To main page

Falsifications, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the methodology and results of the book

The publication of the book raised the bar for mathematical models of nature to a new high level. The time had passed when researchers proposing their models of nature could restrict themselves to a small class of phenomena. Now, to justify the adequacy of a model, it is necessary to logically derive all the basic laws of electricity, magnetism, electrodynamics, gravitation and all the other quantitative results presented in the book. Such a situation can naturally cause hostility among researchers who are limited to a narrow range of tasks.

Besides, the book does not give rest to some pseudo-scientists, who, instead of substantive scientific discussion of the results obtained in the paradigm of mathematical modeling, aggressively try to attract to themselves the attention of the public with all sorts of falsifications and misrepresentations, in some places going beyond the bounds of decency. Investigating the reasons for this behavior will reduce distrust to new scientific directions.

However, let us leave the study of the details of such scientists' behavioral motives to sociologists and psychologists, as well as to neuropathologists and educators. Here we will consider only the logical inconsistency of the falsifications that have appeared. We will use the neutral terms accepted in scientific discussions: "misunderstanding" or "misleading". Herewith, we will not dwell on banal assertions showing that their author has not bothered to read the preface and the first chapter of the book, or simply does not know the basics of continuous media mechanics, higher mathematics, and mathematical modeling. We hope that the explanations provided here, as well as the comments already given in the reviews of the book, will enable us not to return to the relevant topics any more.

Many scientists working at the forefront of science, unfortunately, do not find time to respond to public insinuations. This leads to negative consequences, including the difficulty of involving a wide range of sane researchers in theoretically sound quantitative work on fundamentally new technologies and ultimately hindering the timely satisfaction of the urgent needs of society.


Misunderstanding 1. Criticism of the book in the paradigm of methodology, significantly different from the methodology of mathematical modeling.

Explanation.

Methodologies of sciences are not usually taught in universities, especially in physical, engineering and technical specialties. Therefore, such a topic may be simply unfamiliar to many people.

Briefly, each scientific methodology has its own rules for substantiating statements: mathematics, applied mathematics, experimental physics, theoretical physics, philosophy, natural philosophy, etc. Moreover, the basic rules of one methodology are often categorically rejected by another methodology.

In this book, research is carried out according to the methodology of mathematical modeling, developed in the second half of the XX century by outstanding scientists (see references on p. 12 of the book). This is one of the most successful and demanded methodologies, thanks to which fundamentally new sophisticated devices, materials and technologies are created. In particular, this methodology considers a mathematical model adequate if its consequences correspond to all well-established experimental facts. At the same time, many different models of one phenomenon are allowed, with the possibility of a complete revision of the models foundations. With time, the simplest and most complete model useful for practical application is selected.

Other scientific methodologies have different rules for substantiating statements, for example, in theoretical physics, the postulates of relativism and quantum mechanics are accepted once and for all, while in the methodology of natural philosophy, one can rely on any theories and facts from the natural sciences.

Criticizing the book in the paradigm of another methodology, the substantiation methods of which are not accepted in mathematical modeling, is a logical error.

The current criticism of the book is given only from the standpoint of the methodology of vulgar natural philosophy, in which almost everything is possible, as well as its mixture with the methodology of theoretical physics, based on dogmas. The main ways of substantiating statements in these methodologies are unacceptable in the methodology of mathematical modeling used in the book. Therefore, such a criticism is untenable.


Misunderstanding 2. Confronting physics and mathematics.

Explanation.

Physics expresses quantitative laws using mathematical concepts. Many mathematical concepts have been created for this very purpose. Once a physical law is formulated by means of mathematics, it is immediately becomes possible to apply the entire relevant arsenal of mathematical theorems and methods to physics, since in mathematics they are rigorously proved logically, and logic is the basis of any scientific methodology. Without mathematics, physics would become a phenomenological science, difficult to use in practice.

