by Erkki Hartikainen

March 17, 2017

Jerk added.

- An ontological anti-relativist postulate
in physics
- New ideas
- Discussion
- Reasons for the rise of the relativity theory
- Our transformation
- Some history
- All these men were wrong
- Energy
- If we do not know causes, all fittings are irrelevant
- The Einstein's special theory of the relativity is wrong
- Mathematical geometries and the reality
- Two way measurements and one-way measurements
- We have no need to measure the one-way speed of the light
- The speed of the source of the light has no effect to the two-way speed of the light
- The main error of the relativity theory
- The postulate
- The corollary of the postulate
- What causes the maximum speed of the massive bodies?
- Force, Newtonian, relativistic, MOND
- Time is not clocks
- What is the mass?
- What is the speed?
- What is the distance x?
- What is the acceleration?
- A possible asymptote for saturation of the velocity
- What is a the place?
- First proposal for μ
- Second proposal for μ
- Relativism is only an effective theory, not an explanation
- Is the acceleration a base quantity (not x, not v)?
- Is the jerk a base quantity?
- Universe may not be expanding after all
- MOND and dark matter and dark energy
- There is an absolute space
- The causality
- Why there is an absolute space
- There are no local spaces
- The laws of the nature are not universal
- Albert Einstein made a mistake
- The space is not expanding
- The Olber's paradox
- A gravitational lens
- The big bang
- Other models for meta-galaxy
- Only marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae
- The Lorenz contraction
- The time dilatation
- The relativistic mass
- Garbage in Garbage out
- Summary table
- The precession anomaly of the perihelion of Mercury
- Einstein's formula for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
- New proposals
- Our conclusion
- Why we can not use wave lengths
- What is energy?
- Was gravitational wave signal from a gravastar, not black holes?
- Prediction
- Wrong postulates of Einstein
- Will the light loose energy in the empty gravitation free space?
- An enterprise to disprove the MOND theory
- What is the gravitation?
- The Lorentz - factor as a function of β is
- A proposal for the velocity curve with upper bound
- Which is neutrinos kinetic energy?
- Circular argument of Einstein
- The wrong arguments of Einstein
- Dr Tuomo Suntola's Dynamic Universe

Added March 17, 2017

Somebody (I do not know who) has written that I am a representative of the ontological materialism.

I am not sure that the philosophical ontology is necessary but I think that the ontological anti-relativism is a good name for my theory of relativity. In fact my theory of the relativity is not relativistic. Relativity is not a part of the reality. Relativity is a human illusion.

I am 74 years old (2016) and I had big difficulties to find functions from Internet for my problems: Internet teaches school mathematics or abstract university mathematics but not mathematics for everyday problems. I have had no help.

I have had big difficulties to find anti-relativism discussion forums and material.Today I have found such. It is

http://www.anti-relativity.com

Immanuel Kant said that the spiral
nebulae are outside of the Milky Way. The big bang theory
come to existence after Einstein's general theory of relativity.

In 1929, Hubble examined the relation between distance and red-shift of galaxies. Combining his measurements of galaxy distances with measurements of the red shifts of the galaxies by Vesto Slipher, and by his assistant Milton L. Humason, he found a roughly linear relation between the distances of the galaxies and their red-shifts, a discovery that later became known as Hubble's law.

The

β = v/c.

t_{o}= time without moving.

t = time during moving.v_{o}= velocity without moving.v = velocity during moving.c = two-way velocity of the electromagnetic

radiation.

L_{O}= length without moving.

L = length during moving.

The Lorenz factor is:

Time dilatation:

It is time to begin the to wonder.

Time

We have a charged particle velocity transformation:

(v -
a)(v-b*t²) = δ,

a = c

c = 299 792 458 m/s

c = 299 792 458 m/s

We will explain the reasons for the
maximum of the velocities of the charged particles later.

Early in 1889, Oliver Heaviside had shown from Maxwell's equationst hat the electric field surrounding a spherical distribution of charge should cease to have spherical symmetry once the charge is in motion relative to the ether.

FitzGerald then conjectured that Heaviside’s distortion result might be applied to a theory of intermolecular forces. Some months later, FitzGerald published the conjecture that bodies in motion are being contracted, in order to explain the baffling outcome of the 1887 ether-wind experiment of Michelson and Morley.

In 1892, Lorentz independently presented the same idea in a more detailed manner, which was subsequently called FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction hypothesis. Their explanation was widely known before 1905.

Lorentz (1892–1904) and Larmor (1897–1900), who believed the luminiferous ether hypothesis, also looked for the transformation under which Maxwell's equations are invariant when transformed from the ether to a moving frame.

They extended the FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction hypothesis and found out that the time coordinate has to be modified as well ("local time").

Henri Poincaré gave a physical interpretation to local time (to first order in v/c) as the consequence of clock synchronization, under the assumption that the speed of light is constant in moving frames.

Larmor is credited to have been the first to understand the crucial time dilation property inherent in his equations.

In 1905, Poincaré was the first to recognize that the transformation has the properties of a mathematical group, and named it after Lorentz.

Albert Einstein (above) only gave a new name for the local ether. In his general relativity theory he asserted that the ether is a curvature of the space itself.

Mathematics uses curved "lines" and several sciences are using geometries of curved "lines". The curved space is a bad meme, not the idea of the genius.

Although the average speed over a two-way path can be measured, the one-way speed in one direction or the other is undefined (and not simply unknown), unless one can define what is "the same time" in two different locations.

