Перейти в начало сайта Перейти в начало сайта
Электронная библиотека «Наука и техника»
n-t.ru: Наука и техника
Home Page / Current publications / Scientific hypotheses
Home Page / Current publications / Scientific hypotheses

Научные статьи

Физика звёзд

Физика микромира

Научно-популярные статьи



Наука и жизнь

Природа и люди

Техника – молодёжи

Нобелевские лауреаты

Премия по физике

Премия по химии

Премия по литературе

Премия по медицине

Премия по экономике

Премия мира


В поисках «энергетической капсулы»

Как люди научились летать

Генри Форд. Моя жизнь, мои достижения

Плеяда великих медиков

Среди запахов и звуков

Ученые – популяризаторы науки

Издания НиТ

Батарейки и аккумуляторы

Охранные системы

Источники энергии

Свет и тепло


Наука сегодня

Научные гипотезы

Теория относительности

История науки

Научные развлечения

Техника сегодня

История техники

Измерения в технике

Источники энергии

Наука и религия

Мир, в котором мы живём

Лит. творчество ученых

Человек и общество



Philosophy of physics

Nikolay Noskov
Translated from Russian by Jury Sarychev
English text edited by Robert Fritzius

Philosophical basis of physics

Physics as a science appeared only due to the fact that its creators, Galileo, Newton, Hooke, Huygens, Euler, Laplace, Faraday, Maxwell and many other researchers adhered to some original philosophical principles and rules for doing science. Those principles and rules, in turn, rested on stringent logical laws and on a faith in cognition and mechanics (wherein any natural phenomena can be explained by motions of matter).

Now, having been afflicted by all the illnesses of philosophical thought during the last three centuries, we see that this earlier path of development has shown itself to be uniquely true.

What are the philosophical principles, on which physics is created? At first, it is the independence of existence of nature from our consciousness; matter is self-sufficient and its laws of motion depend neither on God, nor on the observer. Secondly, researches into nature should be based:

Based on such a (materialistic) philosophy, every one of the famous researchers (except for the relativists, who deviated from these principles) created or supplemented the rules for doing science. Three of the foremost of these (not counting the Ancient Greek and the middle ages scientists) were Kant, Huygens and Newton.

So, from Newton [1] we read:

We should not take other reasons in nature over these, which ones are true and are sufficient for the explanation of phenomena.

Identical phenomena will precede from identical reasons.

I do not invent hypotheses.

And so on.

The most relevant expressions in this occasion are adduced in works [2], [3].

Newton grounded his postulates about the invariance of space, time, and mass by direct contemplation of nature instead of by the invention of hypotheses.

"Any physical theory circumscribing these phenomena is connected to a definition of space and time, as all natural phenomena happen in time and in space. And depending on which definition is at its base, science can progress on a correct materialistic path, objectively reflecting reality, or it will descend to idealism and will lose the sense of science and will turn into a means of stupefying mankind" [4]. The problem of time, space and mass is basically epistemological and therefore so is the philosophical basis of physics.


Space is the arena in which matter moves. The metrics of space should be Euclidean in order not to distort the laws for the motion of matter. Space should not have any physical properties, except an infinite volume, which can not in any way influence the laws of motion of matter. In other words, "space is irrelative of anything external" (Newton).

Thus, space can not be endowed with any properties, with the exception of its three-dimensional extention. It can not be called absolute or relative, identical or fixed etc. It cannot be considered as finite, at least, not until any fact of observation or indisputable proof contradicting this premise comes to be found. Such facts, observations and proofs are not present. Space is an objective reality revealed to us by sensation.


Time is the second basic essence. It, as well as space, reveals itself through the motion of matter. Time in and of itself, without relation to anything external, flows uniformly and differentially and is named as duration. It can not influence the state or the laws of motion of matter at all. It only passionlessly and uniformly measures the duration of processes and phenomena. On the other hand, there can not be a process, phenomenon or status of matter influencing the uniform course of time. Any other properties, with the exception of duration and uniformity can not be referred to it. Time is an objective reality revealed to us by sensation.


