Aether by K.A. Khaidarov. 3

Why is lensing not “gravity etching”?
According to relativistic mythology

Gravitational lensing is a physical phenomenon associated with the deviation of optical radiation in a gravity field. Gravitational lenses explain the formation of multiple images of the same astronomical object (quasars, galaxies) when another galaxy or a cluster of galaxies (the actual lens) enters the line of sight from the source to the observer. In some images, the brightness of the original source is enhanced.
Relativists give examples of the distortion of images of galaxies as confirmation of GR – the effect of gravity on photons.

At the same time, they forget that the field of effect of the GRT effect is small angles near the surface of stars, where in fact this effect is not observed (eclipsing double). The difference in the scales of the phenomena of real distortion of images of galaxies and the mythical deviation near the stars is 1011 times. I will give an analogy. You can talk about the effect of surface tension on the shape of the droplets, but you can not seriously talk about the force of surface tension, as the cause of ocean tides.

Aetheric physics finds the answer to the observed phenomenon of distortion of images of galaxies. This is the result of heating of the Aether near galaxies, changes in its density and, consequently, changes in the speed of light at galactic distances due to the refraction of light in Aether of various densities. Confirmation of the thermal nature of the distortion of images of galaxies is a direct connection of this distortion with the radio emission of space, i.e. Aether in this place, the shift of the CMB spectrum in this direction to the high-frequency region.

What is light fatigue?
Light fatigue, ang. tired light is the phenomenon of the loss of energy by a quantum of electromagnetic radiation during the passage of cosmic distances, the same as the effect of the red shift of the spectrum of distant galaxies, discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1926.
In fact, the quanta of electromagnetic waves, passing billions of light years, give up their energy to the Aether, “empty space”, as it is a real physical medium – a carrier of electromagnetic oscillations with nonzero viscosity or friction, and, therefore, oscillations in this medium must attenuate with power consumption for friction. Friction is extremely small, and therefore the effect of “aging of the light” or “Hubble redshift” is found only at intergalactic distances.
Thus, the light of distant stars does not stack with the light of their neighbors. Distant stars turn red, and very distant ones go into the radio range and cease to be visible at all. This is a truly observable phenomenon of deep-space astronomy.

Aether, having a monstrous heat capacity, subsequently gives its energy to the stars in the process of gravity. The so-called I law of thermodynamics – and correctly – the law of conservation of energy – is fully complied with, but part of the energy transfers to Aether, which has a very low temperature of 2.7ºK.

What is the Big Bang?
The Big Bang (eng. Big Bang) is a cosmological model describing the early development of the Universe, namely, the beginning of the expansion of the Universe, before which the Universe was in a singular state. Usually, the Big Bang theory and the hot Universe model are now automatically combined, but these concepts are independent and, historically, there was also an idea of ​​a cold initial Universe near the Big Bang. It is the combination of the Big Bang theory with the hot universe theory, supported by the existence of the CMB radiation …
In this tirade, the number of nonsense (nonsense) is greater than the number of sentences, otherwise it is simply difficult to confuse the mind of the average person to such an extent that he would believe in this nonsense.

In fact, something can explode only in the already existing space.
In principle, there can be no explosion without this, since an “explosion” is a concept that is applicable only within an already existing space. And if so, that is, if the space of the universe was already before BV, then BV cannot be the beginning of the Universe in principle. This is the first.
Secondly, the Universe is not an ordinary finite object with boundaries, it is infinity itself in time and space. It has no beginning and no end, as well as no spatial boundaries by its definition: it is everything (and therefore it is called the Universe).
Thirdly, the phrase “the idea of ​​a cold initial universe near the Big Bang” also has continuous nonsense.
What could be “near the Big Bang” if the universe itself was not there yet?

What is the “expansion of the universe”?

