The majority of the modern scientists fallen under "charm" of a
relativity theory undertake infinite attempts to decipher, to improve, to
correct it, to prove its accuracy and to convince others that physics
develops in right direction. The totals of these efforts are appearance of
thesises on a near relativistic subject, about which anybody never learns,
except for a very small number of persons. Where are names of scientists,
who within centuries supported and developed a Ptolemy system of the World
construction?!.. Minority, having crashed scientific career because of
critical attitude to dominant views and having understood a uselessness of
such kind of activity silently leave science. And only some of them
somewhere at the end of the life languidly will utter, languidly
protesting, or punning: "In theory of relativity secret of a gravitation
is explained by a riddle of a bending of a space-time" (Mac-Witty) [1].
"GTR suffers by profound contradictions and severe lacks, one of which is
a non-physical essence of a gravitational field" (Stanjukovich) [2].
It is necessary to understand that "physical essence" is mechanism
causality within the framework of common sense, which one, in turn, has
profound philosophical sense and definition of which one includes such
concept, as severe scientific logic.
About that in a relativistic physics the logic is infringed, speaks
much. One of examples: "In a classic mechanics of a Newton the interaction
of bodies with the help of a potential energy is assumed as instantaneous
propagation of interactions" (Yavorsky, Detlaf. The quick Reference on
physics for the engineers and students of institutes) [3]. If it is not
special gossip, it is a rough logic error,so far as the absence of
velocity of interaction in the laws of a mechanics at all does not mean
its instantaneity. In a relativistic physics also so there is no concept
of velocity of interaction, however it does not hinder to relativists to
assert about presence at it short-range interactions only on the ground
that there is an ungrounded restriction of velocity of bodies, equal
velocity of light.
The researchers who have refused from the relativistic theory, and them
with every day are become ever more suddenly find out, how much the
physicists of pre-Einsteinian epoch have made. What powerful basethey have
prepared for development of physics, and as miserably the relativistic
physics looks on its background. A vivid example is the mechanism theory
in physics. The great set of such theories was created for very short (on
historical sense) term – since 1780 till 1890. In the offered below
article the speech will go about mechanisms of interactions as most
important and greatest riddle of the nature.
Attempts to understand essence of gravitation were undertaken during
centuries. Especially fixed attention of the researchers to this mystery
of nature has appeared after printing of "The Beginnings..." of a Newton
in 1687. But, to put forward an appropriate hypothesis, there were in that
time no premises and reasons. The majority of sciences, by means of with
it are possible to create the analogy or the mechanism theory, have
appeared much later. With appearance of thermodynamics, molecular physics,
aerodynamics and hydrodynamics etc ground arose for advance of hypotheses
(there was a set of them) about mechanisms of interaction. Having been
grounded on the logically and strictly well founded simulation of
processes and mechanisms as well as on experimental data, three mode of
interaction, really can exist in the nature (certainly, at existence of
universal medium – ether).
It is the "screen" theory, which one has appeared first and was
revealed triply. At first in Russia, in 1748 – Lomonosov [4]; then in 1782
– Swiss scientist Lessag [5]; in 1883 it was revived by W. Thomson [6] and
has got in a center of attention of world community. Many famous
scientists of century: the Maxwell, Poincare, Darvin, Tunzelmann, Preston,
Izenkrae, Yarolimek, Bok etc. participated in discussion of it.
The theory of screens assumes that all universal space is filled by
smallest particles (ether), which are moving chaotic in all directions
with high speeds. The particle bombards a single body in such space from
different directions equally. Two bodies are screens for particles, faced
to these bodies on a line by their connecting. There is a difference of
pressure by particles outside and from inside, and from inside it is less,
that is why the bodies are pressed down to each other (are attracted).
The mechanism of screens looks deceptively simple for calculations so
far as it is rather obvious, and it is easy to show, that the law of
interaction derived from it is the law of reverse squares, as well as law
of universal gravitation. However set of values which are included in
these calculations, are unknown, and among them: mass of particles of
ether, their velocity, density, free length etc., that has resulted in set
of incorrect conclusions and objections against the theory.
The pulsation theory – most demonstrative and effective – has
arisen approximately in 1856, in transactions of Norwegian physicist
Bjerknes [7].
...The pulsating bodies transmit oscillations via ether. The
oscillations from two bodies, adding in space, create a difference of
impulses which influence on bodies, outside and from inside, causing
bodies either to be attracted, or to be repelled, that depends, how the
bodies pulse: in a phase or in an antiphase.
