New Theory of Gravitation
"We do not need a new theory because our present one explains everything".
Tom van Flandern  p. 29.
It describes gravity as a property of the geometry of space and time, or space time.
In particular, the curvature of space time is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present.
The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.
F = Gm2m2r-2
F = Keq1q2r-2
The strong equivalence principle (SEP) suggests the laws of gravitation are independent of velocity and location.
In our frame both equivalence principles are wrong.
We define that the gravitation is the force between masses. We assume that all particles (including bosons) have masses.
Inertia needs another explanation.
Orest Chwolson is credited as being the first to discuss the effect in print (in 1924).
Fritz Zwicky posited in 1937 that the effect could allow galaxy clusters to act as gravitational lenses. It was not until 1979 that this effect was confirmed by observation of the so-called "Twin QSO" SBS 0957+561.
We define that the object has a mass is the gravitation has the effect to the object.
The gravitation is the cause of the bending of the light. The light has the gravitational mass. The electromagnetic radiation has the gravitational mass.
After making the condensate, Hau and her co-workers began looking for ways to use it. They realized that if they massaged the condensate just right with laser beams, they could make light pass through the previously opaque condensate. And they found that the massaged condensate could slow light more effectively than any material ever discovered.
They used an electromagnet to suspend a cigar-shaped condensate, 0.2 millimeters (0.008 inches) long, inside a vacuum chamber. They first illuminated the cigar from the side with a finely tuned laser beam (the 'coupling' beam), and then shot a pulse of laser light along the long axis of the cigar. The pulse slowed down and compressed as soon as it reached the altered condensate. Hau worked late nights in the lab for a year, trying to perfect her experimental system for slowing light.
Finally, in March 1998, she began to see the light slow down. “I thought, 'gee, you are the first person to see light go this slowly,'” she said. That summer, when she flew to Copenhagen, she realized that she was traveling faster than her light beams. That fall, when she succeeded in getting light to travel at the speed of a bicycle, she decided to publish her results.
This year (2001), her group took its experiments a step further by getting light inside a Bose-Einstein Condensate to stop completely. While the light pulse was totally compressed and contained entirely within the condensate, the team abruptly turned off the coupling laser. This adjustment left the light trapped inside. When they turned the coupling laser back on, the original light pulse came out the other end. “We can park a light pulse in the cloud for a millisecond,” Hau said. “It might sound short to you, but it's really long - long enough for light at its normal speed to travel 300 kilometers - and there's no doubt that we can get the storage times up.”
American Physical Society ©2012Which is the mass of the photon when it is stopped?
Einsteinians say that the photon is absorbed, but if the photon is practically in rest has it a mass?
Matter, strong definition: (Non Einsteinian definition): everything which can be influenced by the gravitation.
Matter, weak definition: everything which can influence or to be an object of the influence.
Mass, existence: An object has the mass if it the gravitation effects to the object.
To begin with, the speed of gravity has not been measured directly in the laboratory. The gravitational interaction is too weak, and such an experiment is beyond present technological capabilities.
The speed of gravity must therefore be deduced from astronomical
observations, and the answer depends on what model of gravity one uses to
describe those observations.
If the gravitation has a finite speed and if our
meta-galaxy is expanding then the gravitation of the distant
galaxies is not effecting us.
If the gravitation has a finite speed, we have same
problems and paradoxes as with the special relativity theory of
Einstein. Now we have no more general theory to solve the
For example, even though the Sun is 500 light seconds from the Earth, Newtonian gravity describes a force on Earth directed towards the Sun's position "now," not its position 500 seconds ago.
Putting a "light travel delay" (technically called "retardation")
into Newtonian gravity would make orbits unstable, leading to
predictions that clearly contradict Solar System observations.
Gravity propagates at the speed of light. See Walter Orlov, 2011.
In Albert Einstein's general relativity theory gravity "propagates at the speed of light"; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of space-time that moves outward at light speed.
This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from Newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple. In Albert Einstein's general relativity gravity is not a force, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky.
Some theories of gravitation suppose that there is no gravitation (the curvature of the space will explain the gravitation).
The answer depends on what model of gravity one uses.
The argument is also referred to as the "dark night sky paradox" The paradox states that at any angle from the Earth the sight line will end at the surface of a star. To understand this we compare it to standing in a forest of white trees. If at any point the vision of the observer ended at the surface of a tree, wouldn't the observer only see white?
This contradicts the darkness of the night sky and leads many to wonder why we do not see only light from stars in the night sky.
The maximum speed of the light is not known.
The Einsteinian speed of the light is 299,792.458 m/s (definition, not a measurement).
The minimum speed of the light is 0.
Lene Vestergaard Hau (born in Vejle, Denmark, on November 13, 1959) is a Danish physicist.
In 1999, she led a Harvard University team who succeeded in slowing a beam of light to about 17 meters per second, and, in 2001, she was able to momentarily stop a beam.
She was able to achieve this by using a very cold super-fluid.
It is possible that there is such super-fluid in the space.
What happens when the sopped radiation begins to move?
Einsteinians say that the light is absorbed after stopping and emitted again after stopping. Do you believe this assertion?
In the paper to be published in Nature, Soderberg and 38 colleagues show that the energy and pattern of the X-ray outburst is consistent with a shock wave bursting through the surface of an exploding star, which gave birth to the supernova now known as SN 2008D.
A fascinating conclusion from the theoretical modeling of this outburst is that a thin outer layer must have been ejected at velocities up to about 70-percent the speed of light. This speed is much higher than previously known for the bulk of the stellar envelope, which moves at only up to 10-percent the speed of light," said Peter Meszaros, Holder of the Eberly Family Chair in Astronomy and Astrophysics and Professor of Physics at Penn State and leader of the theory team for Swift.
Which is the velocity of the emitted radiation?
Moritz Schlick (1882–1936)studied physics at Heidelberg, Lausanne, and, ultimately, the University of Berlin under Max Planck. In 1904, he completed his dissertation essay, "Über die Reflexion des Lichts in einer inhomogenen Schicht" ("On the Reflection of Light in a Non-Homogeneous Medium").
Schlick was the founder of the logical empiricism. Finnish philosopher Eino Kaila (1890-1958) used first the words "logical empiricism".
Logical empiricism opposed Kantian philosophy.