According to relativistic mythology promoted by the overwhelming majority of media sources, for example, the mouthpiece of relativism by Wikipedia,

Expansion of the Universe is a phenomenon consisting in the almost uniform and isotropic expansion of outer space on the scale of the entire Universe.
Experimentally, the expansion of the Universe is observed in the form of implementation of the Hubble law. The beginning of the expansion of the universe, science considers the so-called Big Bang. Theoretically, the phenomenon was predicted and substantiated by A. Friedman at the early stage of development by the general theory of relativity from general philosophical considerations about the uniformity and isotropy of the Universe.
Otherwise, than verbiage and a fairy tale for mentally retarded people such a formulation can not be called. In fact, if there is no independent (external to the Universe) measure, then in no way can it be detected expansion, because all objects, parts of the universe are inside of itself and, therefore, “expand” in the same way as the Universe itself. Moreover, it is logically absurd to argue about the quantitative measure of the object when the object itself is missing. For quality (existence) is the obligatory cause of quantity.
This alogical idea appeared in the head of the young Perm meteorologist Alexander Fridman, who invented this myth to reconcile the formula of the Einstein GR (which, by the way, was stolen from David Gilbert) with itself.
At the beginning, neither Einstein nor anyone else paid serious attention to this fable due to its obvious illogical nature, but then, having nothing better, the relativists began to vigorously propagate this myth, juggling all possible facts under it.
The fact is that the “theory” of Einstein – Friedman implies the explosion of the Universe into “nothing”, into non-existent space (if space existed before the “Big Bang”, then it is not the beginning of the Universe) and the use of Edwin Hubble’s discovery by relativists – the statistical dependence between distances to galaxies and redshifts in their spectra.
In 1926, E. Hubble discovered that nearby galaxies statistically fit on the regression lines, which in terms of the Doppler shift of the spectrum can be characterized by an almost constant parameter

H = VD / R [km / (s Mps)],

where VD is the spectrum shift translated into Doppler velocity [km / s], R is the distance from the Earth to the galaxy [Mps]

Actually, E. Hubble himself did not assert the Doppler nature of these displacements, and the discoverer of the “new” and supernova stars Fritz Zwicky in 1928 associated these displacements with the loss of energy by quanta of electromagnetic radiation at cosmogonic distances. Moreover, in 1936, on the basis of a study of the distribution of galaxies, E. Hubble concluded that it could not be explained by the Doppler effect, but Fritz Zwicky’s hypothesis of “light fatigue”, which he put forward in 1928, is more likely.
However, the absurdity triumphed. Galaxies with large redshifts are attributed to almost light speed in the direction from the Earth.

Why does the relativistic concept of “speed of light” have no physical and mathematical meaning?
The position of relativism: “The speed of light is 300 thousand km / s by itself, regardless of any object.” – there is a logical absurdity for the following reason.

The concept of speed is formed by applying the mathematical concept of a derivative.

v = dx/dt where dx and dt are the limits of the segments of the path and time

dt = t(2) - t(1), dx = x(2) - x(1) 
{x (1), t (1)}; {x (2), t (2)} - respectively, the old and the new position of the object in space and time

If there is no reason to consider a new position, then all of this turns into a circus, a cheating booth.

From the physical point of view, the actual speed of any physical wave is correctly calculated from the medium, the excitement of which it is. After all, there is no wave without medium! Any wave is only elastic oscillations of the medium! – This is the very definition of a wave. Whoever does not know this is the one with physics.

From a mathematical point of view, there is no correct solution to the question of the constancy of the velocity of an object (for example, a photon) with respect to arbitrary objects moving in different directions (and observers as well).

Why? – because the system

v(1) = dx/dt {x(1),t(1)}; {x(2),t(2)}
v(i) = dx/dt {x(1),t(1)}; {x(2),t(2)}
v(n) = dx/dt {x(1),t(1)}; {x(2),t(2)}

has no solution с = v (i) = const, i – any for different x (i), t (i)

In the human language, the speed measured relative to objects moving in different directions at different speeds will be different, not constant.

Is the mass proportional to the speed of movement?
In unscrupulous and weak-minded, yes.
To understand what’s the matter, I will give a simple example – an analogy.
We look at the fly with a magnifying device (magnifier, microscope, telescope …)
Does the size of the fly depend on the device, the change of eyepieces? – Yes, it depends.
What does this observable size have to do with the actual size of a fly? – No.

The dexterity of the hands of Ostap Benders from relativism is that they carry out the substitution of the real size (mass) – observable, that is, visible in the device.

On the basis of such a substitution, they fool people.

For an adequately minded person who has the potency to present a minimally complicated picture:

  • two observers moving with some non-zero speed relative to each other.
  • relative to them some object is moving in its direction.

It is clear that the speed of this object will be different relative to each observer.
From the relativistic mass formula in this situation, it turns out that the same object has a different mass at the same time, since it has a different speed relative to different observers.

It turns out that its mass is not equal to itself.
What’s this? Not schizophrenia? Do not cheat?

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *