# An ontological anti-relativist postulate in physics

by Erkki Hartikainen

March 17, 2017

1. An ontological anti-relativist postulate in physics

## New ideas

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.

## Discussion

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 1922, Alexander Friedmann derived his Friedmann equations from Einstein's field equations, 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 law.

## Reasons 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 equations.

The Lorentz transformation is:

β = v/c.
to = time without moving.
t  = time during moving.vo = velocity without moving.v  = velocity during moving.c  = two-way velocity of the electromagnetic      radiation.LO = length without moving.L  = length during moving.

The Lorenz factor is:

γ = 1/√(1 - β2)

Time dilatation:

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 transformation

Our factor is:

1

Time

t = t0

Length

L = L0

We have a charged particle velocity transformation:

(v - a)(v-b*t²) = δ,

a = c
c = 299 792 458 m/s

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

## Some history

Many physicists—including Woldemar Voigt, George FitzGerald, Joseph Larmor, and Hendrik Lorentz himself—had been discussing the physics implied by these equations since 1887.

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.

## 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 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.

Michelson and Morley did not measure the one-way speed of the light. They only measured the two-way speed of the light, and all two-way speeds are only averages of the actual speeds.

## Energy

Electromagnetic waves are mostly independent of the other phenomenons of the physics.

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
ν is the frequency of the wave
h is the Planck's constant

6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s

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:

A

1. The anomaly in the perihelion precession of the planet Mercury.
2. 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

1. The problem of the dark matter.
2. 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.pdf

## 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.

## Mathematical geometries 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 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.

## Two way measurements and one-way measurements

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 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 between galaxies.

## 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 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

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 postulate

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.

## The corollary of the postulate

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.

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.

## 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.
1. If we give much energy for a charged particle it will loose a part of the energy to the electromagnetic radiation.
2. 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 accelerator as proved by CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research, physicists and engineers are probing the fundamental structure of the universe).

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

## Force, Newtonian, relativistic, MOND

Old Newtonian

F = ma

New Newtonian

Relativistic

F = μ(v) ma

MOND

F = μ(a) ma

or more exactly

F = μ(a/ao) ma

noticed the following coincidence between the value of the acceleration scale a0, the Hubble constant Ho at the present epoch and the speed of light c.

2πao ≈ cHo .

ao ≈ 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), we only can measure the acceleration a.

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 > > a0   2c(Λ / 3)1/2,

and to a2 / a0  for a < < a0;

The 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 equation

F = μ(a(t)/a0) 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:

## What is the mass?

MOND:

It is a constant m in the equation

F = μ(a(t)/ao) 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.

## What is the speed?

It is a variable v in the differential equation

dv/dt = a(t).

## What is the distance x?

It is a variable x in the differential equation

dx/dt = v.

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

## What is the acceleration?

It is the variable a in differential equation

dv/dt = a(t).

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-c)(v-at)=  δ.

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.

## What is a the place?

There is no place. The place is an error of René Descartes. There is no place in the physics. The place is an imaginary help vector (0) in the mathematics.

## First proposal for μ

For  μ(a/ao) there are much of different proposals, for example:
μ(a/ao) = (1 + (ao/a)2)-1/2

x=a/a0

y= μ

## Second proposal for μ

μ(a/ao) = 1 - 1/(1 + exp(-((ao/a)-b)))

x=a/a0

y= μ

## Relativism is only an effective theory, not an explanation

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?

## Is the acceleration a base quantity  (not x, not v)?

It is not possible to directly measure an exact one-way speed. MKSA system is in principle invalid.

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 g makes us able to walk.

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

The vector calculus gives us methods for curved motions.

There is no method to calculate the

## Is the jerk a base quantity?

I
physics, jerk, also known as jolt, surge, or lurch, is the rate of change of acceleration; that is, the derivative of acceleration with respect to time, and as such the second derivative of velocity, or the third derivative of position.

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

Jerk is a vector, and there is no generally used term to describe its scalar magnitude (more precisely, its norm, e.g. "speed" as the norm of the velocity vector).

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).

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.

(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, H0 = 20 km/s/Mly.)

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 without expansion'

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.”

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 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 and dark matter and dark energy

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

## There is an absolute space

The absolute space is a space where the one-way speed of the light is maximum and the path of the light is an Euclidean line.

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).

## Albert Einstein made a mistake

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 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).

## The space is not expanding

Einstein's supporters think that the distances of the galaxies are growing.

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.

## A gravitational lens

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.

My opinion is that it is absurd to assert that the empty space can be curved. The definition of the space must be Euclidean. We have no need for other definitions.

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.

My opinion 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:

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

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 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.pdf

## Other models for meta-galaxy

Relativists  think that the visible part of the universe is entire universe. This postulate is arbitrary but popular.

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:

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).

## Only marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae

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

Conclusion: there is not much of the dark matter.

## The Lorenz contraction

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.

We can define the length in the absolute space to be the correct length.

## The time dilatation

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 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 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.

## Summary table

ΛCDM is a relativist astronomy.

Observational tests of ΛCDM and MOND

X X X Observational Test Successful Promising Unclear Problematic Spiral Galaxies galaxy rotation curve shapes surface brightness ~ Σ ~ a2 galaxy rotation curve fits fitted M*/L Tully-Fisher Relation baryon based slope normalization no size nor Σ dependence no intrinsic scatter Galaxy Disk Stability maximum surface density spiral structure in LSBGs thin & bulgeless disks Interacting Galaxies tidal tail morphology dynamical friction tidal dwarfs Spheroidal Systems star clusters ultrafaint dwarfs dwarf Spheroidals ellipticals Faber-Jackson relation Clusters of Galaxies dynamical mass mass-temperature slope velocity (bulk & collisional) Gravitational Lensing strong lensing weak lensing Cosmology expansion history geometry big bang nucleosynthesis Structure Formation galaxy power spectrum empty voids early structure Background Radiation first:second acoustic peak second:third acoustic peak detailed fit early re-ionization

## The precession anomaly of the perihelion of Mercury

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.

The new theory is:

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 formula for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury

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

precession = (24π3a2)/( cT2(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.

## New proposals

We will copy here only the conclusions.

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.

## Our conclusion

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

and

we will not need much of dark matter and dark energy.

## Why we can not use wave lengths

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.

The energy of the electromagnetic wave has a good definition:

E=hν
E = energy
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 angular velocity
${\displaystyle I\ }$ is the moment of inertia around the axis of rotation
${\displaystyle E\$ is the kinetic energy

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

E = ½mv2.

There is explosion energy.

There is nuclear energy.

## Was gravitational wave signal from a gravastar, not black holes?

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.”

## Prediction

I will predict that the relativist will win. The relativity theory has  much of circular arguments.

I hope that the following theory will win:

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

## Wrong postulates of Einstein

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 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.

1. 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.
2. 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 internet!

## An enterprise to disprove the MOND theory

### Milky 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 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.

### An answer to the critics

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 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.

If one 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 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.

## The Lorentz - factor as a function of β is

y  = 1/√(1 - β2)

and squared

y2  = 1/(1 - β2)

is

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

## A proposal for the velocity curve with upper bound

(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.

## Which is neutrinos kinetic energy?

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.

## Circular argument of Einstein

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 Einstein

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's Dynamic Universe

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/