anti-relativist postulate in physics
by Erkki Hartikainen
March 17, 2017
- An ontological anti-relativist postulate
- New ideas
- Reasons for the rise of the relativity
- Our transformation
- Some history
- All these men were wrong
- If we do not know causes, all fittings
- The Einstein's special theory of the
relativity is wrong
- Mathematical geometries and the
- Two way measurements and one-way
- 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
- The postulate
- The corollary of the postulate
- What causes the maximum speed of the
- 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
- Constantly growing speed v and its
upper bound c
- 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
- 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
- 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?
- Wrong postulates of Einstein
- Will the light loose energy in the
empty gravitation free space?
- An enterprise to disprove the MOND
- Milky Way’s dark matter ‘turned on
- An answer to the critics
- What is the gravitation?
- The Lorentz - factor as a function of
- A proposal for the velocity curve with
- 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
Today I have found such. It is
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 1922, Alexander
derived his Friedmann
, showing that the Universe might expand at a rate
calculable by the equations.
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
for the rise of the relativity theory
The main source for the errors of the relativity
theories is the Lorentz
transformation which is invariant in the Maxwell
The Lorentz transformation is:
to = time without moving.
t = time during moving.
vo = velocity without moving.
v = velocity during moving.
c = two-way velocity of the electromagnetic
LO = length without moving.
L = length during moving.
The Lorenz factor is:
γ = 1/√(1 - β2)
t = t0/(1 - v2/c2)1/2
L = L0(1 - v2/c2)1/2
What is the Lorentz factor γ?
γ = 1/cos(arc sin(v/c).
D(arc sin(x)) = 1/cos(arc sin(x).
It is time to begin the to wonder.
Our factor is:
t = t0
L = L0
We have a charged particle velocity transformation:
a)(v-b*t²) = δ
a = c
= 299 792 458 m/s
We will explain the reasons for the
maximum of the velocities of the charged particles later.
Many physicists—including Woldemar
, and Hendrik
discussing the physics implied by these equations since 1887.
Early in 1889, Oliver
t hat the electric
spherical distribution of charge should cease to have spherical
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
In 1892, Lorentz independently presented the same idea in a more detailed
manner, which was subsequently called FitzGerald–Lorentz
explanation was widely known before 1905.
Lorentz (1892–1904) and Larmor (1897–1900), who believed the luminiferous
also looked for the transformation under which Maxwell's
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
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
inherent in his equations.
In 1905, Poincaré was the first to recognize that the transformation has
the properties of a mathematical
, 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
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
All these men were wrong
The two-way speed
of light is the average speed of light from one
point, such as a source, to a mirror and back again. Because the light
starts and finishes in the same place only one clock is needed to measure
the total time, thus this speed can be experimentally determined
independently of any clock.
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
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.
Michelson and Morley did not measure the one-way speed of the
They only measured the two-way speed of the light, and all
two-way speeds are only averages of the actual speeds.
are mostly independent of the other phenomenons of the
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
(empty of the matter, empty of the waves and empty of
of the wave
ν is the frequency of the wave
h is the Planck's constant
6.62607004 × 10-34
This is an empirical result.
If we do not know
causes, all fittings are irrelevant
Why there are much of supporters of Einstein's theories?
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:
- 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
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:
- 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
The Einstein's special
theory of the relativity is wrong
I 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.
and the reality
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
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
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.
Two way measurements and
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.
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 have no need to
measure the one-way speed of the light
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
The speed of the source
of the light has no effect to the two-way speed of the light
The speed of the source has no influence to two-way the speed of the
Part of the kinetic energy of the source transfers to the energy of the
The speed of the destination of the light causes a Doppler effect in
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
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.
the readers of this magazine know, I have always been an
It is difficult to explain why the relativism is wrong. For example the
famous Finnish mathematician Rolf
did not understand the essence of the relativism. He was
thinking that the relativism is true because it is simple.
good principle but it can not guarantee the truth of the empiric
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
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.
The corollary of the
The transition speed of the material body has an upper bound with one
exception: neutrinos. This is the speed of the one way electromagnetic
radiation in the empty space.
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
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
which have an electric charge because they are loosing
energy sending the electromagnetic
Most material bodies are made of fundamental
which have an electric charge. Neutrino
is an exception. Other neutral particles will decay to charged
s and neutrinos.
What causes the maximum
speed of the massive bodies?
Neutrinos can have the maximum one-way speed in the empty space
because neutrinos are only proper elementary particles without electric
charge. They can theoretically have a
speed which is greater than the one-way speed of the light.
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
m2 kg / s) and
ν is the frequency of the radiation.