There is also the inverse question of the physical interpretation of a formal mathematical relation. The task of interpreting mathematical relations in various branches of science is dealt with in applied mathematics, including in the section "mathematical modeling". This is a large segment of knowledge usually not taught to physicists, engineers, and technicians. Therefore, representatives of such specialties may have problems with the application of mathematics in scientific research and understanding its role.


Misunderstanding 3. The ether theory presented in the book does not reproduce relativism, therefore it is not complete.

Explanation.

From the point of view of mathematical modeling methodology, the model of relativism is unsuitable, since its consequences are not observed in nature: mass turning to infinity, loss of geometric dimensions by an object, stopping time, turning to infinity of the magnetic and electric fields magnitudes.


Misunderstanding 4. Quote from one article: «The speed of an object in the ether can exceed the speed of light. But this result does not follow from the mathematical model, since the accepted model does not describe relativistic effects.»

Explanation.

Misrepresentation. A logical mistake is done: the absence of a description of relativistic effects in this or that model does not entail the impossibility to describe in it exceeding the speed of light.


Misunderstanding 5. The theory of the ether presented in the book does not reproduce quantum mechanics, therefore it is not complete.

Explanation.

Reproduction of quantum mechanics (QM) is in principle not suitable for methodology of mathematical modeling, since the main concept of QM – the wave function, according to the statement of QM itself, has no physical interpretation. Mathematical modeling begins with a description of the phenomenon by some quantitative characteristics, which have a physical interpretation. Moreover, in mathematical modeling it is accepted to proceed from quantitative relations which are directly observed in the experiment, for example, from the law of momentum conservation, while in QM the fulfillment of the Schrödinger equation and its modifications does not follow directly from the experiments, since the wave function, for which this equation is written, is not measured in experiments.


Misunderstanding 6. Remark from the audience at one of presentations by the authors of the book: «Kasterin has already done everything before.»

Explanation.

The remark is groundless. N.P. Kasterin did not obtain Maxwell's equations as a mathematical consequence of Newton's second law for the medium.

The author of the remark is probably familiar with the opinion of N.E. Zhukovsky, who highly appreciated N.P. Kasterin's research on the analysis of Maxwell's equations, but did not carefully study N.P. Kasterin's works, for example: «N.P. Kasterin. Generalization of the basic equations of aerodynamics and electrodynamics. Report at a special meeting at the Academy of Sciences on December 9, 1936. – Moscow: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1937». Other references to the works of N. P. Kasterin and their analysis can be found in [old.ihst.ru/projects/sohist/papers/and97ph.htm].

N.P. Kasterin obtained important results for his time, but considered only some particular cases.

He did not start from Newton's second law, but from the description of the medium with the help of some Lagrange function, which he called the "kinetic potential". This approach is less general than the one proposed in the book, since not all continuous medium motions can be described by the Lagrange or Hamiltonian functions.

Besides, N.P. Kasterin considered only the vortex motions of the medium, since he introduced a coordinate system related with the axis of the vortex.

Let us briefly list the main results presented by N.P. Kasterin in this report.

A generalization of the Euler equations is proposed. However, the expression used for the kinetic potential is not given. It is only said that it is «compiled on the basis of experimentally established and recognized by all the basic properties of the aerodynamic and electric fields».

Using the kinetic potential N.P. Kasterin comes to the generalized Maxwell equations, similar in appearance to the generalized equations of aerodynamics for the vortex field. On this basis, he gives an interpretation of Maxwell's equations as a description of the vortex motion in some medium. However, the representation of magnetic and electric fields through the parameters of this medium is not introduced.

A further generalization of Maxwell's equations takes place «by adopting completely all vortex field equations».

Electrodynamics is considered as the motion of vortex tubes. Quantization is associated with discreteness of the tubes.

In conclusion, a vortex treatment of the electron, positron, proton, neutron, antiproton, neutrino, and photon is given.


