To a problem on limitation of a field of application classic mechanics

The reduced and processed version [1]

Nikolay NOSKOV
Translated from Russian by Jury SARYCHEV

Full version of the article in PDF (146 kb)


In the beginning 20 centuries in physics happened events, which one strongly changed its contents. There were two reasons lying in the ground of these events.

The first reason was that all attempts to be out from empiricism of a classic mechanics and from its logic of construction have appeared unsuccessful. In spite of the fact that the researchers were not satisfied with impossibility of extract directly from this theory neither principles of a short-range interaction, nor mechanism of gravitation, nor properties of world medium, with which one all this connected.

Attempts to be pulled out from rigid frame of a classic mechanics within the framework of the definite rules have resulted in occurrence of its several versions constructed on the basis of different sets of initial principles. From that one three principles were constant: Euclidean space, Newtonian time and law of conservation of mass. It is a power mechanics of a Newton – Euler – Laplace. It, so-called field mechanics, based on a principle of least action of Mopertuy, Euler and Lagrange, on an energy conservation law of Lagrange, Hamilton, Jacoby and Ostrogradskiy. And, at last, it is a forceless mechanics of Hertz.

The second reason was, that the researchers, as it seemed them, could not explain facts and natural phenomena were detected in frameworks already constructed classic mechanics. It also has formed the basis for origin STR, GÒR and quantum mechanics.

However STR and GÒR based on such postulates, which one could not be compatible with existence of world medium and, furthermore, space, time and mass jointed in interdependent essences start to be distorted by speed of bodies.

Refusing ideals (world outlook concepts) of classic mechanics, namely: Euclidean space, unified universal time and law of conservation of mass, which one are fundamental world outlook categories of materialists, lead to the sharp protest of the researchers and philosophers, which one adhered and adhere of the materialistic concepts. For this reason there was an acute scrambling against STR and GTR, which one does not cease for one second since these theories arose. However apologists of the relativistic theory managed to capture dominating positions in scientific establishments, where they have taken advantage to the full.

Probably, only it can explain the fact that the experiment on optician of moving mediums conducted before and after appearance of STR, were used partially, only in that part, where they do not contradict STR. Or they were given only formal relativistic explanation, which one, as a rule, is not founded on causality and on common sense.

However it is possible to state following now:

Researches of rotatory effect conducted by Garris in 1912 [2], Sagnac in 1913 [3], Michelson and Gel in 1925 [4], Pogany in 1926 [5], simply prove, that the ether exist. In this occasion S. Vavilov, ex-president ÀSñ.USSR, has noted [6], «If the phenomenon of Sagnac was discovered earlier, than the zero outcomes of experiments of the second order were found out, it, certainly, would be considered as the brilliant experimental proof of an ether (is selected by me – N.N.)». It is only to be surprised: why «would be considered», instead of is considered?

Experiments on a dragging of an ether by moving mediums, conducted by Fiseau in 1851 [7], Heck in 1868 [8], Michelson and Morly in 1886 [9] and Zeeman in 1914 [10], have shown, that there is a partial dragging of ether (and, therefore, ether takes place to be). Experiments verify a hypothesis of the Fresnel [11], who inferred, that the drag coefficient is equal:

k = 1 – 1/n2, where:


k – drag coefficient of the Fresnel.

n – factor of refraction of medium.

Michelson experiments 1880...1929 [12], Michelson and Morley 1887 [13], Morley and Miller 1904...1905 [14], Miller 1921...1925 [15] display, that there is a partial dragging of an ether by the Earth, which one makes more than 90%, but less than 100% on its surface.

Moreover, Miller`s experiments have shown, that the partial dragging of an ether decreases with increasing of an altitude above surface of the Earth.

Besides, discovery of a phenomenon of a stellar aberration by D. Bradley in 1725 [16], Remer`s observation in 1675 [17] on non-uniformity of periods of eclipses of Jovian satellites at removal and approach to Earth and Sagnac`s phenomenon have shown, that the speed of light adds with speed of the receiver (when a partial dragging of an ether by the Earth or installation in experiment does not introduce the appreciable contribution) on a classic addition formula of speeds.