Matter is a substance or a body having a spatial expansion (volume), impermeability, viscosity, elasticity, hardness, form and spectral responsiveness.

Quantity of matter – mass is determined by its resistance to acceleration. In the common case:

m = F / a.

And above the surface of the Earth – by weight and the acceleration of gravity:

m = P / g.

Newton's definition that "mass is a measure of the quantity of matter (quantity of mass is proportional to its density and its volume)" is incomplete, as it does not define more precisely this proportionality to acceleration.

Matter is the objective reality given to us by sensation.

As a result of the accumulation and extension of knowledge about matter, from astronomical and microscopic observations, with the help of the methods of analogy, induction and deduction, and also of logical analysis, it is possible to assert that matter is divisible without limit – in the microcosmos and is accumulated – in the macrocosmos. Now, neither the finiteness, nor infinity of gradation of matter outside and into infintesimal depths can be proved.

The divisibility of matter into infintesimal depths is demonstrated by all developments of physics. Huygens showed that the existence of a light-transferring ether should exist [5]. Atoms and fundamental particles were unknown at that time. Now, when it became known, that fundamental particles have a finite life time and, conversely, that they can arise from "vacuum," it became obvious, that they (the fundamental particles) are formed from a more diffuse substance. And this more diffuse substance is composed of particles, which under certain conditions and energies interact among themselves to form composite spatial bodies – i.e., the fundamental particles. The interactions of these particles which are discerned from their general observable properties, permit us to name their composition as the "light-transferring ether" or an "electromagnetic liquid."

In turn, the existence of the interactions between ether particles indicates that there is more diffuse matter (we shall call it ether #2), which should to be the carrier of this interaction. And the particles of ether #1 should have a composite constitution or structure.

We can watch the accumulation of this matter, outside in the macrocosmos, only out to the structure of the universe that is near to us. We can consider solar and other planetary systems, constellations, galaxies and compact clusters of galaxies as separate bodies. The cellular structure of the universe displays that all visible galaxies are joined in a certain crystalline framework, which can appear as a superbody (superboulder, superplanet, etc.), of which one consists as the superuniverse. And so on.


A field is power or other (barometric, velocity related, temperature, etc.) spatial characteristic expressed either by a physical law or by a set of numerical data.

There can not be a field without the presence of matter. The field expresses the state (i.e., the motion) of matter in space. "There is nothing but moving matter in the world. And matter can not move other than in space and in time" [6].

Energy is a characteristic property of matter. Matter can not be transformed into energy. The observable release of energy from nuclear decay or from the annihilation of fundamental particles is no more than the release of the energy of the component parts of the nuclei and other particles, having inside these formations more energy, than the energy of motion of the same particles in a free state in the environment.

There are no fundamental particles with so-called "null rest-mass". All of them are photons – sections of oscillations of ether of batched (quantized) energy, associated with the structure of an atom, a nucleus or a fundamental particle [7].


Carriers of energy and, therefore, of interactions can only be matter. Different mechanisms of transferring energy [8] means different kinds of interactions. There are special mechanisms of interactions at each level of the organization of matter.

So, the internal structure of fundamental particles [9] implies interactions between units within their composition (they can be particles of ether). Further there are nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions. The electromagnetic interaction concerns charge, as the attraction and repulsion forces depend on the signs of the charges. For the nuclear and gravitational interactions there are no charge forces.

The existence of a "space lattice" in the observable universe indicates a charge interaction between galaxies. On the basis of an hypothesis in work [8] the charge interaction is connected with its transference by waves of matter. It is possible to suspect, that the mechanism of transference of interaction between galaxies is also waves of ether, the length of which should be comparable to the dimensions of galaxies.

Interaction of inertia

There is an inertial interaction, which is necessary to delineate especially, because it is distinct from all other interactions. It is present in the laws of motion of matter and all other known interactions and it is responsible for the existence of classical (Galilean) relativity. Furthermore, it is only due to inertia that the orbital motions of bodies in central force fields are possible. Therefore, without inertia there would be no fundamental particles, atoms, planetary systems, or galaxies...