To measure the time that the light has taken to travel from one place to another it is necessary to know the start and finish times as measured on the same time scale.

This requires either two synchronized clocks, one at the start and one at the finish, or some means of sending a signal instantaneously from the start to the finish.

No instantaneous means of transmitting information is known. Thus the measured value of the average one-way speed is dependent on the method used to synchronize the start and finish clocks.

It is not intelligent to define the distance and the time using electromagnetic waves. It is not intelligent to define the time using technical clocks.

In this paper the distance and the time are distance and time in the empty absolute space (empty of the matter, empty of the waves and empty of the fields).

Energy of the wave is

E=hν

h is the Planck's constant

6.62607004 × 10^{-34} m^{2} kg
/ s

This is an empirical result.

When I was studying theoretical philosophy in the University of
Helsinki my teacher professor Oiva
Ketonen (above) said me that he has two reasons to believe
Einstein's theory of relativity:

**A**

- The anomaly in the perihelion precession of the planet Mercury.
- The phenomenon we call today an anomaly
in the gravity lensing effect.

These both are anomalies in the Newtonian
theory of the gravitation.

Einstein's theory of the gravity is no explanation for these
phenomenons. These phenomenons are a part of the set of postulates of
the Einstein's
theory of gravitation (the general relativity theory).

Einstein's supporters have no reason to try to explain these
phenomenons as a part of their theory.

There is no good explanation for the gravitation. The different laws of gravitation are fittings of the mathematics on the raw data. So we have the right to make our own fittings.

As my mathematics teachers in the University of Helsinki said, we can
fit everything using exponential polynomials. Today plotting programs
are using Bessel functions.

Einstein's supporters have two very big problems:

**B**

- The problem of the dark matter.
- The problem of the dark energy.

My opinion is that the problems **B** are more important than the
problems **A**. Problems **A** are details, problems **B**
have the size of the universe.

The classical MOND -theory of the gravitation will explain most speeds
in the galaxies.

The other good theory is

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdfI will prove it in this article. The two-way
constancy of the speed of the electromagnetic radiation and the
speed of neutrinos
will not support the Einstein's special theory of relativity.

We are living in an environment which has an Euclidean geometry.

We are living on a globe which is approximately a spheroid.

In spherical astronomy we are using spherical
geometry. Some of the ancient astronomers were thinking that
there is a sphere where the fixed stars are.

It is still possible to think that the Earth is the center of the
universe. In fact we will know no center of the university. If the
universe is finite it has barycenter (center of mass of two or more
bodies that are orbiting each other, or the point around which they both
orbit).

We can use Euclidean geometry in lieu of the spherical geometry in the
spherical astronomy but it is easier for the human brains to use the
spherical geometry.

Even if the postulates of the special relativity were true we can use
Euclidean geometry in lieu of the hyperbolic geometry.

My **opinion** is that even the postulates of the special
relativity are wrong.

Measurements regarding the speed of light have been measurements of the
**two-way speed of light.** The one-way speed of light depends on
which convention is chosen to synchronize the clocks. **There are no
good experiments for the one-way speed of the light.
**

**It is theoretically impossible to synchronize the technical clocks.**

** **

We define the speed of the light as a speed of the light relative the
absolute space. This speed is one-way speed. The speed of the light
defines the absolute space. It is a background supposition of this
article. It is not possible to verify empirically our background
supposition. It is enough that the consequences of our supposition are
not empirically disprovable.

It is impossible to measure the exact one-way speed of the light.

Many anti-relativists of today think that the speed of the light is not constant in an empty space. I am an anti-relativist who thinks that the two-way speed of the light is constant per definition because it is constant in the absolute space (empty space).

The two-way speed of the light is the maximum two-way speed to transfer energy in the empty space. This is a way to define the two-way speed of the electromagnetic radiation.

The cause of the inertia is that it takes time to transfer the energy to the body.

Is there a good version of the neutrino theory of the light?

**My opinion** is that if
there are material
parts in the photon they can be electrically
charged. The mass of the particles must be very small and perhaps
it is not possible to measure it.

The known speed of the light is so called **double-way speed** (for
mirrors) and such speed is a mean of the real speeds. There are no good
one way measurements for the speed of the light. Such measurement should
perform in the absolute space between galaxies.

The man has no ability to do such measurements.

We can suppose that the one-way speed between galaxies is same than our measured two-way speed of the light.

This supposition is based on the simplicity principle. We do not know any reason for different one-way speeds of the light in the space between galaxies.

The speed of the source has no influence to two-way the speed of the light.

Part of the kinetic energy of the source transfers to the energy of the light (Doppler effect).

The speed of the destination of the light causes a Doppler effect in the destination.

If we are measuring the **two-way** speed of the light in a body in
linear motion we will receive the same result than in the empty space.

The rotation of the source or the destination of the light causes only different selection of the ray in the destination or in the source.

The main error of the relativity theory is that it uses one-way speed of the light.

The string theory predicts small variations in the one-way speed of the light.

As the readers of this magazine know, I have always been an anti-relativist.

It is difficult to explain why the relativism is wrong. For example the famous Finnish mathematician Rolf Nevanlinna did not understand the essence of the relativism. He was thinking that the relativism is true because it is simple.Simplicity is a good principle but it can not guarantee the truth of the empiric proposition.

Rolf Nevanlinna and the other relativists did not understand the difference between the reality and the mathematics.