Charged particles can not reach the one-way speed of the light because
they will send very large frequency radiation in the course. This will
take more and more energy in particle
as proved by CERN (European
Organization for Nuclear Research, physicists and engineers are probing
the fundamental structure of the universe
are not elementary particles. They are bound
s of quarks
Newtonian, relativistic, MOND
F = ma
F = μ(v)
F = μ(a)
noticed the following coincidence between the
value of the acceleration scale a0
, the Hubble
at the present epoch and the speed of light c.
≈ cHo .
≈ 1.2 x 10−10 m s−2
The relativistic postulate is wrong because we can not measure v
(we can not know our own v
only can measure the acceleration a
relativistic MOND exist:
F = μ(v,
My opinion is that it is wrong because it contains v.
proportional to a for
a > > a0 ≡ 2c(Λ / 3)1/2,
to a2 / a0 for a < < a0;
is a cosmological
theory without cosmological constant is:
Time is not clocks
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
F = ma(t).
that the time is a scalar. We can not shorten or lengthen the time. Of
course we can make different clocks.
What is the mass?
It is a constant m in the equation
F = ma(t).
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.
What is the speed?
It is a variable v
/dt = a
What is the distance x?
It is a variable x
/dt = v
Note that the distance x
vector variable. Of course the vector variable has its absolute value |v
What is the acceleration?
It is the variable a
/dt = a
If a is constant scalar then
v = at²/2 + C1
It graph is parabola:
A possible asymptote for
saturation of the velocity
Constantly growing speed v
and its upper bound c
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.
have no empirical support for any velocity equation, but I have
used hyperbola near maximum speed because Einstein's supporters
are using hyperbolic space.
What is a the place?
There is no place.
The place is an error of René
. There is no place in the physics. The place is an
imaginary help vector (0
) in the
First proposal for μ
there are much of
different proposals, for example:
μ(a/ao) = (1 + (ao/a)2)-1/2
Second proposal for μ
μ(a/ao) = 1
- 1/(1 + exp(-((ao/a)-b)))
Please make your own function.
Relativism is only an
effective theory, not an explanation
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.
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
Is the acceleration a
base quantity (not x, not v)?
It is not possible to
directly measure an exact one-way
is in principle invalid.
A possible base quantity is an acceleration
We can often measure the acceleration if we or our instruments are in the
accelerating body. The acceleration
makes us able to walk.
If we know the linear
acceleration as function
of the time we have a function a
and it is possible to calculate changes
in the one-way speed
If we have the linear
as a function
of the time, v
(t), it is possible
to calculate the distance.
gives us methods for curved motions.
There is no method to calculate the place.
the jerk a base quantity?
, also known
as jolt, surge, or lurch, is the
rate of change of acceleration
that is, the derivative
acceleration with respect to time, and as such the second
or the third
Jerk is a vector, and there is no generally used term to
describe its scalar
(more precisely, its norm
e.g. "speed" as the norm of the velocity vector).
According to the result of dimensional
of jerk, [length/time3], the SI
are m/s3 (or m·s−3); jerk can also be expressed
per second (g/s)
.It is possible that the
jerk is a base quantity.
Cosmography can teach us lot.
Even without the Einstein equations, symmetry and FRW this cosmology gives
you the Hubble law.
Condrad Ranzan writes
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
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
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
And so the experts now came up with another parameter. Yes, a fourth
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, H0 = 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.
Universe may not be
expanding after all
Theoretical physicist Christof Wetterich publishes paper 'a Universe
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
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
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
“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
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,”
“I think it’s fascinating to explore this
Hongsheng Zhao, a cosmologist at the University of St Andrews told Nature
“His treatment seems rigorous enough to be
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 and dark matter
and dark energy
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-
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
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
There is an absolute
is a space where the one-way speed of the light is maximum
and the path of the light is an Euclidean
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
The other empirical result is that the two-way speed of the light is a
two-way speed of the electromagnetic
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 is
only a structure of the human thinking. See what David
Why there is an
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
Perhaps it is theoretically possible to detect the existence of the
absolute space using four linearly
independent bodies and the one way light signal.
one-way speed of the neutrino is another empirical proof for the
existence of the absolute space. Note that there is a clock
There are no
There are no local spaces
(they are human illusions).
of the mathematics have nothing to do with the absolute space.
The laws of the
nature are not
For human beings it is impossible to prove that the laws
of the nature are universal
(See David Hume).
Albert Einstein made a
Empirical experiments show that the one-way speed of the neutrinos is
about same than the two-way speed of the electromagnetic radiation. This
disproves Einstein's special relativity theory (neutrinos have a mass).
Einsteins postulates are not valid and some of them disprove Einstein's special
He was thinking that it is possible to deduce some laws of the nature
using only human thinking (strict rationalism
The space is not
Einstein's supporters think that the distances
of the galaxies
Is the space
The space can not expand (We are using of the Euclidean
. 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:
The Olber's paradox
In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers'
, 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
It is possible that the energy
of the light
is coming back as background
of the space.
There are plenty of explanation for the Olbers paradox.
A 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.
is that it is absurd to assert that the empty space can
definition of the space must be Euclidean. We have no need for other
The absolute space is empty of matter, fields and waves.
Einstein made the circular
: The path of the light is curved follows the space is
curved follows that path of the light is curved.
is that the only cause for the curvature of the
path of the light
near massive object is the mass of the photon (It
is impossible to prove that a photon has no mass.). To say that the
gravitation has influence on mass-less objects is a maximum of the
stupidity. The mass of the photon is a simple and a good explanation for
the curved path of the light near mass.
The other good explanation is below:
You can invent your own explanation for the phenomenon.
Note that such detail needs no explanation.
The big bang
There is no explanation for the big
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
See the explanation below:
Other models for
Relativists think that the visible part of the universe is entire
universe. This postulate is arbitrary
We 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:
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
Only marginal evidence
for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae
Conclusion: there is not much of the dark matter.
The Lorenz contraction
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.
We can define the length in the absolute space to be the correct length.
The time dilatation
c=speed of the light
It is possible that the same clock has different speed in different
This has no consequences for the speed of the clock in rest in the
There is no time dilatation because the time is not clocks. It is a scalar
property of the universe.
The relativistic mass
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.
Garbage in Garbage out
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
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.
tests of ΛCDM and MOND
|galaxy rotation curve shapes
|surface brightness ~ Σ ~ a2
|galaxy rotation curve fits
|no size nor Σ dependence
|no intrinsic scatter
|Galaxy Disk Stability
|maximum surface density
|spiral structure in LSBGs
|thin & bulgeless disks
|tidal tail morphology
|Clusters of Galaxies
|velocity (bulk &
|big bang nucleosynthesis
|galaxy power spectrum
|first:second acoustic peak
|second:third acoustic peak
The precession anomaly
of the perihelion
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.
The new theory is:
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
Small corrections are simpler than to suppose Einstein's supporters dark
matter and dark energy.
Einstein's formula for
the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
Einstein's equation for Mercury’s relativistic perihelion
precession per orbit:
precession = (24π3a2)/( cT2(1 −
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:
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.
The singularity problem in the Einstein’s theory of gravity described
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
The equation of cosmology needs relativity revision. By using the
revised Newtonian formula of gravity, the revised equation of cosmology
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
We will not need the Einstein's relativity theory. We can get
same result for the anomaly of the precession of Mercury using paper
we will not need much of dark matter and dark energy.
Why we can not use wave
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.
What is energy?
You can not find a good definition from dictionaries
or from physics books.
energy of the electromagnetic wave has a good definition:
E = energy
h = Plank's constant (6.62607 x 10-34 J s),
ν = frequency.
other forms of energy are problematic.
There is energy transition between different material bodies.
Basic forms of the energy are:
There is rotational
is the angular velocity
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
E = ½mv2.
There is explosion
There is nuclear
Was gravitational wave
signal from a gravastar,
not black holes?
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 –
“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
“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
A crucial difference is that gravastars lack an event horizon. Instead,
photons can get trapped in a circular orbit around the gravastar, called a
“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,”
“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
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
I will predict that the relativist will win. The relativity theory
has much of circular arguments.
I hope that the following theory will win:
Wrong postulates of
Einstein formulated the two postulates of special relativity:
1. The Principle of Relativity
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
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.
Will the light loose
energy in the empty gravitation free space?
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
enterprise to disprove the MOND theory
Way’s dark matter ‘turned on its side’
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
“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
“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,”
“But maybe [Law] and collaborators are showing us that the formation
of the Milky Way disc was more complicated than previously
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.
An answer to the critics
The MOND theory does not deny the existence of the dark matter. It only
restricts the amount of the dark matter.
There are about 50 small galaxies
confirmed to be within 420 kiloparsecs
(1.4 million light-years
of the Milky Way, but not all of them are necessarily in orbit, and some
may themselves be in orbit of other satellite galaxies.
of them behaves against expectation many explanations are
possible. If somebody begins change the science using only one example
she/he is not a scientist.
Our knowledge of the dwarf galaxies of Milky Way is scarce.
What is the gravitation?
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
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.
The Lorentz - factor as a
function of β is
y = 1/√(1 - β2)
= 1/(1 - β2)
the U-shaped function (with negative mirror image).
A proposal for the
velocity curve with upper bound
a)(v-b*t²) = δ
This function has a horizontal asymptote
v-a and a parabolic asymptote v-bt².
is that this is a
better proposal than the Lorentz factor.
Which is neutrinos kinetic
If a neutrino has the linear speed c in the absolute space it has a
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.
Circular argument of
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...
The wrong arguments of
To have the maximum speed of the bodies Einstein uses transformation of
the length, transformation of the time and and the transformation of the
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's Dynamic
Tuomo Suntola has shown that we need only the Euclidean geometry in the