,3) (MWF2). Next to the experimental proof through that laser experiment, the multiple theoretical inconsistencies and anomalies reported in (1-5) also clearly show that numerous CS paradigms based on light are flawed and definitely should be reconsidered. When using photons in the analysis, such becomes evident. The extended publication (1) and the publications (2-9) are informing in more detail about the existence/proofs of multiple flawed paradigms within CS, as well about important applications (on our planet and in space) resulting from those views. All the information within the patent text on the RVMD, in the publications (1-9), in this publication and at the website was registered in front of a notary, therefore resulting in an author’s copy right protection.
(1) Etienne Brauns, “A shattered Equivalence Principle in Physics and a future History of multiple Paradigm Big Bangs in “exact” science ?”, my book
(2) ResearchGate D2 / (3) ResearchGate D3 / (4) ResearchGate D4 / (5) ResearchGate D5
(6) ResearchGate D6 / (7) ResearchGate D7 / (8) ResearchGate D8 / (9) ResearchGate D9
ResearchGate D11
Etienne Brauns, “On a significant systematic measurement error during photon based theodolite observations and also during hunting rifle scope based targeting”, July 2017, ResearchGate
https://www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/Theodolite_Scope_SystError_EBrauns.pdf
Abstract
In previous publications (1,2,3) (see the references below at the end of this Abstract) the experimental result of a straightforward laser experiment was discussed, thereby supporting the claim of the existence of a massive anomaly within CS with respect to the CS linked description of light (photon) phenomena in RS. In this short publication/communication some of the important practical consequences are discussed, regarding two applications on our planet. As a first application: theodolite measurements clearly will show a systematic error since being based on the use of photons which are subject on our planet to the lateral effect as described in detail and shown by experiment (MWF2) within (1,2,3). The considerable lateral systematic error can be of the order of 2 mm for a distance of 10 m between theodolite and surveyed object (thus 2 cm for a distance of 100 m ; 20 cm for a distance of 1000 m !). In a total analogous way it is obvious that the same type of systematic error is induced during hunting rifle scope targeting since such (tele)scope targeting is also based on the use of photons as a source of information on the location of the hunted target. It should be noticed that strictly and only a governmental laws regulated/allowed and sustainable/subsistence hunting is considered in this publication.
(1) Etienne Brauns, “A shattered Equivalence Principle in Physics and a future History of multiple Paradigm Big Bangs in “exact” science ?”, my book
(2) ResearchGate D2 / (3) ResearchGate D3