PhysiLeaks adviced the discoverer of SURe and "writer" of New Physics/ SURe to present just following Information about himself:

 

Nationality: German 

German School: 1963-1975

German Military: 1975-1976 

German University: 1976-1983 German "Diplom" for chemistry with performance rating "very good" 

German University: 1983-1985 Doctorate  in physical chemistry/ kinetics with performance rating "very good"

University in England:1985-1986 Postdoctorial research about kinetics.

Employment: 1983-1985 Assistent University

                           1986          Scientific Consultant for waste water cleaning

                           1987-2014 Process Research Chemist at international  company with more than 50,000                                                      employees   (see employment reference letter below)

                           

Prologue by main author (O. Vogel)

 

 

 

When I started with physics as a hobby during my study of chemistry in 1980 I had no idea and could not imagine in my most spectacular dreams to which final result this will lead. I started with physics without any new ideas and without any intention to find something new. I just thought that it would be nice that I understand a little bit more about physics. I also had no intention to use a specific method to get knowledge about physics. It was many years later when I got knowledge about scientific method and I was rather surprised that the way I did physics was exactly the process which is known as scientific method. It was also a surprise that for every physical phenomenon which had an (for me) illogical or incomprehensible explanation I found a simple explanation by classical physics. And these were quite a few.

 

I had to stop my physical work in 2009 because of illness. Since 2015 I started again with support of my daughter. My daughter derived many new conclusions just by logical thinking. She had the genius idea to use the scientific principles for chemical reactions also for physics. This led to the largest breakthrough on the way to physical reality: the characterization of the omnipresent matter (aether by classical physics and dark matter by modern physics). By the omnipresent matter forces could be unified and in March 2017 this was published as “Vogel's Theory of Everything, VTOE“. After a severe brain attack and the death of my wife in summer 2017 I decided to stop all further activities concerning physics. But after a surprising contact to PhysiLeaks end of 2017 my daughter persuaded me to start again. PhysiLeaks found some inconsistencies of VTOE which we tried to eliminate. By this we got aware of the Universal Principles. I instantaneously had the feeling that this was greatest thing ever in history of physics. I communicated the findings to PhysiLeaks for review and we checked for several months whether all physical phenomenons are conform and thus explainable by the defined Universal Principles.

 

As we could not find anything in universe which does not work by Universal Principles, we are now sure that physics described by Universal Principles is the so called Scientific Universal Reality.

 

The finding with by far highest personal importance and impact for me is that the universe is not completely ruled by physics but by a superior force.

 

Another main conclusion of New Physics/ SURe is that you can’t trust “knowledge”, which has not been derived by scientific method, which means by unbiased observations. More than 50 % of physics is not derived by scientific method but by assumptions which are partly contrary to observations. Thus everyone who just draw logical conclusions about the rules of the universe by daily unbiased observations knows more about the reality of the universe than someone who studied physics. Mankind urgently needs a new education system, which teaches how to do unbiased descriptions of observations and how to apply scientific method, which means how to draw logical conclusions to define general rules. Knowledge based on assumptions has a high potential to be no reality and often leads to fatal errors. I have experienced this during my work for a big chemical company. When I got the additional responsibility for the production process I was a bit skeptical as I had zero knowledge about process technology and the job was challenging as it was a continuous production process and each little instability or problem caused tons of waste production and thus high costs. There were lots of descriptions (knowledge) how to run the process particularly during transitions to other product types. Lots of adjustments of all kind of parameters and lots of corrective actions in case of problems were specified and partly had to be specified new for each transition. When I started to study the “knowledge” of process control I quickly got aware that I did not understand the documented actions.. So I stopped the study and instead had a thorough look to the data system of the process. By this I derived the effects of adjustments of each parameter. The result was that at the end I replaced the extreme complicated adjustment process (documented in lots of papers) by a systematic adjustment process of just three parameters. I put this general process for adjustments in a data system and since then the operators could print out an extreme simple transition procedure by the input of the types of product to be produced. In addition the transition times were significantly reduced and the process showed record run times without instabilities. So I downgraded the “high valued and complicated work of a process engineer to “nothing”. It is understandable that no professional likes to downgrade his work by simplifications. Another main task of a process engineer is problem solving. For this in some cases it is beneficial to have knowledge and experience. But the reality was that also for problem solving I was much more successful than my colleagues although I had no knowledge and experience. The reason is that I was trained to do unbiased observations. So I did not trust advises by colleagues which were based on assumptions. For each problem I did an extended data analysis of the process system and found the unbiased solutions of the problem.