Mathematics without interpretation is empirically empty.

Relativism is not incoherent. The mathematics of the relativity is coherent. But this will not follow that the relativism is the empirically best theory.

I have the higher education in mathematics, theoretical philosophy and computer science. I have also studies in physics, chemistry, statistics and education.

I have not been earlier competent to express the main postulate of the anti-relativism.

Here it comes:

The transition speed of the energy has an upper bound. This is the one-way speed of the electromagnetic radiation in the empty space.

Remark: This is a one-way speed relative to the empty space. A speed of the body relative to the other body has an upper bound two times of the speed of the electromagnetic radiation. This is an observed phenomenon in explosions.

The only known source of explosions with maximum speed of the material bodies is probably the nuclear reaction.

I think that to know the maximal speeds of the material bodies we need nuclear tests in the Moon.

We know that there is an upper limit for the fundamental particles which have an electric charge because they are loosing energy sending the electromagnetic radiation.

Most material bodies are made of fundamental particles which have an electric charge. Neutrino is an exception. Other neutral particles will decay to charged particles and neutrinos.

All other leptons have a charge. All baryons have parts which have an electromagnetic charge.

Massive bodies will decay before reaching the one-way speed of the light in empty space.

- If we give much energy for a charged particle it will loose a part of the energy to the electromagnetic radiation.
- Energy of the radiation is: E = h ν
where E = energy, h is Plank's constant (6.62607004 × 10
^{-34}m^{2}kg / s) and ν is the frequency of the radiation.

Mesons are not elementary particles. They are bound states of quarks.

Old Newtonian

F = ma

New Newtonian

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdf

F = μ(v) ma

F = μ(a)
ma

or
more exactly

F =
μ(a/a_{o}) ma

Mordehai (Moti) Milgrom noticed the following coincidence between the value of the acceleration scale a

2πa_{o}
≈ cH_{o} .

a_{o}
≈ 1.2 x 10^{−10} m s^{−2}

The relativistic MOND exist:

F = μ(v, a) ma

My opinion is that it is wrong because it contains v.

MOND
inertia is
proportional to a for

*a* > > *a*_{0} ≡ 2*c*(Λ / 3)^{1/2},

and
to *a*^{2} / *a*_{0} for *a* < < *a*_{0};

**Λ
** is a cosmological
constant.

The
theory without cosmological constant is:

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdf

Time is not a fourth dimension (in physics, other sciences have
different definitions of the dimension). The dimensions
in the physics are x, y, and z of the Euclid's geometry.

Time is a variable t in the equation

F =
μ(a(t)/a_{0}) ma(t)

or
in equation

F = ma(t).

Note
that the time is a scalar. We can not shorten or lengthen the time. Of
course we can make different clocks.

**New
theory:**

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdf

It is a constant m in the equation

F =
μ(a(t)/a_{o}) ma(t)

or
in equation

F = ma(t).

Note
that the mass is a scalar constant. We
can not shorten or lengthen the mass. The
mass of the material body is a sum of the masses of elementary particles
in the body.

New theory:

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdf

dv/dt = a(t).

dx/dt = v.

Note that the distance x is a vector variable. Of course the vector variable has its absolute value |

dv/dt = a(t).

If a is constant scalar then

v = at²/2 + C

It graph is parabola:

v = velocity of the material body.

c = double-way velocity of the light.

t = time.

a = constant.

δ = constant.

The meaning of the last two constants is not my problem.

The last constant is empirical.

We have no empirical support for any velocity equation, but I have used hyperbola near maximum speed because Einstein's supporters are using hyperbolic space.

μ(a/a

x=a/a_{0}

μ(a/a_{o}) = 1
- 1/(1 + exp(-((a_{o}/a)-b)))

x=a/a_{0}

Please make your own function.

An
effective
theory is a theory which proposes to describe a certain set of
observations, but explicitly without the claim or implication that the
mechanism employed in the theory has a direct counterpart in the actual
causes of the observed phenomena to which the theory is fitted.

I.e.
the theory proposes to model a certain effect, without proposing to
adequately model any of the **causes**
which contribute to the effect.

Which is the cause of the constant two-way speed of the electromagnetic radiation?

A possible base quantity is an acceleration a.

We can often measure the acceleration if we or our instruments are in the accelerating body. The acceleration

If we know the linear acceleration as function of the time we have a function a(t) and it is possible to calculate changes in the one-way speed.

If we have the linear speed as a function of the time, v(t), it is possible to calculate the distance.

The vector calculus gives us methods for curved motions.

There is no method to calculate the place.

Is the jerk a base quantity?

I

j(d) =
D(a(t))/dt

According to the result of dimensional analysis of jerk, [length/time3], the SI units are m/s3 (or m·s−3); jerk can also be expressed in standard gravity per second (g/s)

.

Cosmography can teach us lot.

Even without the Einstein equations, symmetry and FRW this cosmology gives you the Hubble law.

Condrad Ranzan writes

(2008 July)

Every now and then it is enlightening to
check on the "progress" of conventional cosmology, which, as everyone
knows, embraces the expanding-universe model, popularly called the Big
Bang model.

The basic Big Bang has a parameter called the scaling factor. Think of it as the radius of the growing universe. It gets bigger as the Big Bang universe gets bigger.

Technically it is the derivative of this scaling factor that describes the rate with which the universe is expanding. It is a measure of the speed of the expansion of the expanding universe.