Schlick was helping Albert Einstein to create the philosophy of the theory of relativity and gravitation in his book Raum und Zeit in der gegenwärtigen Physik (2nd ed. 1919; Space and Time in Contemporary Physics, 1920).
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) writes in his book The Meaning of Relativity, 1921, p.2:
"The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they serve to represent the complex of our experience: beyond this they have no legitimacy. I am convinced that the philosophers have had a harmful effect upon the progress of scientific thinking in removing certain fundamental concepts from the domain of empiricism, where they are under our control, to intangible heights of the a prior. For even it should appear that the universe of ideas cannot be deduced from experience by logical means, but is, in a sense, a creation of the human mind, without which no science is possible, nevertheless this universe of ideas is just as little independent of the nature of our experiences as clothes are of the form of the human body. This is particularly true of our concepts of time and space, which physicists have been obliged by the facts to bring down from the Olympos of the a prior in order to adjust them and put them in a serviceable condition."
Sovelletun matematiikan peruskurssi 1968 (The Basic Course of the Applied Mathematics):
We will take the field of the ordinary complex number coefficients C and we will form using these components and 2n symbols Ea, Fa (a = 1,2,...,n) all possible polynomials, it is, all expressions which are composed of the elements of the field C and the quantities Ea, Fa using finite number of additions, subtractions and multiplications. This set of the polynomials is a tensor ring and we will denote it
C[E1,E2, ... ,En, F1, F2, ... , Fn]
Used mathematics looks simple, and it is simple, but it is very hard to remember it. It is very hard to understand the connection between this mathematics and the reality.
Albert Einstein had difficulties to learn the concept of tensor.
Tensors are mathematical objects which are invariant in multilinear mappings.
If we will have much of invariant objects we can use mathematics which looks simple but has a stratified complexity.
Another possibility is to use really simple mathematics and to have less of invariance.
To avoid numerical parameters we can try to use more dimensions or the curved space.
The string theories and the relativity theory of PhD. Tuomo Suntola are using extra dimensions.
Albert Einstein is using curved space and some extra dimension (-ct).
It is possible to use both much of dimensions and curved spaces.
But we can not say, that the result is really simple.
ui* · uj* = uj* · ui* = gij
where gij is a component of a second rank tensor is called the fundamental tensor.
gij = δij
where δij is Kronecker's delta symbol.
g11 = -c2the gravitation is not time dependent.
F = f(m2,m2,r).
If the speed of the gravitation is finite, the gravitation is time dependent and the original equation needs corrections and the result has the form
F = f(m2,m2,r,t)can be local.
If the gravitation is universal, the causes of the gravitation can be universal.
The gravitation can be both local and universal.
"The problem of the character of gravitation is approached by discussing three main possible modes of action from the historical, theoretical and empirical standpoints.
The “Newtonian” mode of action -at-a-distance (AAAD)—in which Newton himself did not believe—is followed through three centuries, though the aim is not historical accuracy.
This approach includes several Weber-type theories of velocity-dependent action; these are found to be compatible with or transformable to the mode of the “material field local action” (MFLA).
The historical roots of the mode of relativistic local action (RLA) are sketched, and it is criticized on both conceptual and empirical grounds.
For the MFLA mode, a new theoretical framework is presented by giving a summary of equilibrium cosmology (EC) recently developed by the author.
In EC, gravitation is an equilibrium process providing energy balance in systems of baryonic matter, while electromagnetic radiation is the contrary effect.'
Gravitation on a body is a pressure effect of gravitational quanta (gravitons) conducted from the background field by the gravitation field of the body.
The formation of the field is outlined. Gravitons and photons interact via electrogravitational coupling (EGC), which causes the redshift effect and an analogous weakening of gravity, as well as the cosmic background radiation which is a re-emission equilibrium effect.
From pressure-induced gravitation and EGC, a dynamical theory (EGD) can be constructed which unifies the gravitation effects in systems on different scales; until now, numerous ad hoc hypotheses had been necessary to explain the effects.
When EGD is applied to the two-body problem, Newton’s law is obtained directly. In it the force is a sum of two equal terms which are due to the two fields of graviton flow into the bodies, which are mutually screened by the second body.
While gravitation is basically not an attractive
but rather a repulsive pressure force, the two-body attraction results from the screening effect.
The dilemma of a distant action versus a local action character of gravitation receives a simple but unexpected solution: both are true.
While the momentum due to the pressure of gravitons flowing towards the second body has a distinctly local character, the momentum obtained due to the screening of the body’s own field by the second body is an action at the distance of that body.
Both are expressions of a single interaction between the mass systems and the background field."
Newton saw that the gravitational force between bodies must
depend on the
The constant G is a quantity with the physical
dimensions (length)3/(mass)(time)2; its numerical value
depends on the physical units of length, mass, and time used.
The force acts in the direction of the line joining the two
bodies and so is represented naturally as a vector, F.
The attractive force of a number of bodies of masses
M1 on a body
of mass M is
where Σ1 means that the
forces due to all the attracting bodies must be added together
This is Newton’s gravitational law essentially in its original
Consider two spherical bodies B1 and B2 with masses m1 and m2, radii R1 and R2 separated by a distance r.This is an Le Sage -type explanation but if you have a better explanation send it to me.
The inflow of cosmic objects onto B1, which is partially blocked by B2, which covers a fraction A2/(2π) of the sky on B1; A2=(πR22)/r2 is the solid angle on B2 seen from B1.
This brings about B1 a change of momentum towards B2, i.e. a net force,
S1 = (η2m1A2)/(2π) (η2m1R22)/(2r2).
Moreover, B1 shields the inflow of the gravitation onto B2, causing a further change of momentum toward B2,
S2 = (η1m2A1)/(2π) =η1m2R12)/(2r2).
Coefficients η1 and η2 measure the power with which the bodies B1 and B1 absorb objects; evidently these are identical with the surface gravity η1 = (Gm1)/R12 andη2 = (Gm2)/R22. Altogether, the change of momentum to B1 is
F = S1 + S2 = (Gm1m2) /(2r2) +(Gm2m1) /(2r2) = (Gm1m2) /(r2)
This is identical to Newton's gravitation.
You can read the Le Sage Theory of Gravitation in English clicking here.
Georges-Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) used the physics of Democritus (c. 460 BCE – c. 370 BCE).