The necessity of force for the occurrence of the acceleration of a body (positive or negative), by virtue of the irrelativity (absoluteness) of space, we must call the interaction of the body with other matter. But what is the other matter?

Citing the example of a rotating bucket of water, Newton draws a conclusion about the true motion of water with reference to its center of rotation and about the relative movement of the water in relation to the bucket. However, when speaking about the true motion (the rotation) of the water, Newton never mentions the concept of space and he does not make any suppositions (inventions) concerning the interaction of the water either with space, or with other bodies. This is also true, in general, when he speaks about inertia.

He simply points out the fact of absolute (sufficient) identification of acceleration. When there is acceleration – there is force. When there is no acceleration – there is no force. And, on the contrary, when there is a force – there is acceleration. When there is no force – there is no acceleration. Newton's diplomatic silence about the uncertain parentage of the force of inertia, in connection with acceleration, has been used against him by relativists. Here is how it happened.

Insinuation #1. We read [10]: "...the statement that acceleration does not require indications on a measuring body, the acceleration has absolute character. But if the translation of a body from one place to another, in the case where the accelerated motion has an absolute sense, it means that these places are parts of absolute space".

Having declared the non-relation of space to anything external, Newton could not suspect that his descendants could so dexterously impute to him the declaration of absolute space through the acceleration of bodies (including rotary motion).

Yes, the concept of nature, where all combinations of phenomena are explained solely by the motions and interactions of bodies (through their contact) was the ideal of Newton's science. But he did not begin to search "other bodies" for the interactions of inertia, as well as he did not begin to search for them in the transfer of gravitational interaction at a distance. How it is possible to blame him for that?

Insinuation #2. We read ([10], page 169): "...absolute time is a time that is not dependent on the velocity of the system in which it is measured (in accordance with Newton – N.N.).

In Newtonian mechanics the instantaneous propagation of interactions serves as the warranty of independence of time from motion, the warranty of the existence of a unified time for the whole universe (My emphasis – N.N.). If the basis of Newtonian absolute space consists in the force of inertia (We have devised this ourselves and we elaborate also! – N.N.), the origin of forces not connected to mutually interacting bodies, then the basis of Newtonian absolute time is an instantaneous remote action. Instantaneous propagation of interactions is a more general and fundamental idea of classical physics, than remote action in an ordinary spatial sense, i.e. the resistance of a medium transmitting the interaction of bodies".

It is possible to find all things in this quotation.

And there is a double standard, when, accusing Newton of "rejecting a medium transmitting interaction", relativists "forget" that they themselves did not simply skip it, but got rid of it in general.

The connection of the concept of time with instantaneous propagation of interactions is an obvious mystification.

It is a forgery when it is pretended that the creators of classical mechanics considered the velocity of interactions as infinitely fast (instantaneous). Earlier Laplace had made attempts to define the speed of the gravitational interaction.

Thus it is necessary to remind the reader, that the introduced lines were written already for a long time after the arising of electrodynamics (Gauss, Weber, Clausius...) and graviodynamics (Gerber) [11]. In these works the laws of interactions were generalized on the velocity of interaction, which is related to the properties of the transmitting medium.

Truly, "when they want to kill a dog, they say that it is mad!"

In childhood we asked each other riddles. One of them was "What is the fastest thing in the world?" The answer was – "Thought". Thought really has instantaneous "speed." We imagine two bodies, separated by millions kilometers, and then we model the process of their interaction in our minds. We model the temporary process of action transfer, the motion of bodies, the delay of potential, etc. An intermediate observer is not necessary for this purpose. The signals from interacting bodies to the observer are also unnecessary.

Natural phenomena should be considered at an imaginary instantaneity of events irrespective of distance. Only so the independence of natural phenomena from our consciousness, from the observer, from God will be observed. And so they (the phenomena) were considered in classical mechanics.