For the demonstration of experiments with pulsated rubber spheres
placed at a bath with a liquid, Bjerknes was awarded with the diploma of
international jury at the Parisian electrical exhibition.
The Englishman Cooke [8] (1882) has used cylinders instead of spheres,
with the help of which he modeled electrical, magnetic and diamagnetic
phenomena. There is one more experimenter, Guthrje [9] (1870) have
demonstrated experiment on attraction and repulsion of oscillating tuning
forks.
Cambridge astronomer Challis [10] (1859), then Hicks [11] and Leahy
[12] (1880) and, at last Burton [13] in 1909 have attempted to make the
theoretical substantiation of the pulsation theory of interaction. It is
considered that in transactions of Burton the English pulsation school of
interaction has achieved the best outcome.
The modern scientists continue to elaborate the pulsation and screen
theories too.
The theory "of sources – drains of a ether" (below mentioned as
drains) has arisen from observations of interaction of two driving ships
(Riemann [14], 1853) and it was theoretically justified by the Pearson
[15, 16, 17, 18] in 1891. The initial idea of century jets of ether in
space was step-by-step transformed. At first it appears as notion about
jets of ether as a dynamic mock-up of atom (in transactions of the
Pearson), then a source of jets became an electron and all fundamental
particles (in transactions [19] (1906)).
Stanjukovich have made the experiment on idea of in 1958 [20]. In two
hollow sphere with set of small-sized holes was blown up with air. The
effluxion of air from holes in spheres causes origin of attraction of
spheres.
About synthesis of mechanism of interaction. All above described
mechanisms of interaction result in the law of reverse squares, similarly
to the universal law of gravitation of a Newton, or Coulomb's law and
quite can really exist in the nature. It is possible to suspect that all
of them are realized in the nature simultaneously.
In theory of screens it is meant, that the free length of particles of
ether should be more than distance between bodies (otherwise mechanism not
act). That such condition was kept for planets, it is necessary, that the
free length of particles of ether was equal to millions kilometers. At
such free length density of ether can not be sufficient to play a role the
light-carrying medium, and mass of particles of a ether at velocity, equal
velocity of light, should be macrosize for fulfillment of conditions of
the law of attraction. In that case, most probably to suspect, that the
screen mechanism executes a role of a nuclear interaction, and radius of
its operation is equal approximately 10–13 m, that removes
the above named objections. Besides, becomes obvious, that the screen
mechanism is inapplicable to gravitation also owing to sharp limitation of
its radius of action by a free length of particles of ether, while in the
nature of such limitation is not watched. And on the contrary, the nuclear
interaction has sharp limitation by the above-stated size (the short-range
picture).
The pulsation mechanism is well entered in the script of operation of
electromagnetic forces, as available all set of features describing
electromagnetic interaction (experiments of Cooke). Distance of such
interactions is more than the mean free length of particles of ether.
Therefore, screen mechanism already misses, and acts only pulsation and
drains. The portional emitting of ether as outcome of a constitution of
fundamental particles (for example, the spiral – shaped vortex) can serves
as a generator of pulsation.
And, at last, mechanism of drains of ether can serve as a gravitational
interaction. Operation of this mechanism is total flux of ether from all
fundamental particles. There are no oscillations of separate particles in
this flux so far as they already have got mixed up and have been smoothed
out.
The offered hypothesis removes a problem on the mechanism of a dragging
of ether by bodies (Fresnel, Stokes), the difficulty of the proof of which
has resulted Lorentz and Einstein in waiving this theory, and then in
general to waiving ether. The dragging of ether by bodies should serve by
proof of a distortion of light beams near to massive bodies (through a
convex lens of ether).
At first the review of the theories of mechanism of interactions was
made by Taylor [21] in 1876, then was proceeded by Zenneck [22] in 1903
and Stallo [23] in 1960.
The literature:
G.K. Mak-Vitty. A general theory of relativity and
cosmology. Publishing house of the foreign literature, M., 1961. In
Russian.
K.P. Stanjukovich. A gravitational field and fundamental
particles. Science, M., 1965. In Russian.
B.M. Yavorsky, A.A. Detlaf. The quick reference on physics
for the engineers and students of institutes. Science, M., 1974. In
Russian.
M.V. Lomonosov. About relation of quantity of a matter and
weigt. The full collected works, v. 3. AcSci USSR, M. – L., 1952. In
Russian.
LeSag. The kinetic theory of gravitation. 1782. In: N.T.
Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein.
World, M., 1985, page 133...138. In Russian.
W. Thomson. On the ultramundane corpuscles of LeSage. Phil.
Mag. (Ser. 4), 45, 1873, p. 321...332. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of
a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 133. In
Russian.
Bjerknes. The pulsation theory of gravitation. 1856. In:
N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein.
World, M., 1985, page 125. In Russian.
C. Cooke. Bjerknes's Hydrodynamiral experiments.
Engineering, 33, 1882, p. 23...25, 147...148, 191...192. In: N.T.
Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein.
World, M., 1985, page 125. In Russian.
F. Guthrje. On approach caused by vibration. Phil. Mag.,
39, p. 309, 40, p. 345...354, 1870. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a
Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 125. In
Russian.
Challis. The force of gravity. Phil. Mag. (Ser. 4),
18, p. 442-451, 1859. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from
Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 125...126. In Russian.
W. M. Hicks. On the problem of two pulsating spheres
in a fluid. Proc. Camb. phil. Soc., 3, p. 276...285, 1880. In: N.T.
Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein.
World, M., 1985, page 126...129. In Russian.
H. Leahy. On the pulsations of spheres in an elastic
medium. Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc., 14, 45...62, 1889. In: N.T. Rousver. A
perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985,
page 128. In Russian.
V. Burton. A modified theory of gravitation. Phil.
Mag. (Ser. 6), 17, 71...113, 1909. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a
Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 129...130.
In Russian.
Riemann. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury
from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 130. In Russian.
K. Pearson. On the motion the spherical and
ellipsoidal bodies in fluid media. Q. J. Pure appl. Math., 20, p.
184...211, 1885. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from
Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 130...132. In Russian.
K. Pearson. On a certain atomic hypothesis. Part II.
Prc. London math., 20, p. 38...63, 1888...1889. In: N.T. Rousver. A
perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985,
page 130...132. In Russian.
K. Pearson. On a certain atomic hypothesis. Trans.
Camb. Soc., 14, p. 71...120, 1889. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a
Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 130...132.
In Russian.
K. Pearson. Ether squirts. Am. J. Math., 13, p.
309...362, 1891. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from
Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 130...132. In Russian.
G. A. Schott. On the electron theory of matter and
the explanation of fine spectrum lines and of gravitation. Phil. Mag.
(Ser. 6), p. 21...29, 1906. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury
from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 132...133. In
Russian.
K.P. Stanjukovich. Interaction of two bodies,
"emanatings" gas streams. The reports AcSci USSR, 4, page 119, 1958.
W. B. Taylor. Kinetic theories of gravitation. Rep.
(Wash)., p. 205...282, 1876.
J. Zenneck. Gravitation. Encykl. Math. Wiss., 6 (1),
25...27, 1903.
J. B. Stallo. The concepts and theories of modern
physics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1960.
Is published earlier:
"Science of Kazakhstan", 16 (124), August 16...31,
1998.
Знаете ли Вы, что cогласно релятивистской мифологии "гравитационное линзирование - это физическое явление, связанное с отклонением лучей света в поле тяжести. Гравитационные линзы обясняют образование кратных изображений одного и того же астрономического объекта (квазаров, галактик), когда на луч зрения от источника к наблюдателю попадает другая галактика или скопление галактик (собственно линза). В некоторых изображениях происходит усиление яркости оригинального источника." (Релятивисты приводят примеры искажения изображений галактик в качестве подтверждения ОТО - воздействия гравитации на свет) При этом они забывают, что поле действия эффекта ОТО - это малые углы вблизи поверхности звезд, где на самом деле этот эффект не наблюдается (затменные двойные). Разница в шкалах явлений реального искажения изображений галактик и мифического отклонения вблизи звезд - 1011 раз. Приведу аналогию. Можно говорить о воздействии поверхностного натяжения на форму капель, но нельзя серьезно говорить о силе поверхностного натяжения, как о причине океанских приливов. Эфирная физика находит ответ на наблюдаемое явление искажения изображений галактик. Это результат нагрева эфира вблизи галактик, изменения его плотности и, следовательно, изменения скорости света на галактических расстояниях вследствие преломления света в эфире различной плотности. Подтверждением термической природы искажения изображений галактик является прямая связь этого искажения с радиоизлучением пространства, то есть эфира в этом месте, смещение спектра CMB (космическое микроволновое излучение) в данном направлении в высокочастотную область. Подробнее читайте в FAQ по эфирной физике.