John Dalton's(1766-1844) theory of atoms was presented after the death of Le Sage.
Le Sage's theory of gravitation was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time.
Wikipedia has been religious and now it is Einsteinian.
It has been shown (2011) that Paul Gerber's velocity dependent Newtonian theory of gravitation is mathematically correct. See Walter Orlov, 2011.
Field theories of gravity predict specific corrections to the
Newtonian force law, the corrections taking two basic forms:
(1) When matter is in motion, additional gravitational fields
(analogous to the
Gravitational fields themselves become sources for additional gravitational fields. Examples of some of these effects are shown below. The acceleration A of a moving particle of negligible mass that interacts with a mass M, which is at rest, is given in the following formula, derived from Einstein’s gravitational theory.
The expression for A now has, as well as the Newtonian expression from equation (1), further terms in higher powers of GM/R2—that is, in G2M2/R4. As elsewhere, V is the particle’s velocity vector, A is its acceleration vector, R is the vector from the mass M, and c is the . When written out, the sum is
This expression gives only the first post-Newtonian corrections; terms of higher power in 1/c are neglected. For planetary motion in the solar system, the 1/c2 terms are smaller than Newton’s acceleration term by at least a factor of 10−8, but some of the consequences of these correction terms are measurable.
The first term is same as a Newtonian acceleration. Other terms have the velocity of the electromagnetic radiation c.
Is there something common in the electromagnetism and the gravitation?A Question of Relativity, Apeiron, Vol. 15, No. 2, April 2008) that the special theory of relativity is non-verifiable and non-falsifiable.
I suggest that scientists need to answer (Herbert) Dingle’s Question. Since the question was explicitly about the special theory of relativity, I suggest that the answer to the question should have the following properties:
If you did not understand what professor McCausland said you can read his article clicking here.
If you did not understand his article read all possible answers to professor Herbert Dingle (H. Dingle, “Dingle’s Question”, Nature 242, (6 April 1973), 423.) and think following:
using Newton's or Einstein's theories of gravitation the expansion of the universe is accelerating under the influence of a gravitationally repulsive form of energy that makes up two-thirds of the cosmos.
Two-thirds of the cosmos is made of "dark energy" - some sort of gravitationally repulsive material.
The dark-energy story begins in 1998, when two independent teams of astronomers were searching for distant supernovae, hoping to measure the rate at which the expansion of the universe was slowing down.
The observations showed that the expansion was speeding up. In fact, using Newton's or Einstein's theories of gravitation the universe started to accelerate long ago, some time in the last 10 billion years.
It is possible that all theories of gravitation are wrong
At present, the density of ordinary baryons and radiation in the universe is estimated to be equivalent to about one hydrogen atom per cubic meter of space.
Only about 4% of the total energy density in the universe (as inferred from Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitational effects) can be seen directly.
About 22% is thought to be composed of dark matter.
The remaining 74% is thought to consist of dark energy, an even stranger component, distributed diffusely in space.
Some hard-to-detect baryonic matter is believed to make a contribution to dark matter but would constitute only a small portion.
The vast majority of the dark matter in the universe is believed to be non-baryonic, which means that it contains no atoms and that it does not interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces.
The non-baryonic dark matter includes neutrinos, which were discovered to have mass in recent years and unknown entities.
Unlike baryonic dark matter, non-baryonic dark matter does not contribute to the formation of the elements in the Einsteinian early universe and so its presence is revealed only via its gravitational attraction. Source:
Apeiron Vol. 15. No 3. July 2008 An Alternative Theory of Gravitation, Derived from the Fatio-Le Sage Theory Gérard Berger 14 Impasse des Carpeaux 94520 Périgny sur Yerres. France
It has been perhaps rediscovered by Bourbon (B. Bourbon, L’éther, Dunod, Paris (1948)), who did not mention any preceding authors.
Vacuum would be made up of gravitational corpuscles, several orders of magnitude smaller than the elementary material particles, moving with great speed and without mutual interactions.
An elementary material particle alone, surrounded by this medium which is supposed isotropic, would receive momentum from these corpuscles on all sides, and the resultant force would be null.
When there are two elementary material particles A and B, the resultant of the forces would be a mutual attraction, as shown by Le Sage: any point of B would be protected by the mass of A from the corpuscles circulating within the solid angle dω, that A subtends at a point of B, but would be subjected to the bombardment of corpuscles from the opposite solid angle.
The resultant of the momentum from corpuscles circulating in all other directions would be null. By reciprocity, B would protect the points of A from the corpuscles of the solid angle dω’, that B subtends at the points of A, and these points are then subjected to the action of the gravitation particles from the opposite solid angle.
V2 = c2(1 + (4GM)/(rc2))and
G' = G(1 + (4GM)/(rc2))
Berger uses the Euclidean three-dimensional space.
he is using four dimensions.
Matthew R. Edwards Gerstein Science Information Centre University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3K3
Assuming that the universe is not expanding and instead operating under conditions of general equilibrium, the author recently proposed that photons and gravitons are steadily being inter converted at fractional rates proportional to the Hubble constant, H0.
On the cosmic scale, the decay of photons was suggested to give rise to the cosmological redshift, while the decay of gravitons was linked to gravitation.
The mathematics to transform curved spaces to linear spaces exists now.
My teacher, late professor of mathematics Raimo Lehti has been working with Paul Kustaanheimo. Raimo Lehti has supported the work of Dr. Tuomo Suntola.
Raimo Lehti asks in his book "Tieteen rannalla, 2004": "Is Einstein or Mandelbrot the prophet of the cosmos?" and answers: "Mandelbrot."
Mathematics is not the map of the reality. Mathematics is only a human tool. Professor Raimo Lehti tells in his book that it is possible to develop mathematics, which is completely different than human mathematics.
The paths of the electromagnetic radiation are often curved but we can not know that they are curved if we have no conception of what is a linear line.
Teppo Mattson has made an enterprise to solve this problem using the Einsteinian frame in his academic dissertation Acceleration of the Cosmological Expansion as an Effect of Inhomogeneities, University of Helsinki, Finland, on March 27the, 2009.
He writes: (page 55)
The observations of light from various cosmological objects, in particular the type Ia supernovae, the cosmic microwave background and the galaxy distribution, seem to imply that the expansion of the universe has unexpectedly increased by a factor of 3/2 along our line of sight roughly during the latter half of the age of the universe.
