blackhole03

V.5 No 2	3
On reality of black holes

In this connection, let us see, how Einstein uses (4) to calculate the light beams warping in the gravity field.

In the next item 4 of the above mentioned work, Einstein describes the light beams warping in the gravity field. Here in the statement of problem he already does not point, in which reference frame he works and which material bodies freely fall in the gravity field, giving to the inertial reference frame the acceleration of free fall. He states the problem already as follows. "Let be an equiphase plane of some plane light wave at the moment t, and P₁ and P₂ be two points on it; the distance between them is 1. The points P₁ and P₂ lay in the plane of graph that is chosen so that taken over the normal to it, the derivative of , and consequently of c , turns to zero (Fig. 1)" [16, p. 172].

We already do not see any material bodies to which we could refer the reference frame freely falling in the gravity field. We have some front of the light wave (to the point, not photons), but this front can be emitted by the source located infinitely far, - and F. Dyson, A. Eddington and K. Davidson [18, p. 564] did just so in their experimental check. The source of signal also was not located in a freely falling reference frame but moved with the Earth along some orbit. This would basically change (3), which was grounded not on the interaction of light flow with the gravity field but on the change of source location during the time when the beam passes from the source to receiver freely falling in the gravity field. Nothing to say of any changes of wave front. For it, the wave re-emitting virtual Huygens centres had to have a mass and to fall in the gravity field. But Einstein never admitted this property of aether, never returned to the space its virtual materiality. "The mechanical aether theory became, basically, an excessive and braking the further development even then, when the elastic light theory has been substituted by that electromagnetic. In this last, the material aether always was a foreign body (? - Authors). Already after the relativity theory creation, Einstein suggested to introduce the idea of ether again and to consider it already not as a substance, but only as the meaning of those values determining the physical state that should be attributed to the space not filled by an usual matter. The ether understood in this sense has not, of course, any mechanical properties; in other words, the physical characteristics of space have neither locations nor speeds" [19, p. 15].

None the less, in this scheme, the beam velocity change takes place namely in the inertial reference frame and due to the Huygens centres replacement in the gravity field. Just such 'transformation' of the initial statement of problem, without change of the final solution, enables Einstein to write the angle value per unit of path as

or, by virtue of relationship

[16, p. 173]. As we see, (7) approximately calculated for an uniformly accelerated motion is involved into a general formula for the varying potential , and even more, "we could yield the same result also, considering an immediate light beam propagation in an uniformly accelerated reference frame K' , transforming the result in the frame K and then generalising for the case of gravity field of arbitrary kind" [16, p. 178].

Such is the 'mathematics' about which relativists are so proud. They not only fully took off the phenomenological substantiation of processes from their study. In the course of proof they at will change the statement of problem and retain the appearance of formulas, but ignore the rigour of proof. Naturally, in this way they can yield any invented result. Really, what does phenomenologically substantiate the basic expression (3) that determines just the pointed variation of frequency of signal received by an accelerated observer? In the item 1 of [16], Einstein, in order to substantiate the transition in inertial and non-inertial reference frame, begins not on the basis of his 4 D representation, though, after full rupture with the 'dead hand' of classical physics, this would be logical. But he begins again with the inertia in Galilean reference frame, and begins in quite strange way. "The material points that are not the subject of affection of other material points move relatively K , as well as relatively K' , in accordance with equations

For an accelerated reference frame K' this follows immediately from Galilee principle; but for the reference frame K being at rest in the homogeneous gravity field, this follows from the experimental fact that all bodies in such field are accelerated uniformly and equally strong" [16, p. 166].

But classical physics never, to no extent identified the uniformly accelerated reference frames and reference frames stationary in gravity field. It did not do so namely because all experimental facts contradict. If the reference frame was uniformly accelerated and material bodies were not affected by other material bodies, i.e. the reference frame does not drag them, in this non-inertial reference frame they will move with an acceleration oppositely to the acceleration of reference frame. With it all Newton laws that are true for inertial reference frames will become fully invalid here. If the body having the mass M moves in a non-inertial reference frame with an acceleration, from the state of rest, opposite to the acceleration of reference frame, then, having encountered with an absolutely elastic massive barrier, it will not gain a reverse uniform speed, as it would occur in inertial reference frame, and will not return to the start point, as it would occur in reference frame stationary in a gravity field. The body will collide with the wall with an attenuating amplitude, in a full contradiction to all conservation laws that are true in inertial (non-accelerated) reference frames.