Relativists have made a gross error in that they have introduced the observer and the time of arrival of a signal to him from the point of the event. Furthermore, they have accepted light as a signal, having imputed to it monstrous unreal properties. Its velocity does not add with the velocity of the receiver. And light is not the oscillation of a medium (the ether), but it is a particle having wave properties (how it is composed, nobody can explain) and, therefore, its properties do not depend on the properties of this medium, i.e. they do not change over distance (and with time).

However the irony at the moment is that, that all measuring of distances and segments are done by relativists mentally by adding the effects of the procedures of their measurements to the considered phenomena. Certainly, that is invalid.

But we shall return to a problem about inertia again.

E. Mach, the idealist, positivist and fideist, also omitted mention of a medium, when he considered inertia as the interaction of a body with other bodies of the universe. It is exactly the same invention of hypothesis about which Newton spoke.

At first, all known laws of interaction between bodies have the appearance of inverse squares. Having interconnected all bodies, Mach obtains inertia, which acts instantly and is not bound by an inverse square relation even in the immediate proximity to the body of interaction – for example, the Earth.

Secondly, to what interactions did Mach refer? Are there nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitational or unknown interactions which take place between galaxies? You see "having united" the whole universe, he integrates all interactions also, including those, that he does not even consider or imagine.

However, we can read from J. Narlikar [12]: "In the past many physicists attempted to formulate a Mach principle quantitatively. Personally, Einstein, in developing his general theory of relativity, hoped to include a Mach principle. But his attempts appear to have been unsuccessful, and he even began to doubt the truth of Mach's principle in general. One of the last attempts to include Mach's principle in the theory of gravitation was undertaken by Shama, Dicke, Linden-Bell, Bartotty, Hoyle and the author of the present book. The chain of our reasoning starts with the formula connecting the mass of a typical particle to the existence of all remaining particles in the universe. Therefore, our initial formula gives a direct quantitative expression for Mach's principle..."

When we read this passage, we remember A.P. Chekhov's joke: "approaching the station, my hat has flown from me". As "the chain of our reasoning (Shama, Dicke, Linden-Bell, Bartotty, Hoyle and author of the present book) began from the formula, connecting the mass of a typical particle to the existence of all remaining particles in the universe". It is that the hat went, not the head, and the formula arose earlier of a thought. Yes, it is eventually possible to hide even the most delirious idea in mathematics, caring neither about common sense, nor about physical sense in general. The appeal of Dr. O. Oesterly [13] that physics should be created on a causal physical basis, instead of on mathematics, is especially important.

Newton, in considering the example of a rotating bucket with water, came to the conclusion that the definition of absolute (true) and relative motions with the help of a choice of origin coordinates is possible. Having declared the non-relativity of space, he could not, and did not connect the concepts of absolute accelerated motion and space.

And, if he applied the concept of explaining all combinations of phenomena only by the motion and interaction of bodies, he by all means would have come to the concept of a world medium (the ether) all the same. Ether is more than substance. Bodies interact with ether (in the case of inertia) and through it (in the case of gravitation). And subsequent generations of researchers would have had no chance to distort his doctrine.

However, it is necessary to note that for the first time in global practice a work has appeared, in which an attempt to explain the mechanism of inertia by the interaction of a moving body with the medium through which it moves is made [14].

Relativity of Galileo.
Absolute and relative movements

After we have settled with invariants and with the interaction of inertia, we can start the consideration of one of the complicated philosophical problems that are connected with the abnormal deviations in the development of physics in the 20th century.

From the law of inertia the conclusion follows: that for zero acceleration there corresponds zero force (and vice-versa). In accordance with Newton's third law, an action is always accompanied by a counteraction, equal and opposite to it. This results in the formulation of a relativity: "the relative movements of bodies, enclosed in any space, are identical, whether this space is in a rest or moves uniformly and rectilinearly without rotation" (Newton).