Conventionally, the accelerated expansion has been ascribed to dark energy, a uniform fluid with large negative pressure that causes repulsive gravity.
However, it appears that accounting for the perceived acceleration by dark energy entails more questions than answers; most notably: how would the effects of the observed cosmic structures average out, why does the onset of acceleration coincide with the formation of voids and galaxy filaments, why would a quantum field arise at such an unnaturally low temperature T ∼ 4 K and why would Λ ∼ 10−123 G−1 and H0t0 ∼ 1 have such unexpected values.
In this thesis, we have studied the possibility that, instead of dark energy, the perceived acceleration of the expansion would be caused by the formation of nonlinear structures, ignored in the standard FRW cosmology.
We have identified three physical mechanisms as to how the inhomogeneities could explain the observations without dark energy:
This thesis considers extended theories of gravity as a possible solution to the dark energy problem and in particular studies the impact of Solar System constraints on scalar-tensor theory and f(R) gravity.
The present observational status in cosmology and the basic properties of scalar-tensor theory and f(R) gravity are reviewed. The main work is then presented in four appended papers.
In summary, Solar System observations put strong constraints on both scalar tensor theory and f(R) gravity, in particular via the post-Newtonian parameter γPPN which is the main focus of this thesis.
The scalar-tensor theory discussed in the first paper is a model inspired by large extra dimensions. Here, two large extra dimensions offer a possible solution to the hierarchy problem and the effective four-dimensional theory is a dilatonic scalar-tensor theory exhibiting a cosmological behavior similar to quintessence.
It was shown that this model can also give rise to other types of cosmologies,some more akin to k-essence and possibly variants of phantom dark energy.
The observational limits on γPPN strongly constrain the scalar field coupling to matter, which together with the cosmological constraints nearly determine the model parameters.
The work presented in the three latter papers considered static, spherically symmetric space-times in f(R) gravity. The generalized Tolman -Oppenheimer -Volkoff equations were derived both in the metric and in the Palatini formalism of f(R) gravity.
By solving these equations for the configuration corresponding to the Sun, it was shown that metric f(R) gravity will in general fail the strong constraint on γPPN, whereas Palatini f(R) gravity will yield the observed γPPN ≈ 1.
However, the non-standard relation between the gravitational mass and the density profile of a star in f(R) gravity will constrain the allowed forms of the function f(R) also in the Palatini formalism.
Although solutions corresponding to γPPN ≈ 1 do exist in the metric formalism, a study of the stability properties of the spherically symmetric solutions reveals a necessity for extreme fine tuning, which affects all presently known metric f(R) models in the literature.
'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle,
unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would
be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to
If there is an electromagnetic background radiation in the space which is uniform in all directions it has an effect to the moving body.
It is well known that the energy of the electromagnetic radiation
is proportional to the frequency of the radiation.
If the body is moving to different directions or if the body has
different velocities, the radiation has different breaking
When the velocity of the body is big the effect of the radiation
to the body is big (the frequency of the radiation in the
direction of the body will increase).
It is possible that the radiation can give to the accelerating
body a constant velocity, if the body is absorbing or reflecting a
big part of the radiation.
There is no exact mathematical or physical definition of the place.
There are several types of energy. We use the distinction
E = hν,
h is a constant and ν is an integer.
Niels Bohr found out in 1913 , that the light quanta or the photons have a spin, or an ability to rotate. Which is the energy of the rotation?
Then the energy of the photon can be arbitrary.
We can see only the photons coming toward us.
If we have no Einsteinian religion, we can easily see that the photon has a gravitational mass. The light is bending in gravitational fields was found in 1919.
The presumption that the photon has a mass is more simple than that it has no mass.
We are doing a new theory of relativity. We can change all Einsteinian postulates.
Photon can rotate because a mass can rotate.
The kinetic energy of the mass m and the velocity c can be
Ek = (mc2)/2in a local frame but which is the amount of the other kinds of the energy is not known.
The article The Origin of Mass tells us that the origin of the mass is the energy. This is not true because m = E/c2 is not valid in our gravity theory.
The Einsteinian equation
E2 = mo2c4 + p2c2
is not valid in our gravity theory.
Photon has a micro-structure and it is possible, that photon consists of several parts. Best known theory of several part photon says that photon contains neutrino and anti-neutrino.
If there is dark matter with gravitation then the dark matter can change the direction of the moving of the photon.
Mathematics is a human construction.
We can use different mathematics to make a coarsening of the reality. We have no real need to use curved straight lines or curved time.
The example of Dr. Tuomo Suntola has shown that it is possible to use mathematics which is simpler than the mathematics used by Albert Einstein.
There are only a very limited set of possibilities for the final state.
If the local energy of the particles is low, the most possible is the creation of two or more gamma ray photons.
If me is the mass of the electron and the mass of the positron is same, we have a local kinetic energy
Ek = (mec2)/2 + (mec2)/2
but this is not proving the formula E = mc2.
When I was young I was thinking that the change of the field can
exist without masses in the neighborhood of the moving change of
the field. Now I am thinking that the matter is hard, not soft.
The hard core of the matter is the mass.
In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum unit of any physical entity involved in an interaction.
An example of an entity that is quantized is the energy transfer of elementary particles of matter (called fermions) and of photons and other bosons.
The word comes from the Latin "quantum", for "how much." Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized", referred to as "quantization".
This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete numerical values, rather than any value, at least within a range. There is a related term of quantum number.
Distance, velocity and acceleration are not quantized.
The mass is quantized.
Energy is a manifestation of the matter and it contains the quantization of the mass.
The mass is not "a coefficient in the equation F = ma".
If there is a quantum of the mass, is the norm of the mass constant?
If we write F = a m which is the difference to the formula F = ma?
p = v m,
where p is the linear momentum of the body.
The frame of the physics must be able to make the difference between the mass and the energy.
The algorithms which does not do so must be rewritten. As my readers have said Einsteinian theories are circular.
Two postulates of Dr. Tuomo Suntola (DU) are
"Distance and time are coordinate quantities independent of phenomena described."
There is no need to change these postulates.
The postulates of Einstein are too strong (See Einstein's Hidden Postulate, professor Robert J. Buenker, Apeiron, Vol. 19, No 3, July 2012).