Misunderstanding 7. A frequently asked question: «How does the density of the ether in a macroscopic object relate to the mass of this object?»

Explanation.

Note that the electromagnetic units of measurement are more natural for the density of the ether (227). In these units, there is no question about the relation of the ether density to the mass.

Mechanical units of the ether density (228) are introduced in connection with the possibility of measuring the force mechanical impact of the ether flow density, see, for example, sec 20.4, rather than on the basis of introducing the concept of a macroscopic object mass.

The concept of the gravitational mass of an object (not necessarily macroscopic) is introduced in our theory as a coefficient in the formula for the effect of the pressure gradient of the gravitational ether flow on the ether flow associated with this object, see secs. 16.2 and 17.2. That is, the property of an object to have mass occurs when two ether flows interact.

Thus, in this approach, one cannot consider the gravitational mass of a macroscopic object as the mass of the ether in it, since the mass of the ether in the object, generally speaking, is not related to the interacting ether flows.


Misunderstanding 8. Quote from one presentation: «The question of the speed of gravity propagation has not been finally resolved.»

Explanation.

In the Bychkov – Zaitsev etheric model of gravity (BZEMG), there is no «problem of the speed of gravity propagation», since there is no such phenomenon. In the BZEMG, the force of gravity occurs only locally in the region of interaction of the ether gravitational flow with the vortex flows of the structural elements of the object located in this flow. When the force arises only locally in the area of interaction (intersection) of flows, such as in the case of Zhukovsky's lifting force on a wing, the question of a force propagation from the area of its existence does not arise, since outside this area one of the force generating flows does not exist anymore. It is useful to read carefully again [26, p. 104] about the lifting force of the aircraft wing and see slide 19 of the presentation at the RUDN on 28.05.2020. In BZEMG, there is no gravitational force away from the object. If we draw an analogy with the Zhukovsky lifting force on a wing, then it is no longer "outside the wing" (at a distance of the order of the wing size).


Misunderstanding 9. Quote from one publication: «The accepted definition for the electric field strength \( {\bf E} \equiv ({\bf u} \cdot {\bf \nabla}) (\rho {\bf u}) \) contradicts Maxwell's emf equation [Author's note. – see «L.S. Polak. Maxwell and the development of physics in the XIX–XX centuries.», p. 95, 68]: $$ {\bf E} = \frac{1}{c} {\bf V} \times {\bf B} -\frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial {\bf A}}{\partial t} - {\bf \nabla} \varphi $$ where \( {\bf V} \) is the velocity of the contour or reference frame, \( {\bf A} \) is the vector potential, and \( \varphi \) is the electric potential, which calls into question the mathematical model in terms of describing electrodynamics.»

Explanation.

This quote contains logical errors, and the entire book is actually crossed out on the basis of these errors. The formulas for \( {\bf E} \) under discussion contain physical quantities with different meaning, so these formulas cannot be compared directly. Besides, the distinction between the concepts of identity and equality is ignored. The third logical error is that the author of the quotation does not understand that Maxwell's emf equation is a special case and an approximation of the ether motion momentum conservation law (24): $$\frac{\partial \rho{\bf u}}{\partial t} + {\bf E}=\frac{{\bf F}-{\bf \nabla} p}{k_{m,0}}.$$

Indeed, given in this equation \({\bf A}\equiv c \rho{\bf u}\) (p. 51), in the case of the Zhukovsky external force density \({\bf F}= (k_{m,0}/c) {\bf V} \times {\bf B}\), see (121), for a weakly time-varying potential electric field, when \( \varphi \approx p/k_{m,0}\), see (74), we come to Maxwell's emf equation.