From the position of initial principles this definition, given by Newton, is not correct. Space is absolute and its motion is undefined. Therefore, Newton meant something else: i.e., a system of bodies (including molecules of air) having received the same acceleration and moving along uniformly and rectilinearly without rotation. Now, inside this system the laws of mechanics and dynamics are indistinguishable from the same laws of the system before it was accelerated.

The definition of relativity given by Galileo we should consider as more correct [15]. "In a cabin of a ship moving uniformly and without tossing, you will not detect (judging by any surrounding interior phenomena, or from anything co-moving with you), whether the ship moves or is at rest".

This definition, given by Galileo, was revolutionary at that time, as it contradicted the dominant doctrine of Ptolemy, explaining geocentrism using the idea that "the Earth is immobile, otherwise clouds and birds would lag behind its motion".

From the point of view of empiricism and observations of nature, the law of inertia and relativity, which arises from it, do not cause doubts. But, if we look more widely and generalize these phenomena for causes, mechanisms and for a finiteness of the velocity of interactions, it is possible to come to a conclusion about their incompleteness and insufficiency.

In the frameworks of empiricism there was an idealization of both inertia and relativity, as it is implied, that the form of these laws is saved for any velocity of bodies relative to the ether. It is impossible to impute blame to Galileo, Newton, Euler, Laplace or to other researchers who worked prior to the appearance of the works of Gauss, Weber and Gerber on the phenomenon of retarded potential. [16].

But, as soon as the work of Gerber appeared, researchers were obliged to revise all classical mechanics, having entered into it the dynamics of interactions as the result of the finiteness of the velocity of propagation and the retardation of potential. This has not taken place for the subjective reasons listed in [17].

Naturally, the delay of potential should exert an influence on the law of inertia of bodies (where ether is concerned), approaching the velocity of the interaction itself, and, therefore, to result in a non-observance of Galilean relativity. This problem has not been investigated sufficiently. But, on the other hand, Galileo and Newton (and their followers) have not fully used the relativity, discovered by Galileo.

Newton, having come to a conclusion about the absolute motion of water in a rotating bucket (more correctly – to absolute acceleration), did not begin to consider the motions inside inertial systems.

As a matter of fact Galilean relativity allows us to distinguish absolute and relative motions. This is possible only within the framework of definite interaction in a system consisting of two bodies. If strange interactions do not interfere in an isolated (or quasi-isolated) system of two bodies interacting between themselves, (or there are interactions, which can be neglected), it is possible to consider their motions as absolute with respect to their center of gravity. It is possible to consider such systems as the Sun – planet, the Earth – moon etc. And, moreover, if a barycenter of interacting bodies practically coincides with the center of one of bodies, it is possible to consider motion of the second body as being absolute relative to the first. So, it is possible to accept the center of the Sun as a tentative absolute reference system for the solar System and the motion of the planets can be considered as absolute. Then: the Earth rotates around the Sun, but not the Sun around the Earth (recall G. Bruno), the stone drops to the Earth, but not the Earth to the stone etc.

For absolute motions it is necessary to consider the motion of bodies in an inertial system, for example, Galileo's ship cabin, as if the reference system is fixed with respect to it.

It is necessary to consider all remaining motions, which do not fall under the definition of absolute, as being relative or composite.

The institution of observers

Classical physics always uses one observer. The thought of the person has infinitely high "speed" and considers any phenomenon in its totality, as being simultaneous at its opposite ends. Distortion of this postulate by relativists, stating it as though Newton and his followers used an indefinitely high velocity of interaction, is a forgery.

Using this forgery, relativists have introduced the institution of observers, which evaluates any phenomenon with the help of signals. The signals should come to the observer from the opposite ends of a phenomenon with a certain constant velocity, which one does not add to the velocity of the observer. Use of this procedure for arrivals of signals at the observer results in apparent distortions of the length of a moving body, its mass and the rate of its local time referred to a reference frame moving with the observer. Depending on the location of the observer and his velocity relative to an observable body, it is possible to obtain an indefinitely great number of results from observations.