ε0 = 1/(c02 µ0)
where c0 and µ0 are defined maximum speed of the light and permeability of the vacuum.
In Tuomo Suntola's theory c0 is the speed of the expansion of the university. In my theory the universe is infinite.
It is possible that there is no maximum speed of the speed on electromagnetic radiation:
c0 = ∞.
We know that in a very small scale this can be true.
There is no good theory of the electromagnetic radiation.
We can begin with the light. We must make experiments with real
spaceships. We can not use mirrors or lenses.
The problem is that the science does not believe to the necessity
of such experiments.
It is possible that the Maxwell equations are wrong (see
Apeiron, Vol. 19, No. 1, January 2012, Bringing
Simultaneity Back to Life T. E. Phipps, Jr.).
If the radiating body is moving towards us, we will receive more
energy than if it is moving away.
It is possible to measure both cases (using spaceships).
The amount of the energy will be different for simple Doppler
effect and for Einsteinian Doppler effect.
Late mathematics professor Rolf Nevanlinna was thinking that the
simplicity of the theory is the reason for the selection of the
space type, not empirical facts.
There is no solution to the problem of simplicity.
Einsteinian explanations are structural explanations. To be natural science physics needs causal explanations.
All explanations are human constructs.
Time is a human construct and we can choose how we will define time.
It we use time as independent variable we have no need to consider that the causality is broken.
Logical necessities are human constructs to use coherent language.
Causality is not a necessity.
However we are waiting that the cosmology shall be a causal theory. To be a causal theory cosmology need physics, which is a causal theory.
June 2010 the experiment was repeated, this time around the globe (London - Los Angeles - Auckland - Hongkong - London).
The result was that the different clocks in different environments were showing different times.
I have four rooms and a kitchen in my home in Helsinki. Clocks in different rooms will show different times.
I am not thinking that the time is different in different rooms.
The clock synchronization is easy. We have no need to define the time as a dependent variable.
Properties described in this manner must be sufficiently accessible, so that persons other than the definer may independently measure or test for them at will.
The special theory of relativity can be viewed as the introduction of operational definitions for simultaneity of events and of distance, that is, as providing the operations needed to define these terms.
We will not use operational definitions. We oppose operational definitions.
The Euclidean line is the only straight line.
The path of the photon is not a straight line.
The path of the photon is ellipse, hyperbola or parabola or anything else than the straight line.
In the everyday measuring the path of the photon is near the straight line.
The cause of the popularity of the elevator experiment is the fact that the gravitation has an effect to all cells of the man.
Computers can use complicated formulas but in a real world we will need information of the whole of the universe. Relativity theories split the reality to incompatible parts. There are infinite number of local spaces ( source: discussions with late professor of mathematics and astronomy, Paul Kustaanheimo).
The curvature can not explain the gravity.
The impossibility in the reality is different from the impossibility in logic.
The theory of the Big Bang does not explain why Big Bang happened.
If the Einsteinian theory of black holes is true, the Big Bang is impossible.
If black holes can explode then local Big Bangs are possible.
Big Bang believers think that the speed of the radiation was over the speed of the electromagnetic radiation in the beginning. This is an Anti-Einsteinian proposition.
We can define that the space is infinite. We can expect that the matter in the infinite space has an equilibrium.
If there was a big bang and if the black holes are very stable it is possible that there was black holes before the big bang (Black Hole Era 1040 years to 10100 years ).
We shall collect theory independent data of physics. We shall use
statistics to determine which variables are dependent and which
variables we can choose to be independent. We can use factorial
analysis and some newer methods of the statistics - and expensive
If black holes have no other properties than Einsteinians say,
the black holes are elementary particles. If so, there can be
elementary particles with arbitrary mass.
This is functioning in a vacuum.
It is not possible to find real masses of elementary particles.
The physics confuses masses and energy.
It is very difficult to change the Einsteinian physics to the
Newtonian physics. I have full competence to use mathematics and
computers but it is very difficult to find the real data.
There is no good definition of the the energy. Einsteinian faith
is now used in the teaching of mechanics.
It is possible that there is pure energy. If there is pure energy
this energy can be electromagnetic radiation. But it is not
necessary that there is pure energy.
It is possible (as several Non-Einsteinians think) that the
photon has for example the mass mf and this has a
kinetic energy (mfc2)/2
which is the energy which the electron is losing.
It is possible that the photon has several parts (neutrino and
It is possible that a photon has rotational energy and other
forms of energy.
Mass needs no explanation.
The graph of the strong force
There is no dark matter. Gravitation has same kind graph than
strong interaction (if there is a strong interaction).
Additionally the gravitational field is not symmetric.
The problem is very complicated and it is difficult to make any
There are no universal forces. The nature has independent parts.
If the gravitation has same kind of graph than other
interactions, there are no real black holes.
Very simple function which has a form of the graph of the strong
f(x) = a/x3 - b/x2.
f(x) = 1/x3 - 1.5/x2.
All rational functions
have the same form.
The derivatives of the functions f(x)
= - a1/x2 +a2/x3
- ... +a2n-1/x2n-1
To avoid the infinite repulsion we can replace x by ex.
If we will have some periodicity we can add some trigonometrical functions:
We can also add damped oscillation an we will get oscillating universe. To exclude the oscillating universe we must have an exact theory of gravity.
We have an infinite amount of the possible functions but we must find some explanation for the function. We will do it later.
If we will have zero pints at x = 1 and x = 3 we can use function (blue curve)
f(x) = k(x-1)(x-2)/x3.
Inverse cube will be found in the case of the dipole and the electric charge .
The nucleus of the proton is a dipole plus an electric charge.
If the strong force has a speed it is as problematic than the
electromagnetic force (same paradoxes).
Most calculations of the masses of the elementary particles are using Einsteins relativity theory.
We must make new calculations.
We can additionally suppose that quarks and leptons are not elementary.
If so we have no problem with fractional charges.
It is possible that there is only one fundamental force.
Einsteinians tell us that the cosmic microwave background radiation radiation was emitted 13.7 billion years ago, only a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, long before stars or galaxies ever existed. Thus, by studying the detailed physical properties of the radiation, we can learn about conditions in the universe on very large scales at very early times, since the radiation we see today has traveled over such a large distance.
The calculations are made using Einstein's relativity theory.