We emphasize that the Maxwell's emf equation is not included in the generally accepted system of Maxwell's equations, which is considered to be confirmed in experiments. This is apparently due to the problem of verifying this equation in experiment because of the need to measure the vector potential \( {\bf A} \) (measuring \( {\bf A} \) would mean measuring the ether flow density \( \rho{\bf u}\)). The theoretical justification for the correctness of not including this equation in Maxwell's system of equations is given by the ether analysis performed above: Maxwell's emf equation is a special case and approximation of the ether momentum conservation law, so it makes no sense to add it to a more general consequences of this law.


Misunderstanding 10. Quote from one presentation: «No other matter exists except for microscopic particles of the ether, the newtonians.»

Explanation.

Misleading. This is not stated anywhere in the book or in the authors' presentations. The authors simply began to estimate the kinetic parameters of the ether from the easiest case: a model of a bulk medium (sand-like) similar to a monatomic gas, see the beginning of sec. 21 of the book. In mathematical modeling, there can be different kinetic models of the ether.


Misunderstanding 11. Quote from one publication: «The total incomprehensibility and inexplicability of the mechanism of the vortex boundary layer retention ... The complete absence of a mechanism for the formation of such a boundary layer is an insurmountable (or not yet insurmountable) obstacle for all such advanced etheric models of the field.»

Explanation.

A complete description of the issues of creation, stability and interaction of vortices, conservation laws in vortex dynamics, is "scrubbed out" from physics and even from almost all works on continuous mechanics, because, it immediately leads to a clear understanding of phenomena, causing problems in quantum mechanics and relativity theory, for example, to understanding the Lorentz force as an interaction of vortices. See also the discussion of slide 16 in the presentation at the RUDN on 28.05.2020. That is why many researchers have problems with understanding the Bychkov – Zaitsev ether theory. One can start an in-depth study of vortex dynamics with secs. 10 and 11 of the book and the references indicated there.


Misunderstanding 12. Quote about the ether density from one presentation: «Absolutely absurd, mythical-mystical dimension: \( с\hspace{0.01pt}г^{1/2}\hspace{0.01pt}см^{-3/2} \) ... which does not involve any practical experimental verification and comparison of values.»

Explanation.

Ignoring dozens of experiments quantitatively analyzed in the book with involving precisely the magnitude of the ether density in both electromagnetic and mechanical units. For adequate perception of the «ether density» concept, one should pay attention to the comment to slide 10 of the presentation at the RUDN on 28.05.2020 and carefully read paragraphs 20.7, 20.8 and related sections of the book, including p. 28, as well as recall the dimensions of electric and magnetic units in CGS.


Misunderstanding 13. Quote from one presentation: «The authors clearly confirmed that the driving factor/mechanism of gravitation, according to their view, is ... the gradient (difference) of the ether pressure (densities) along the line connecting centers of two gravitationally interacting bodies ... consideration of the real geometric scheme of gravitational interaction of large celestial bodies of the Solar system shows the inadequacy and inapplicability of the continuous model due to the impossibility to maintain the ether pressure gradient in real geometric scales of gravitational problems.»

Explanation.

Misrepresentation of the essence of the BZEMG and ignoring the actually observed large-scale vortices in nature. BZEMG considers the scale appropriate to the size of the object that is being gravitated. When commenting slide 16 of the presentation at the RUDN on 28.05.2020, it was said that the object is permeable to the gravitational flow of the ether and, in principle, it is necessary to consider the interaction of the ether gravitational flow with the ether flows caused by atoms inside the object. But the full etheric theory of the microcosm has not yet been developed in this approach, so we have to limit ourselves to a model with a macroscopic boundary layer created with the participation of object structural elements. Besides, slide 15 of the same presentation says that, perhaps, when calculating gravity, it is necessary to take into account the force caused by the law of vortex momentum conservation (as in the wing lifting force, in addition to the pressure difference), but this can be done after describing the microcosm.

To make it clearer – the size of the wing is small compared to the distance from the glider to the ground, but the lifting force occurs in the air flow having the scale of such distance. Another example is pressure gradient that exists for a long time in large-scale atmospheric vortices.

  To main page