Light is adopted as a signal the velocity of which is adopted as an absolute invariant. However, direct experiments to verify that the velocity of light does not add with the velocity of the receiver are not conducted. For example, Sekerin offers to conduct such an experiment [18]. He maintains that it is possible to consider stellar aberration as proof that the velocity of light obeys a classical formula of addition of velocities with the velocity of the Earth.

The institution of observers is fideism (machism) in a refined form.

About the absence of general relativity

Galilean relativity has generated a problem for researchers: whether electromagnetic phenomena are subjected to this principle or not. It could be tested on the surface of the Earth, which in the given case plays the role of "cabin in the ship." Since the Earth is performing this role, it is necessary, that the medium, being the carrier of electromagnetic phenomena should completely be entrained by the earth, as it happens with air in the cabin.

Michelson, then Michelson and Morley, then Miller and other experimenters have taken check of an entrainment (or not entraining) of ether by the Earth [19].

But, at first, Michelson and following him all other experimenters, except Miller, have made a logical error. They took the speed of motion of the Earth in space concerning the Sun only, which is about 30 km / s. While the solar System itself moves around the center of the Galaxy with a speed ~400 km /s. It was easily possible to define a direction of motion of the solar system on a sidereal firmament by the direction of the Milky Way.

Secondly, having believed Lorentz that the Earth should not entrain ether, Michelson did not take into consideration Arago's experiments with lenses, on the refracting of light, and, in connection with them, Fresnel's theory about a partial entrainment of ether.

Arago observed stellar aberration, which indicates that the velocity of light from stars is summed with the velocity of the Earth' motion using a classical addition formula for velocities in space. He found out, that the orientation angle of lenses in relation to the direction of the Earth's motion does not influence their refracting properties.

Fresnel [20] interpreted the outcomes of the experiments of Arago as a partial entraining of ether by the Earth. Stellar aberration is simply explained by such a supposition. Fresnel made the hypothesis that "our terrestrial globe entrains some fraction of this medium to explain the absence of the effect of the motion of the Earth on the refraction of a prism. This refers to the part of ether, which is formed by itself with excess density in comparison with the ambient (or background) ether". Then the velocity of light (waves in ether) should be increased only with respect to the velocity of the barycenter of the two ethers and not strictly on the velocity of the Earth. Fresnel's hypothesis explained not only the facts of the existence of stellar aberration and the absence of the effect of the motion of the Earth on optical phenomena on its surface, but also all spectra of optical phenomena. It could mean only one thing: Fresnel's theory has an exact actual and logical basis.

Michelson's experiments could be considered only as a refinement of Arago's experiments: with respect to the hypothesis that ether is entrained at the surface of the Earth. Having found out, that the barycenter of the ethers, entrained and not entrained, moves with velocity about 3 km/s, it was possible to assert, that entrainment is practically complete (now almost precisely: ~99.3%).

From the experiments of Arago and Michelson the conclusion followed: yes, in the specific case of the Earth, it is possible to consider that there is a general principle of relativity, because at its surface the ether is practically completely entrained. But will this conclusion be correct for any inertial systems, as relativists consider them? Certainly it will not, because the value of entrainment of ether solely depends on the mass of the body. And, if now we consider the motion of the ship, a general principle does not exist any more in its cabin. This is proved by the interference experiments of Pogani and Sagnac on a rotating platform and also by Fizeau's experiment on an attempt to detect entrained ether by moving water. An entrainment of ether by a rotating platform and water in a background "of a dense atmosphere" of ether at the surface of the Earth (including the cabin of the ship) is so insignificant, that it can be neglected.

It means that it is impossible to use Galilean relativity for electromagnetic interactions, hence general relativity does not exist.

It is possible to assert that Hertz' reasoning [21] was the same, as he extended Maxwell's equations on the motion of electromagnetic phenomena concerning ether with velocity u.

Relativistic transformations

The Galilean transformations for inertial systems proceed from Euclid's geometry (and an orthogonal coordinate system). In consequence, the requirement of a postulate about the non-relativity of space to something external by means of the geometry of the operating forces is implemented, as the direction of acceleration precisely corresponds to the direction of the force, and the counteraction is precisely opposite to the operation.