The real sources of the radiation can be whatever else.
Photon, gluon, neutrino, Z0 boson, Higg's boson and
graviton are without charge.
There is no evidence of the existence of the graviton.
The evidence of the existence of the Higg's boson is weak.
The standard model supposes that most of the neutral elementary
particles are without rest mass.
We suppose that all elementary particles have a rest mass. It is
possible, that supposed neutral particles have several parts which
have charge. If so then the electromagnetic force between the
parts is very strong.
It is possible that all fundamental forces are electromagnetic
Amount of mass.
Proposal: The acceleration of the body which has several parts
produces internal energy to the system.
Problem: How the energy can survive in a moving body.
The third of Newton's laws of motion of classical mechanics
states that forces always occur in pairs. This is related to the
fact that a force results from the interaction of two object.
Every force ('action') on one object is accompanied by a
'reaction' on another, of equal magnitude but opposite direction.
The attribution of which of the two forces is action or reaction
is arbitrary. Each of the two forces can be considered the action,
the other force is its associated reaction.
If we have a body with the mass m and if we divide it to two
parts, we have masses m1 and m2 and if the
parts are exploding to opposite directions, they will have kinetic
The energies are equal and the total energy is
If we divide the body with mass m to equal parts and continue the
dividing to infinity we will get series of energy of the parts:
mv2(1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16+ ... ) = mv2.
s is the distance, (x,y,z) is the place, c is the speed of the
light and t is the time.
ds2 = dx2 + dy2 + dz2
Source: Relativity: The Special and General Theory © 1920
If we put
then dt2 has a wrong dimension. The time t is not a
If we divide the equation
ds2 = dx2 + dy2 + dz2
ds2/dt2= dx2/dt2 + dy2/dt2+ dz2/dt2- c2This equation says that the speed of the light is the maximum speed. As we know this supposition leads to the infinite amount of local spaces (I agree with the late professor of mathematics and astronomy Paul Kustaanheimo).
In our reality we need only one space. We will need no acrobatics with complicate mathematics.
It is possible to construct a clock which is independent of the gravitation.
Distances are not additive. Velocities (v), accelerations (a), forces (F) etc. are additive (vectors).
A body with a big mass need much of energy to have a high speed.
It is the task of the experimental physics to find out which is
the highest possible speed and why it is the highest possible.
Which kind of body has a memory of its accelerations?
If we have a clock which can slow down when the speed is
increasing we have a new clock paradox.
Let x = (x1, x2, x3,...,xn)
be a continuous vector-valued function defined on an interval
[a,b]. The image of [a,b] under x is a curve Γ.
Let a parametric representation of x be x(t).
We call the parameter t time.
I have no money to read new scientific journals. I can only read
If the news are correct, the situation now (9/29/2012) is
If all of this is true, we have simultaneous cause and effect.
At the regular points of Γ we define the unit tangent T as
A point x(t) is called a regular point of Γ if the derivative x'(t) exists and is non-zero, in which case x'(t) is called the tangent vector at this point. Points where x'(t) fails to exist or where x'(t) = 0 are called singular points of Γ.
At the regular points of Γ we define the unit tangent T vector as follows.
T(t) = x'(t)/|x'(t)|.
The non-negative function κ defined by equation
κ(t) = |T'(t)|/|x'(t)|
is called a curvature of the curve.
At those points of Γ for which t'(t) ≠ 0 we define the unit
principal vector N by the equation
N(t) = T'(t)/|T'(t)|.
The length of arc is s(t) = ∫a t|x'(u)|
T'(t) = κ(t) s(t) N(t).
The unit vector B defined by the equation
B(t) = T(t) X N(t)
is called binormal vector.
It is easy to verify that B'(t) is a scalar multiple of N(t).
The real valued function τ defined by the equation
B'(t) = - τ(t)s'(t)N(t)
is called the torsion of the curve.
Einsteinians speak of the curvature of the four dimensional
space. Is there the torsion of the space?
Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 100404 (2012) [5 pages]
Lee A. Rozema, Ardavan Darabi, Dylan H. Mahler, Alex
Hayat, Yasaman Soudagar, and Aephraim M. Steinberg
Although this latter relationship is not rigorously
proven, it is commonly believed (and taught) as an aspect of the
broader uncertainty principle.
Here, we experimentally observe a violation of
Heisenberg’s “measurement-disturbance relationship”, using weak
measurements to characterize a quantum system before and after
it interacts with a measurement apparatus.
Our experiment implements a 2010 proposal of Lund and
Wiseman to confirm a revised measurement-disturbance
relationship derived by Ozawa in 2003. Its results have broad
implications for the foundations of quantum mechanics and for
practical issues in quantum measurement.
To explain repulsion all you need to do is draw a Feynman diagram
with two electrons swapping a photon. The photon conveys momentum
There simply isn't any good explanation for electromagnetic
If we assume that there are two kind of photons (and two kinds of
other same type of particles), we can explain the attraction
without uncertainty principle.
In the 20th century, the Fatio-Lesage concept of gravity attracted the interest of Richard Feynman, who used it more than once to illustrate various aspects of theoretical models. For example, in a series of public lectures given in 1964, published as “The Character of Physical Law” in 1965, Feynman described Fatio’s model as an example of the kind of theory that might satisfy someone’s desire for an “explanation” – rather than just a description – of gravity. Feynman’s notion of a mechanism was something that “gets rid of the mathematics”.
September 17, 2012Published: September 17, 2012
Device fabrication being an imperfect art, single
photons from solid-state systems such as quantum dots are not
identical; a collection of dots designed to emit at nominally
the same frequency will actually produce a range of
frequencies. That phenomenon, called inhomogeneous broadening,
is an obstacle to experimentalists who need a stream of
identical photons—say, in applications requiring entanglement.
One way to overcome the obstacle is to tune the
solid-state devices themselves; applying appropriate strains,
for example, can change the internal structure of the devices
so they all give off photons of the same frequency. Now Kartik
Srinivasan of NIST, his postdoc Serkan
Ates, and other collaborators have
demonstrated an alternative approach: Let the devices emit as
they will, but use nonlinear optics to convert the frequencies
of the resulting photons. When a source photon and light from
a pump laser interact in a nonlinear crystal, the result could
be a photon whose frequency is the sum of source and pump
As schematically indicated in the figure, with carefully tuned pump-laser frequencies ωp1 and ωp2, Srinivasan and colleagues produced photons with the same frequency ωc from input photons of different frequencies ωs1 and ωs2. The research team established that the output photons were indeed identical by observing their telltale interference. In the future, such frequency conversions may enable photons to communicate between the nodes of a quantum internet. (S. Ates et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., in press.)—Steven K. Blau
If we will move faster we must find a place without electromagnetic radiation.