However, the model holds that the speed changes over time. For many years it was believed that the expansion speed was slowing down. But careful astronomical observations, notably in 1998, revealed that this was not the case. Expansion wasn't tapering off.

It seemed to be ramp up. Rather than abandon the model, the experts came up with accelerated expansion.

Henceforth they employed an acceleration parameter, which, technically, is the second derivative of the scaling factor. (If you are keeping count, that makes three parameters available for theory manipulation.)

As the story goes, the universe not only expands but it expands faster and faster.

A few years after that notable crisis of 1998 it was gradually revealed, through even more careful and ever deeper astronomical observations, that uniform accelerated expansion still wasn't the answer. (Now at this stage any conscious-and-rational person would have abandoned the Big-Bang ship especially since there are far superior models floating around.)

Having maintained a tradition of commitment going back as far as the 1920s when Lemaitre formalized the explosion-idea, abandonment was not an option.

And so the experts now came up with another parameter. Yes, a fourth adjustable factor!

Admittedly it is not very original. If you can't connect with the underlying reality of the expansion process at least you can connect with the differential calculus. Ready for this one? The new parameter is the third derivative of (you guessed it) the scaling factor. They call it the jerk parameter, and it means exactly what it says.

Now I assure you I am not making this up, and in a moment I will do more than assure you by providing the reference source.

The experts even tell us when, in the past of the Big Bang, this supposed "jerk" occurred. (It corresponds to z = 0.5 or about 5.4 gigayears ago when the universe was 9.2 gigayears old assuming a Hubble constant, H_{0} = 20 km/s/Mly.)

Think about this for a moment; a jerk-event occurred at some particular period of cosmic time.

A special identifiable time! What this means is that the BB universe now has no less than three special moments in time during its existence: The beginning time (t=0), the end-of-inflationtime, and the jerk time; all in violation of the cosmological principle (strong version)! It means a violation of the generally accepted rule that a real universe must have no special time or place.

Undeterred by considerations of preposterous and implausibility, a group of experts, using the latest high-z supernovae discoveries, presented their ideas for 'improvements' to the Big Bang. The research paper, authored by no less than 19 physicists/astronomers, was published in the Astrophysical Journal, June 2004. (See, Riess et al., ApJ 607, 665 (2004) http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402512 )

Their problem can be expressed this way:

For a growing collection of remote supernova events the redshift-distance curve does not agree with the magnitude-distance curve (magnitude = apparent brightness).

The challenge is to get the theoretical curve (the redshift-distance graph) to agree with the empirical curve (the magnitude-distance graph).

And that is why the scaling factor derivatives are so useful. If it is mathematically necessary to invoke a fourth or even fifth derivative of the scaling factor, to force-fit the curves, then so be it. The Big Bang, being, as it is, a mathematical model, literally cannot fail.

What we are witnessing in conventional cosmology is the "keeping up the appearances" in the best Ptolemaic tradition.

The basic Big Bang has a parameter called the scaling factor. Think of it as the radius of the growing universe. It gets bigger as the Big Bang universe gets bigger.

Technically it is the derivative of this scaling factor that describes the rate with which the universe is expanding. It is a measure of the speed of the expansion of the expanding universe.

However, the model holds that the speed changes over time. For many years it was believed that the expansion speed was slowing down. But careful astronomical observations, notably in 1998, revealed that this was not the case. Expansion wasn't tapering off.

It seemed to be ramp up. Rather than abandon the model, the experts came up with accelerated expansion.

Henceforth they employed an acceleration parameter, which, technically, is the second derivative of the scaling factor. (If you are keeping count, that makes three parameters available for theory manipulation.)

As the story goes, the universe not only expands but it expands faster and faster.

A few years after that notable crisis of 1998 it was gradually revealed, through even more careful and ever deeper astronomical observations, that uniform accelerated expansion still wasn't the answer. (Now at this stage any conscious-and-rational person would have abandoned the Big-Bang ship especially since there are far superior models floating around.)

Having maintained a tradition of commitment going back as far as the 1920s when Lemaitre formalized the explosion-idea, abandonment was not an option.

And so the experts now came up with another parameter. Yes, a fourth adjustable factor!

Admittedly it is not very original. If you can't connect with the underlying reality of the expansion process at least you can connect with the differential calculus. Ready for this one? The new parameter is the third derivative of (you guessed it) the scaling factor. They call it the jerk parameter, and it means exactly what it says.

Now I assure you I am not making this up, and in a moment I will do more than assure you by providing the reference source.

The experts even tell us when, in the past of the Big Bang, this supposed "jerk" occurred. (It corresponds to z = 0.5 or about 5.4 gigayears ago when the universe was 9.2 gigayears old assuming a Hubble constant, H

Think about this for a moment; a jerk-event occurred at some particular period of cosmic time.

A special identifiable time! What this means is that the BB universe now has no less than three special moments in time during its existence: The beginning time (t=0), the end-of-inflationtime, and the jerk time; all in violation of the cosmological principle (strong version)! It means a violation of the generally accepted rule that a real universe must have no special time or place.

Undeterred by considerations of preposterous and implausibility, a group of experts, using the latest high-z supernovae discoveries, presented their ideas for 'improvements' to the Big Bang. The research paper, authored by no less than 19 physicists/astronomers, was published in the Astrophysical Journal, June 2004. (See, Riess et al., ApJ 607, 665 (2004) http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402512 )

Their problem can be expressed this way:

For a growing collection of remote supernova events the redshift-distance curve does not agree with the magnitude-distance curve (magnitude = apparent brightness).