In opposition to Hertz, relativists (Lorentz, etc.) searched for a certain transformation of coordinates, by which Maxwell's equations would remain invariant in a transition to another inertial system moving with respect to the first. This was possible for them due to the "Lorentz' factor," which followed from Fresnel's coefficient of light entrainment (dragging) by ether as a limiting case of full entrainment [22].

Thus, the relativistic transformations already follow from full entrainment of ether by bodies as result of an application by them of the "Lorentz factor," whether relativists want it or not. But, as experiments have shown, only massive bodies can fully entrain ether. Planets and stars are such bodies. Therefore, the use of such transformations for any inertial systems is not legitimate. If we consider the motion of an electromagnetic system with reference to the Earth' surface (considering ether as immovable with respect to the Earth's surface), its laws should be described by Hertz' equations, instead of Maxwell's.

However the main consequences of the introduction of general relativity were that the introduction of the new transformations were without casualty, without any basis. The initial principles of physics were dismissed. Namely, space and time became not irrespective to motion of matter and to each other. As a result, another reason was entered "over those, which one are true and are sufficient for the explanation of phenomena", a new conception – "space-time." The new conception was introduced artificially by using an arbitrary method: by multiplying the speed of light by the duration of time that the light is in motion from an observable phenomenon to the observer.

"Invariance" of the length of a segment under relativistic transformations and its "contact" with a retarded potential

The analysis of extending the principle relativity for an electromagnetic system for any inertial systems displays that each time a transition is made to a new inertial system, it is as though a full entrainment of ether by it is implied. It was made with the help of a final case of Fresnel's coefficient "of the Lorentz' factor". But, as relativists have refused to consider ether in general, it was necessary to invent a new essence – curvature of space-time and, thus, to declare a connection between space, time and mass (any observations, facts and experiments for this purpose did not exist and can not be).

It was made with the help of the introduction of the observer and procedure of measurement of a segment in another coordinate system moving relative to the first (connected with the observer) with the help of a light signal, to which one relativists have imputed a fanciful unreal property. This property is that the velocity of light does not add with the velocity of the receiver. However this property would turn out to be real only in the case where we recognize ether and by considering the entrainment of it by [ ] the coordinate system (of the receiver) as being complete. Actually, when the velocity of light relative to the immovable ether is constant and the ether is immovable relative to the receiver, the velocity of light will be the same in relation to the receiver independently from the velocity of the light before it became entrained by the ether. But, on the other hand, where can we now put that segment of the light path, where there is no entrainment of the ether? You see, the velocity of light and that of the receiver are added based on a classical addition formula of velocities (stellar aberration) for this path segment!

All this nonsense about the curvature of space-time would have been immediately rejected by the researchers of the planet, if it had not made "contact" with reality through an incorrect interpretation of Kaufman's experiments.

As it is shown in reference [17], the reason for the abnormal deviation of fast electrons in a transversal magnetic field is the reduction of the force of their interaction with a magnetic field dependent on velocity related to the retarded potential, not with the increase of their mass. When electrons attain a velocity equal to the velocity of electrodynamic interactions it should result in a full absence of their interaction with a magnetic field. Therefore the electrons will move rectilinearly without deviation.

But this argument appeared insufficient for the rejection of relativistic views, as in this case it is necessary to explain "abnormal" increasing of energy of electrons, which one appears to be much more than mV2/2. This fact has appeared decisive for the recognition of relativistic views.

And this fact always resulted in a defeat of the critics of relativism, as none of them could put forward explanations for the abnormal increasing of energy of electrons (as well as other particles) as a function of velocity. The author of this article presented a reason for the abnormal increasing of energy depending on velocity [17]. It was revealed that the researchers could find this reason at once after experiments of Germer and Davisson on the confirmation of the views of de Broglie [23]. From these experiments followed: that the greater the velocity of particles, nuclei, atoms and molecules, the greater the frequency of their de Broglie's waves. It was necessary only to relate this frequency to energy through the formula E = Hν, and all would be "OK". However nobody has made this step (or did not change his mind).