This means that the background radiation will limit the speeds of the bodies. The background radiation forms the "absolute space".
Locally we have much more radiation and local limitations of the speed of the material bodies will vary.
π0 → 2 γ
π0 → γ + e− + e+
If this is correct, can we say that the matter is photons and neutrinos?
The main argument against the neutrino theory is: Since mass-less neutrinos are needed to form a mass-less photon, a composite photon is not possible.
We have said earlier that the photon has a mass.
If this is correct we can say that the matter is neutrinos.
Is this the attraction?
It is verified that there is an attractive force between the electron and the proton.
The proton of the standard model.
The proton of the alternative physics.
Now we have a problem of the attractive force in the proton.
William Watson and Benjamin Franklin introduced the one-fluid theory of electricity independently in 1746.
Henry Cavendish attempted to explain some of the principal
phenomena of electricity by means of an elastic fluid in 1771.
Not contented with the above mentioned one fluid theory of
electricity, du Fay, Robert Symmer and C. A. Coulomb developed
a two-fluid theory of electricity from 1733 to 1789.
John Bernoulli introduced a fluid aether theory of light in
1752. Euler believed that all electrical phenomena is caused
by the same aether that
In 1821, in order to explain polarization of light, A. J. Frensnel proposed an aether model which is able to transmit transverse waves. Inspired by Frensnel’s luminifeous aether theory, numerous dynamical theories of elastic solid aether were established by Stokes, Cauchy, Green, MacCullagh, Boussinesq, Riemann and William Thomson.
In 1861, in order to obtain a mechanical interpretation of electromagnetic phenomena, Maxwell established a mechanical model of a magneto-electric medium.
Maxwell’s magneto-electric medium is a cellular aether, looks
like a honeycomb. In a remarkable paper published in 1864,
Maxwell established a group of equations which were named
after his name later.
Xiao-Song Wang writes:
"We speculate that the universe may be filled with
a continuum which may be called aether. Based on a
spherical source and sink model of electric charges, we
derive Coulomb’s law of interactions between static
electric charges in vacuum by methods of hydrodynamics.
A reduced form of the Lorentz’s force law of static
electric charges is derived based on a definition of
Coulomb's law states that the magnitude of the
Electrostatics force of interaction between two point
charges is directly proportional to the scalar
multiplication of the magnitudes of charges and inversely
proportional to the square of the distances between them.
F21 = (q1 q2/4π
ε 0 r2)r21
Why Einstein stopped all explanations?
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the
general theory of relativity space is endowed with
physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
an ether. According to the general theory of relativity
space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space
there not only would be no propagation of light, but also
no possibility of existence for standards of space and
time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any
space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether
may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may
not be applied to it.
Human explanations will always be restricted. We can not know
where are the borders of the explanations. My opinion is that
the Einsteinian borders are too strong.
If we are using hydrodynamics (Xiao-Song) the problem is that
we have only a set of equations.
It is possible that the particles are (as Einstein said)
fields, but I think that we must use particles as much as we
Both Einstein and the representatives of new aether theories
are using tensors in the theory of the gravity.
Dr. Tuomo Suntola does not need tensors in hist book Dynamic
Universe. He is using vectors and vector fields.
I agree with Dr. Suntola in many points. The only problems of
his theory are infinity points and the complex fourth
dimension (it is not the time). He knows that they are
Democritus (Greek: Δημόκριτος, Dēmokritos, "chosen of the
people") (ca. 460 – ca. 370 BCA) was an Ancient Greek
philosopher born in Abdera, Thrace, Greece.
Democritus was not Einsteinian.
The atomists held that there are two fundamentally different
kinds of realities composing the natural world, atoms and
The gravitation is the force which has the same effect to the
particles of the same mass.
electron mass = 9.10938188 × 10-31
In practice all bodies are formed of protons, neutrons and
In the scale of the galaxy there is no good theory of the
gravitation (the problem of the dark materia).
In the scale of the atom the other forces are stronger that
We have no cause to change the conception of Democritus.
If the photons fall with the dirrent rate than the other
objects the Einsteinian equivalece principle is wrong.
(All test particles at the alike spacetime point in a given gravitational field will undergo the same acceleration, independent of their properties, including their rest mass.)
The changing from the linear coordinate
system to the curvilinear coordinate system will not change
My main argument against Einstein is that the use of the curved space will not give different results than the use of the linear space.
The use of the path of the photon as a basis of the mathematics will not change the physical objects. If we will we can always use Euclidean space.
If the physicists will get different results with different coordinate systems they are calculating wrong.
Mach was thinking that it is not possible to observe the
rotation in a completely empty space. I think that we can
observe both rotation and acceleration.
In physics (especially astrophysics), redshift happens
when light seen coming from an object that is moving away
is proportionally increased in wavelength, or shifted to
the red end of the spectrum. More generally, where an
observer detects electromagnetic radiation outside the
visible spectrum, "redder" amounts to a technical
shorthand for "increase in electromagnetic wavelength" —
which also implies lower frequency and photon energy in
accord with, respectively, the wave and quantum theories
The relativistic redshift is different than the classical redshift.
If we use the classical redshift we observe that the
galaxies are moving away in proportion to the square of
the distance (it is easy to calculate this using
observational material for schools).
There are few galaxies that have a blue-shift.
The standard model of the physics has no masses.
There is no experimental material for electromagnetic
elementary particles, but we can
e- = e- + e- + e-
+ e- + e+ .
I will call e- as negattiny (© Erkki
Hartikainen) and e+ as posittiny (© Erkki
The form of the e- is a tetrahedron.
e+ = e+ + e+ + e+ + e+ + e- .
The form of the e+ is the tetrahedron.
p+ = (e+ + e+) + (e+ + e+)+ e- .
n0 = (e+ + e+)+ e- + e- .
When I was a child we were using radio waves with the wavelengths of several kilometers.