The challenge is to get the theoretical curve (the redshift-distance graph) to agree with the empirical curve (the magnitude-distance graph).

And that is why the scaling factor derivatives are so useful. If it is mathematically necessary to invoke a fourth or even fifth derivative of the scaling factor, to force-fit the curves, then so be it. The Big Bang, being, as it is, a mathematical model, literally cannot fail.

What we are witnessing in conventional cosmology is the "keeping up the appearances" in the best Ptolemaic tradition.

A theoretical physicist looks set to disrupt textbook concepts of cosmology, after producing a paper outlining his theory that the universe is not expanding after all.

The most widely accepted theory of the universe centers on the notion that the world started with a big bang, and has been expanding ever since.

But Christof Wetterich, a theoretical physicist at the university of Heidelberg, has produced a paper theorizing that the universe is not expanding, but the mass of all of its particles are instead increasing.

In his paper: A Universe Without Expansion, Wettrich discusses a cosmological model "where the universe shrinks rather than expands during the radiation and matter dominated periods".

His paper was published on the arXiv preprint server. In his abstract, he writes:

"Only
dimensionless ratios as the distance between galaxies divided by the
atom radius are observable. The cosmological increase of this ratio
can also be attributed to shrinking atoms."

In the 1920s, astronomers such as Georges Lemaitre and Edwin Hubble analyzed the light emitted or absorbed by atoms, which appeared in a spectrum of characteristic colors, or frequencies.

When matter moved away, they discovered that galaxies exhibited a shift to the red, lower frequency part of the spectrum.

After observing that most galaxies exhibit a red shift that became greater for more distant galaxies, they theorized that the universe was expanding.

However, Wetterich highlights that this light emitted by atoms is also determined by masses of the elementary particles, and in particular, their electrons.

If the mass of an atom increases, it emits more energetic photons. If the particles were to become lighter, frequencies would become red-shifted.

Writing in Nature News, Jon Cartwright explains:

“Because the speed of light is finite,
when we look at distant galaxies we are looking backwards in time —
seeing them as they would have been when they emitted the light that we
observe.

“If all masses were once lower, and had been constantly increasing, the colors of old galaxies would look red-shifted in comparison to current frequencies, and the amount of redshift would be proportionate to their distances from Earth.

“Thus, the redshift would make galaxies seem to be receding even if they were not.”

“If all masses were once lower, and had been constantly increasing, the colors of old galaxies would look red-shifted in comparison to current frequencies, and the amount of redshift would be proportionate to their distances from Earth.

“Thus, the redshift would make galaxies seem to be receding even if they were not.”

For Wetterich, the universe still expands rapidly during a temporary period called inflation, but before this inflation, the big bang no longer contains a ‘singularity’ where the density of the universe would be infinite. Instead, Cartwright continues,

“the big bang stretches out in the past
over an essentially infinite period of time".

“The current cosmos could be static or even beginning to contract,”

“The current cosmos could be static or even beginning to contract,”

he adds.

“I think it’s fascinating to explore this
alternative representation,”

Hongsheng Zhao, a cosmologist at the University of St Andrews told Nature News.

“His treatment seems rigorous enough to be
entertained.”

Unfortunately, the plausibility of this concept is currently impossible to test, but Wetterich argues it could be a useful concept to use when considering different cosmological models.

Mond explains almost all dark matter and dark energy. It does not explain all and Einstein's supporters have not loosed their faith.

There are natural explanations for some
dark matter and dark energy. Physicists say that black
holes (if there is black holes) can not explain the dark matter
but they can explain only a small amount of dark matter (source of X-
rays). Neutrino's
belong to the dark matter. Neutrino's have much of energy (dark energy).
The possible matter of the photons belong to the dark matter. Note that
the Newtonian
black holes are possible.

Einstein's supporters say that there can not be very big neutrinos but
it is impossible for man to know how much neutrinos there are.

**Other explanation without dark matter and dark energy is in the link
below:
**

** http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdf**

The space between galaxies is practically absolute space.

The two-way speed of the light is an empirical result and not a consequence of some postulates.

The other empirical result is that the two-way speed of the light is a two-way speed of the electromagnetic radiation in the empty space.

The absolute space can be empty. I think that it is empty. There is no aether in the absolute space. The aether in the absolute space is a ghost which is redundant.

(In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether, aether or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the postulated medium for the propagation of light)

To define the absolute
space we need an accurate one-way measurements of the light to different
directions outside of the earth and the Milky
Way (The Milky Way is the galaxy that contains our Solar System.).

It is impossible for man.

The causality

The causality is
only a structure of the human thinking. See what David
Hume said.

Why there is an absolute space

The constant
two-way speed of the light is an empirical proof for the existence
of the absolute space. Using two-way light signals we can make some (not
exact) measurements of time
and distance.

Perhaps it is theoretically possible to detect the existence of the
absolute space using four linearly
independent bodies and the one way light signal.

The maximum
one-way speed of the neutrino is another empirical proof for the
existence of the absolute space. Note that there is a clock
synchronization problem.

There are no local spaces

There are no local spaces
(they are human illusions).

The spaces
of the mathematics have nothing to do with the absolute space.

The laws of the nature are not

universal

For human beings it is impossible to prove that the laws
of the nature are universal
(See David Hume).

Einsteins postulates are not valid and some of them disprove Einstein's special relativity theory.