 

I do not mention this story to describe my achievements. Fact is that my intellectual capabilities are much lower than most physicists or engineers. The only difference is that I strictly apply scientific method, have the courage to admit when I don’t understand something and draw the correct conclusions about non-understanding: no reality. Most scientist think that they have to understand everything, so also those issues which are not understandable due to irreality. The result: More than 50% of physics is irreality.

 

 

 

Ottokar Vogel,

 

September 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Prologue by Co-Author (J. Vogel)

 

 

 

 

 

When my father asked me to be a co-author for a book about physics, I laughed and said to him:“Oh yes, with pleasure, but I think a co-author should do more than to correct typing errors or bad expressions. I am no teacher of physics. I don't know anything about physics and I did never understand physics.“ But my father answered: “That's exactly the problem. I also don't understand physics. My firm belief is, that everything which is not understandable is no reality. I want to understand what is really going on in universe. I want to get knowledge about the mechanisms of the universe and I don't accept any physical mechanisms to be reality if it is not logical and understandable. So I need someone who can draw logical conclusions. For this I don't need a physicist. Physics is just a specific language for specific scientists. Physicists understand and can speak this language, but that does not mean that they understand the universe. Specific languages are used in all sciences and the only purpose is to be identified as scientist. When people say or think that they can well understand physics that refers exclusively to the understanding of the language and does not mean that they understand the basic mechanisms and causal relations of the universe. By use of special scientific terms it is much more difficult to detect inconsistencies. But the purpose of scientific work is to eliminate inconsistencies. So the use of specific terms and languages strongly hinders scientific work. Unfortunately you as a teacher support this nonsense. The main thing what you teach in school is the understanding and use of scientific terms and not the strategy to define understandable and logical mechanisms. Teaching natural sciences is teaching specific languages and not teaching how to do effective scientific working. The use of technical terms are mostly not necessary as there are often also "normal" terms.  The banal learning of scientific vocables is due to the current school system. You can't escape this system, because it is an autocratic system.

 

I will show you, that all physical observations can be described by normal language, so that you know what is meant. So I will describe for you some physical observations without any bias (inclusions of physical hypotheses) and you have just to support me to find out by logical thinking which is the common and logical (=well understandable) mechanism for these.“

 

Although I was very skeptical it really worked. Without any knowledge about physics we could define understandable mechanisms and correlations. My father could describe physical observations and experiments, so that I understood things which I would have never understood by descriptions of physicists or by reading of physics books. There was even a great advantage for me, because my ideas for solutions were not biased by physical theories, because I had very little physics in school. My support for my father was really something which was comparable to the tasks of IQ tests. For example look at three consecutive pictures, find out the general rule for these pictures and apply the general rule to define the following picture. So its true: You don't have to know anything about physics to work-out the physical reality of the universe. Of course my father had to include again some physical terms in his writings, so that it looked like physics.

 

In March 2017 we published “Vogel’s Theory of Everything, VTOE”, which was rather disappointing because despite of many solutions for physical inconsistencies we got aware after several weeks that there were also lots of issues, which showed to be not valid. In summer 2017 we stopped all work on physics because of a severe brain attack of my father and the death of my mother. In autumn 2017 I got aware that my father had been contacted by a group of physicists which provided lots of comments concerning our published book and in addition interesting additional information which can be regarded as “insider” information. The group asked my father to use all provided information for an update of “VTOE”, which should be renamed to “New Physics”. My father was not interested/able to continue doing physics, but finally I could persuade him to use the scientific work to get distracted from sad thoughts.

 

This worked quite good and finally we managed to define few well understandable general rules called Universal Principles, which were conform to all regarded observations. These were successfully checked by the group of physicists. I can’t judge it but the result seems to be a very big thing.

 

Finally I want to mention, that I always was against any inclusion of wordings, which might appear negative concerning physics or physicists. Also my father never spoke negatively about physicists and still admires their intellectual skills. He knows well about all the circumstances which led to current bad situation of physics. All negative utterances about physicists came from members of PhysiLeaks, who seem to have really bad personal experiences.

 

 

 

Janika Vogel,

 

December 2018