Try to ask the explanation for the big size of the particle. I expect that you will get no explanation.
As we move along curve C the tangent is turning in the direction of the normal at a rate determined by the curvature κ(s) while the osculating plane rotates around the tangent with a speed determined by the torsion τ(s).
It can be shown that two curves with the same curvature and torsion as functions of arc length are identical except for position and orientation in space (i.e. one of them can be rigidly moved so as to coincide with the other).
Thus the curvature κ(s) and torsion τ(s) describe all the essential, invariant properties of the curve. The equations
κ = κ(s)
τ = τ(s)
are called the intrinsic or natural equations of the curve.
Example 1: the circle equation is
κ = 1/r,
τ = 0.
If we will add some Einsteinian physics we define the time t as follows:
t = t(s).
t = 2s,
dt = 2ds,
ds/dt = ½ = v = velocity.
t = s½ ,
dt = [1/(2s½)] ds,
ds/dt = 2s½ = v.
In this book we define that the time is independent of the place and of the speed.The speed v is dependent of the time and of the distance:
ds/dt = v.
The time is not the speed of the clock.
Are there physical lower bounds or/and upper bounds.
The absolute zero temperature, -273,150C is a sensible lower bound but are there other lower bounds or upper bounds.
Einsteinians argue that there are the zero mass and the maximal speed.
The vacuum has the zero mass but are there particles with zero mass? Einsteinians argue that the particles of the electro-magnetical radiation has the zero mass. I disagree.
Einsteinians argue that the speed of the electro-magnetical radiation is the upper bound of the speed. I disagree.
Which is the speed of the vacuum?
We must consider the cause of the speed of the particle in a system. There are different causes for the accelerations. For example:
Can we divide photons or can the photons scatter?
If we have a rotating solid body in the space between galaxies we can observe the rotation and the axis of the rotation. This rotation defines the internal time of the body.
We can not observe the constant linear acceleration of the body. We can only observe the change of the acceleration of the linear movement of the body.
If we are falling free we have an acceleration but we can not observe it.
It is not logically impossible. But it is physically impossible. Very big masses form black holes. We do not know a single black hole which has exploded.
Philosophically the big bang is only a hypothesis that there is one black hole which has exploded.
If we are using the rotating body as a clock we can test relativity theory as follows.
We will send several rotating solid bodies with much of speed to the space. The body has an instrument which measures the angular speeds and sends the results to the earth.
We can make generalizations using computers.
The test is not deciding which of the relativity theories is true but it will test if the rotating solid body is a good clock.
There are discussions in Internet which talk over the growth of the masses of the distant galaxies. The physicists say that the special relativity is not true in the cosmology. Masses of the distant galaxies are not bigger than the masses of the near galaxies.
We do not know. Our last information is about 13 billions of years old. It is not sure that the distant galaxies still exist.
We do not know. Our last information is about 13 billions of years old. It is not sure that the distant galaxies still exist.
It depends on the what we mean with the word "space".
My opinion is that the space has not the property of expand.
The space is a mathematical abstraction. The stretching is a physical abstraction.
The stretching of the scale will not cause the redshift or the change of the gravitational fields. Only the real motion will cause the redshift.
I do not know any good explanation for the inertia.
My opinion is that the Le Sage-type gravitation can explain both inertia and in-determinism.
If Hawking's theory of black hole radiation is correct,
then black holes are expected to shrink and evaporate over
time because they lose mass by the emission of photons and
other particles. The temperature of this thermal spectrum
(Hawking temperature) is proportional to the surface
gravity of the black hole, which, for a Schwarzschild
black hole, is inversely proportional to the mass. Hence,
large black holes emit less radiation than small black
To have a Hawking temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be
able to evaporate), a black hole needs to have less mass
than the Moon. Such a black hole would have a diameter of
less than a tenth of a millimeter.
If there was no cosmic microwave background radiation before the big bang then the black hole had an infinite time to evaporate.
So the black hole did not explode because there was no black hole.
This is impossible to prove.
We have shown that the space is not expanding. The the origin of the redshift is the motion or the property of the light. It the distant galaxies are near of the border of the known universe, we are near of the center of the universe.
If the known universe is not a closed system it is possible that we are not in the center of the real universe.
The pushing is easy to explain but what is the pulling? The pulling is not easy to explain in an atom and it is much more difficult to exlain in the space.
In the 19th-century edition of Hume's Enquiry (in Sir John Lubbock's series, "One Hundred Books"), sections X and XI were omitted, appearing in an Appendix with the misleading explanation that they were normally left out of popular editions. Although the two sections appear in the full text in modern editions, chapter X has also been published separately, both as a separate book and in collections.
Hume starts by telling the reader that he believes that he has
"discovered an argument [...] which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion".
Hume first explains the principle of evidence: the only way that we can judge between two empirical claims is by weighing the evidence. The degree to which we believe one claim over another is proportional to the degree by which the evidence for one outweighs the evidence for the other. The weight of evidence is a function of such factors as the reliability, manner, and number of witnesses.
Now, a miracle is defined as:
Laws of nature, however, are established by
"a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."
they rest upon the exception-less testimony of countless people in different places and times.
"a firm and unalterable experience";
"Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country."
As the evidence for a miracle is always limited, as miracles are single events, occurring at particular times and places, the evidence for the miracle will always be outweighed by the evidence against — the evidence for the law of which the miracle is supposed to be a transgression.
There are, however, two ways in which this argument might be neutralized. First, if the number of witnesses of the miracle be greater than the number of witnesses of the operation of the law, and secondly, if a witness be 100% reliable (for then no amount of contrary testimony will be enough to outweigh that person's account).
Hume therefore lays out, in the second part of section X, a number of reasons that we have for never holding this condition to have been met. He first claims out that no miracle has in fact had enough witnesses of sufficient honesty, intelligence, and education. He goes on to list the ways in which human beings lack complete reliability:
"with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause".
Given that there is no reason to accept some of them but not others (aside from a prejudice in favour of one religion), then we must hold all religions to have been proved true — but given the fact that religions contradict each other, this cannot be the case.
The einsteinian theory of the big bang is an extrapolation towards a state (a black hole) which can not explode.
We mus compare the two alternatives:
If the very big black hole moves to the place where there are no Le Sage-type particles the black hole begins to expand and it is possible that it will explode.