Albert Einstein was anthropocentric. He was thinking that it is possible to deduce some laws of the nature using only human thinking (strict rationalism).

Is the space expanding?

The space can not expand (We are using of the Euclidean space. Euclid said nothing of the expansion of the space.). A system of the material bodies can expand.

My opinion is that the real distances of the galaxies are not growing. Explanation is below:

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdf

In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758–1840) and also called the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe.

It is possible that the energy of the light is coming back as background radiation of the space.

There are plenty of explanation for the Olbers paradox.

The gravitational lens is a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant light source, matter that is capable of bending the light from the source as the light travels towards the observer.

The absolute space is empty of matter, fields and waves.

Einstein made the circular argument: The path of the light is curved follows the space is curved follows that path of the light is curved.

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdf

You can invent your own explanation for the phenomenon.

Note that such detail needs no explanation.

There is no explanation for the big bang.

My opinion is that there was no big bang. The cosmos we can see is a part of the infinite real cosmos.

The postulate of the big bang is an **arbitrary** but popular
proposal.

See the explanation below:

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdfWe have no deed to speak of the universe. We have a name for the visible part of the universe: meta-galaxy.

We will need only two extra postulates to have the cyclic meta-galaxy: the force which causes the expanding and the force which changes the expansion to the contraction.

If you will you can think that it is the same force.

The same force will stop the electromagnetic energy to escape to infinity.

The simplest formula for the volume V of the meta-galaxy is:

V(t) =
4/3 π r(t)^{3
}

The function r(t) can be for example

r(t) = a
sin(b t) + c.

You can discover your own function.

Note that the meta-galaxy can have a different form (for example an ellipsoid).

Note that the meta-galaxy can have a different form (for example an ellipsoid).

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596

Conclusion: there is not much of the dark matter.

L=length,

v=speed,

c=speed of light.

At this time there are no direct tests of length contraction, as measuring the length of a moving object to the precision required has not been feasible.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Length_Contraction.

t=time,

v=speed,

c=speed of the light

It is possible that the same clock has different speed in different environments.

This has no consequences for the speed of the clock in rest in the absolute space.

There is no time dilatation because the time is not clocks. It is a scalar property of the universe.

The only body with nothing electromagnetic is the neutrino.

The relativistic mass of the neutrino is absurd because the speed of
the neutrino is about same than the two-way speed of the light.

Other relativistic masses contain a wrong definition of the mass. The
mass is the mass in the absolute empty space.

An excellent example is an anti-relativist (Herbert Ives) who set out to prove relativity false and, by the end of the experiment, believed he had proven relativity correct.

This experiment is called the Ives-Stilwell experiment. He used a particle accelerator to measure the light emitted by hydrogen particles from the front and rear simultaneously by viewing the particles directly and from a mirror placed behind the moving particles.

The intent was to determine what, if any, was the difference between classical transverse Doppler effect and relativistic or Lorentzian transverse Doppler effect. Much to the consternation of Ives, the results matched the predictions of relativity.

Ives never realized that the particle accelerator was not using classical calculations to determine particle speed, but relativistic calculations.

Garbage in - Garbage out ...and the error has never been publicly recognized to this day.

**ΛCDM is a relativist astronomy.
**

**Observational
tests of ΛCDM and MOND**

Observational Test | Successful | Promising | Unclear | Problematic |

Spiral Galaxies |
||||

galaxy rotation curve shapes | X | X | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

surface brightness ~ Σ ~ a^{2} |
X | X | ||

galaxy rotation curve fits | X | X | ||

fitted M*/L | X | X | ||

Tully-Fisher Relation |
||||

baryon based | X | X | ||

slope | X | X | ||

normalization | X | X | ||

no size nor Σ dependence | X | X | ||

no intrinsic scatter | X | X | ||

Galaxy Disk Stability |
||||

maximum surface density | X | X | ||

spiral structure in LSBGs | X | X | ||

thin & bulgeless disks | X | X | ||

Interacting Galaxies |
||||

tidal tail morphology | X X | |||

dynamical friction | X | X | ||

tidal dwarfs | X | X | ||

Spheroidal Systems |
||||

star clusters | X X | |||

ultrafaint dwarfs | X X | |||

dwarf Spheroidals | X | X | ||

ellipticals | X X | |||

Faber-Jackson relation | X X | |||

Clusters of Galaxies |
||||

dynamical mass | X | X | ||

mass-temperature slope | X | X | ||

velocity (bulk & collisional) | X | X | ||

Gravitational Lensing |
||||

strong lensing | X X | |||

weak lensing | X | X | ||

Cosmology |
||||

expansion history | X | X | ||

geometry | X | X | ||

big bang nucleosynthesis | X | X | ||

Structure Formation |
||||

galaxy power spectrum | X | X | ||

empty voids | X | X | ||

early structure | X X | |||

Background Radiation |
||||

first:second acoustic peak | X | X | ||

second:third acoustic peak | X | X | ||

detailed fit | X | X | ||

early re-ionization | X | X |

The precession of the orbit is not peculiar to Mercury, all the planetary orbits precess. In fact, Newton's theory predicts these effects, as being produced by the pull of the planets on one another. The question is whether Newton's predictions agree with the amount an orbit precesses; it is not enough to understand qualitatively what is the origin of an effect, such arguments must be backed by hard numbers to give them credence. The precession of the orbits of all planets except for Mercury's can, in fact, be understood using Newton;s equations. But Mercury seemed to be an exception.