The full inconsistency of relativistic physics becomes obvious after the finding of the true reasons for the abnormal deviations of a trajectory of an electron in a transverse magnetic field and abnormal (in relation to classical dynamics) energy of accelerated particles in accelerators. It is true not only in philosophical sense (though it should be the main argument), but also actually, i.e. it is proved experimentally.


The literature:

  1. Newton, I., Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. 1687.
  2. Basilevsky, S.A., About pseudo-science. In: The reports of all-Union conference FENID-91, vol. 1, page 157...165, Gomel, 1991.
  3. Noskov, N.K., Tasks and rules of making of science. In Russian.
  4. Samjatin, A.G., About the experimental basis of the relativity theory which has been set up in the article of corresponding member of ASc USSR E.A. Aleksandrov. In: The reports of all-Union conference FENID-91, vol. 1, page 7...24, Gomel, 1991.
  5. Huygens, C., The treatise about light. Leiden, 1703.
  6. Engels, F., Anti-During. In The collected works of Marx and Engels, vol. 21, M., Gospolitisdat, 1962.
  7. Noskov, N.K., Light, photons, velocity of light, ether and other "banalities". "Science of Kazakhstan" #5 (65), 1996.
  8. Noskov, N.K., The theories of mechanisms of interaction and the hypothesis about their synthesis. "Science of Kazakhstan" #16 (124), 1998.
  9. Noskov, N.K., Those not-quite elementary particles. "Science of Kazakhstan" #4 (160), 2000.
  10. Kusnetsov, B.G., From Galileo up to Einstein. Science, M., 1969, page 160.
  11. Gerber, P., Die räumliche und zeitliche Ausbreitung der Gravitation. Z. Math. Phys., v. 43, p. 93...104, 1898.
  12. Narlikar, J.V., Gravitation without formulas. Mir, M., 1985.
  13. Oesterle O.V., Goldene Mitte: Unser einziger Ausweg. Vom zersplitterten zum ganzheitlichen Wissen. Universal Experten Verlag, Rapperswil, Schweiz, 1997.
  14. Bykovsky, O.A., Problems of modern physics. Gylym, Alma-Ata, 1995, page 86.
  15. Galileo, G., Dialogue on the two chief world systems – Ptolemy and Copernicus. M-L., 1948, page 147.
  16. Noskov, N.K., Gauss, Weber, Gerber and others... "Science of Kazakhstan" #13 (73), 1996.
  17. Noskov, N.K., The phenomenon of retarded of potential.
  18. Sekerin, V.I., News about an old experiment. In: The reports of all-Union conference FENID-91, v. 1, page 64...74, Gomel, 1991.
  19. Noskov, N.K., The centenary ethereal war. "Science of Kazakhstan" #21 (105), 1997.
  20. Fresnel, O., The letter to Arago: "About the effect of motion of the Earth on some optical phenomena". 1818. In vol.: O. Fresnel. Selected transactions after optician (about optician). M., 1955, page 516.
  21. Hertz, H., About the basic equations of an electrodynamics of moving bodies. 1890.
  22. Larmor, J., Aether and matter. University press, Cambridge, 1900.
  23. Germer, L. and Davisson, C.J., Experiments on an electron diffraction verifying views of de Broglie. In: B.K. Sementshenko. The selected chapters of theoretical physics. M., Prosveshtenie, 1966, page 145... 151.

Date of the publication:

February 27, 2001

Electronic version:

© NiT. Current publications, 1997

В начало сайта | Книги | Статьи | Журналы | Нобелевские лауреаты | Издания НиТ | Подписка
NiT's Electronic library: Books | Articles | Biographies | Abstracts | NiT's Publications | Journal
NiT's Projects and Companions: Competitions | Joint projects | Editorial Department
© МОО «Наука и техника», 1997...2016
About NiTContactAdvertisingLegal information
Яндекс цитирования