A long-standing problem in the study of the Solar System was that the orbit of Mercury did not behave as required by Newton's equations.

To understand what the problem is let me describe the way Mercury's
orbit looks. As it orbits the Sun, this planet follows an ellipse,but
only approximately: it is found that the point of closest approach of
Mercury to the sun does not always occur at the same place but that it
slowly moves around the sun (see Fig.). This rotation of the orbit is
called a precession.

The precession of the orbit is not peculiar to Mercury, all the
planetary orbits precess. In fact, Newton's theory predicts these
effects, as being produced by the pull of the planets on one another.

The question is whether Newton's predictions agree with the amount an orbit precesses; it is not enough to understand qualitatively what is the origin of an effect, such arguments must be backed by hard numbers to give them credence.

The precession of the orbits of all planets except for Mercury's can, in fact, be understood using Newton;s equations. But Mercury seemed to be an exception.

The laws of the gravity are result of systematic observations. If we have a new fact we must change laws. The MOND theory helped us to explain some movements in galaxies.http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdf

To explain the anomaly of the precession of the planet Mercury we will need a new correction to the Newtonian gravitation theory. We will not use Einstein's relativity theory but we will need a second correction to the Newtonian gravitation.

Small corrections are simpler than to suppose Einstein's supporters dark matter and dark energy.

See:

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdf

Einstein's equation for Mercury’s relativistic perihelion
precession per orbit:

*precession* = (24π^{3}a^{2)}/( cT^{2}(1 −
e ^{2})

where a is the semimajor
axis of Mercury’s orbit, c is the speed of light, T is the period
of Mercury’s orbit, and e is the
eccentricity of Mercury’s orbit.

We will copy here only the conclusions.

**You can read the original article using the following link:**

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdf

By transforming the geodesic equation of the Schwarzschild solution of the Einstein’s equation into flat space-time to describe, the revised Newtonian formula of gravity and the revised equation of cosmology are obtained.

Aleksandr Aleksandrovitš Fridman.

The singularity problem in the Einstein’s theory of gravity described
in curved
space-time is eliminated thoroughly. Because using two improper
and approximate conditions, the Friedmann
equation becomes the result of the Newtonian theory of gravity
actually. It is only suitable to describe the low speed expansive
processes of the universe, unsuitable to describe the high speed
expansion.

The equation of cosmology needs relativity revision. By using the
revised Newtonian formula of gravity, the revised equation of cosmology
is obtained.

The high red-shift of
supernova can be well explained. It is unnecessary for us to
introduce the hypotheses of the universe
accelerating expansion and dark
energy. It is also unnecessary for us to assume that
non-baryon dark material is 5 - 6 times more than normal baryon
dark material if it exists actually.

Many problems existing in cosmology including the problem of the universe
age can be resolved well. In this way, the theory of gravity
returns to the traditional form of dynamic description and becomes
normal one. The revised equation can be used as the foundation of more
rational cosmology.

We will not need the Einstein's relativity theory. We can get
same result for the anomaly of the precession of Mercury using paper

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdf

Wave length is
nothing more than an inverse of the frequency. We can not use wave
lengths in all distance measurements. We know that there are many
factors which can change the
frequency of the wave.

You can not find a good definition from dictionaries
or from physics books.

The energy of the electromagnetic wave has a good definition:

h = Plank's constant (6.62607 x 10-34 J s),

ν = frequency.

The
other forms of energy are problematic.

There is energy transition between different material bodies.

Basic forms of the energy are:

There is rotational
energy.

is the moment of inertia around the axis of rotation

is the kinetic energy

If we can find the absolute space there is kinetic energy of
material bodies.

E = ½mv^{2}.

There is explosion
energy.

Julian Stratenschulte/DPA/Corbis

By Jacob Aron

IT’S one surprise after another. The detection of gravitational waves announced earlier this year sent ripples through the world of physics. The signal was thought to come from two gigantic black holes merging into one, but now a group says it could have come from something even more exotic – a gravastar.

“An object almost as compact as a black hole, but with no event horizon, will vibrate in almost the same way“No one is disputing the first detection of gravitational waves. The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) team announced in February that it had seen these ripples in space-time predicted by Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity (see “How we found them: Inside a giant gravitational wave detector“).

“We’re not trying to say LIGO was wrong,” says Paolo Pani of the Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. But Pani and his colleagues say the signal might not have come from a black hole merger.

That’s because the LIGO signal breaks down into three phases. First there is the inspiral, which tells you two objects are getting closer as they orbit each other, changing the frequency of their gravitational waves. Next, there is the merger itself, in which the signal ramps up in intensity and frequency. Finally there’s the ringdown, a rapid drop-off as the merged black hole settles down and the wave fades.

In particular, this last phase would indicate the formation of a new event horizon, the region of space from which not even light can escape a black hole’s clutches.

“The common view is that when you see this ringdown, that is a signature of the horizon, because only black holes will vibrate in precisely that way,”says Pani. But his team shows there are other possibilities (Physical Review Letters, doi.org/bfrm).

One is a proposed alternative to black holes called a gravastar, a dense ball of matter kept inflated by a core of dark energy. We have never seen one, but all the evidence we have for black holes could also support their existence.

A crucial difference is that gravastars lack an event horizon. Instead, photons can get trapped in a circular orbit around the gravastar, called a light ring.

“If an object is almost as compact as a black hole, even if it doesn’t have an event horizon, it will vibrate almost the same way,”says Pani.

“The only difference appears at a very late time when the signal is small, so there is a chance LIGO will miss it.”

“Our signal is consistent with both the formation of a black hole and a horizonless object – we just can’t tell,”

says B. S. Sathyaprakash of Cardiff University, UK, who is part of the LIGO team. But if we can detect larger black holes merging, or a pair that is closer to us, it should settle the matter, he says.

“That’s when we can conclusively say if the late-time signal is consistent with the merged object being a black hole or some other exotic object.”

Ultimately, the black hole explanation is likely to win out, but it is worth double-checking, says Pani.

“As scientists, we try to play the devil’s advocate and not believe in paradigms without observational evidence.”

This article appeared in print under the headline “Have we glimpsed a gravastar?”

I hope that the following theory will win:

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJAA20120100001_75026122.pdf

1. The Principle of Relativity

The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

2. The Constancy of Speed of Light in Vacuum

The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.Both postulates are wrong.

- If Einstein will not only sit in a train but will look out
through window,
**many things outside of the train are different than in the train.** - Only
**two-way**speed is constant in the empty space.

**Has Einstein been traveling in a train without windows?**- There are no good
**one way measurements of the speed of the light in a train**.

No. If we are going towards the light we will get more energy than if we are going to the same direction than the light. Without relativity theory we need only simple Doppler effect equations.

Read amazing discussions in the internet!

By Rachel Courtland

The cloud of dark matter that is thought to surround the Milky Way may
be shaped like a squashed beach ball. This halo of invisible matter also
seems to sit at an unexpected angle – which could be a strike against a
theory that challenges Einstein’s account of gravity.

Dark matter is the stuff cosmologists invoke to explain why there
appears to be far less mass in the universe than they think there should
be. If they’re right, the Milky Way is embedded in a vast halo of the
stuff that is roughly 10 times as massive as all the galaxy’s stars and
gas combined. But the exact shape of this halo – which could bear traces
of the collisions that built the galaxy – is still unknown.

To seek clues for how the dark matter is distributed, David Law of the
University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues studied the path
of a shredded **dwarf galaxy called Sagittarius, which fell into our
galaxy more than 3 billion years ago. **They reasoned that the tug
of the Milky Way’s dark matter should have influenced the trajectory of
the stream of debris that formed as Sagittarius was torn apart.

The debris stream suggests the dark matter distribution is very
different to that of ordinary matter, says Law. Instead of mimicking the
Milky Way’s disc of stars, as simulations had suggested, the halo is
roughly perpendicular to the disc and is roughly half as thick as it is
wide.

“I have no idea how you form a disc in that orientation on these kinds of halos,”says Law, who presented the results on Monday at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Washington DC.

James Bullock of the University of California, Irvine, agrees that such
an orientation is somewhat unexpected. Simulations suggest that when
galaxies form by colliding and absorbing other galaxies, the influx of
material should produce dark matter halos that spin like a top. Ordinary
matter might conceivably go along for the ride and fall into the same
orientation.

“One might expect that the gas initially spins along with the dark matter, and then falls in to form [a] disc that spins in the same direction as the dark matter,”

Bullock said.

“But maybe [Law] and collaborators are showing us that the formation of the Milky Way disc was more complicated than previously envisioned.”

The new results may also strike a blow for alternative theories to dark matter. One, called modified Newtonian dynamics, or MOND, proposes that the effects of dark matter can be explained if gravity is stronger over large distances than Einstein proposed.

If MOND holds, the strength of the Milky Way’s gravity should be the same in every direction at large distances. But the path of the Sagittarius stream suggests the gravitational strength of the Milky Way varies with direction – distant objects above the plane of the Milky Way will feel a stronger tug than objects more in line with the sun.

“This would in fact support the cold, dark matter models of galaxy formation and rule out MOND,”

says Oleg Gnedin of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Erkki Hartikainen

The MOND theory does not deny the existence of the dark matter. It only restricts the amount of the dark matter.

There are aboutIf

Our knowledge of the dwarf galaxies of Milky Way is scarce.

It is a part of of the structure of the nature. We will not need general relativity theory. The Modified Newtonian gravitation will explain the dynamics of the Milky Way.

We do not need the knowledge of what is happening in the cosmos. My opinion is that the laws of Milky way are in force in all separate galaxies. We have no use for the explanation for the red-shifts of other galaxies. We will always live in our Milky Way.

and squared

y^{2}
= 1/(1 - β^{2})

is

the U-shaped function (with negative mirror image).

(v -
a)(v-b*t²) = δ

This function has a horizontal asymptote
v-a and a parabolic asymptote v-bt².

My opinion is that this is a better proposal than the Lorentz factor.

If a neutrino has the linear speed c in the absolute space it has a kinetic energy

E = mc²/2.

If two neutrinos with same mass will come from opposite directions with the speeds c and -c, the collision energy is

E = mc²/2 +m(-c)^{2}/2 = mc².

I will not guess what happens.

The circular argument of the general relativity is:

The path of the light is curved follows the space is curved follows the path of the light is curved...

To have the maximum speed of the bodies Einstein uses transformation of the length, transformation of the time and and the transformation of the mass.

As we have seen we will need only the transformation of the velocity.

Einsteins transformations have no causes from ordinary physics.

Our transformation uses properties of the charged particles.

Dr. Tuomo Suntola has shown that we need only the Euclidean geometry in the cosmology. See

http://www.physicsfoundations.org/founders/tuomo-suntola/foundations-of-physics/