So far as STR 1) is incompatible to the fact of existence of an ether and 2) is based on a relativistic addition formula of speeds of light and receiver (speed of light does not add with speed of the receiver), it is necessary to recognize, that it contradicts experiment. Its conclusions, specially in a part of interdependence of invariants, their «bending» near to mass and from speed, transformation of mass in its property – energy and on the contrary, is simple non-scientifically and, therefore, are unauthorized. Waiving them also is required.

The second theory, GTR, claiming on a role of the theory of gravitation, has kept away from causality of physical phenomena still more. It represents a set of equations and special section of mathematics, in which one there is no place physical sense not only, but also common sense in general.

Both these theories STR and GTR not only were not set by the purpose of finding of dynamics of interactions on the basis of a short-range interaction and existence of terminal velocity of interaction, but also have put barrier to development of such theories.

Waiving the relativistic theories is made in offered article. And the theory of a Newton – Euler – Laplace is developed by a method of introduction in it of principles of a short-range interaction.

Outgoing from the requirement of a short-range interaction...

If to consider the law of universal gravitation with the materialistic positions it gives the hint to the researchers that between gravitating mass through space the information on their value and about change of distance between them is permanently transmitted.

F = γm1m2 / R2


For corresponding of the transmitted information to values of masses, it is necessary, that the bearer of information would be somehow connected to mass; that the bearers of information from each body exchanged in space by the information and returned one to its gravitating bodies. At last, bearer of information should be a propulsive body of an mechanism of gravitation.

The theory of the mechanism «of sources – drains of an ether» by Riemann [18], Pearson [19] and Shott [20] corresponds to such requirements. Besides, this theory naturally explains a dragging of ether by bodies, which one in this case should depend on value of mass, and existence of an ethereal lens curving a course of light rays near bodies. The conclusion about finiteness of speed of interaction is especially relevant, which one is connected to properties of transmitting medium that is a major property of a short-range interaction.

The theory «of sources – drains of an ether» can indicate the reasons of motion of bodies in space. The process of formation of a matter in space should be, presumptively, outcome of fluctuations of pressure in ether. Then, the gradual disintegration of a matter into ether expiring in space, is a reason of interaction, which one predetermines, in turn, causality of motion and observance of the laws of preservation of energy of a momentum and mass. Therefore, motion of electrons and planets on orbits is not perpetuum-mobile, but the natural physical process passing with an expenditure of energy, having of its regularity and finite time.

Properties and laws of a short-range interaction

The theory of screens [21], pulsation [22] or «of sources – drains of an ether» are the mechanical theories of interaction. They imply clear obvious reasons of transfer of potentials on distance by means of intermediate medium depending on certain initial properties of bodies and medium itself (a screen, oscillation or disintegration of matter). In the first case there is a difference of impulses returned by medium to interacting bodies from their external and internal parties. In the second and third cases there is an low pressure in an interval between bodies, which one causes them to approach.

The transmission of action on distance by a material medium from a point to a point with certain velocity dependent on properties of this medium is called as a short-range interaction. Time of interaction, speed of interaction and relation of force of interaction to a relative velocity of interacting bodies characterize the short-range interaction.

The necessary time for full change of a potential in a point, connected with a trial body, from the moment of a beginning of its motion is named the time of interaction.

The speed of interaction is connected to properties of the transmitting interactions medium and, besides, depends on processes (dynamics) happening in medium at interaction. In theory of Newton – Euler this problem was not considered behind absence both test data and theoretical elaboration. STR and GTR have limited themselves of the greatest possible speed of bodies, equal speed of light in vacuum. Moreover, it was not connected with speed of interaction, and was declared only on the basis of mathematics.

Conducting analogy to a speed of sound, taking into account, that the power transmission (impulse) is possible through air only with a speed of sound, the speed restriction of bodies in air by this speed is right in the event if the body has no a jet engine. From here follows those concepts: the greatest possible speed of bodies and speed of operation on distance via medium are different phenomena.

Relation of force of interaction to a relative velocity of bodies, on a line by their connecting, are considered in this work below in connection with transactions incorrectly called (Helmholtz) «by school of a long-range action», Gauss became founder of which one [23].

From positions of the laws of a short-range interaction, laws of the retarded potential actually are laws of dynamics of interactions. It is possible to state that law of universal gravitation (2) and Coulomb's law for electrical interaction is statics of gravitational and electrical interactions. But they are incorrect for moving masses and charges relatively one another.

As to a Coulomb's law, it was generalized on speed of interaction by the several researchers, due to what there are some kinds of electrodynamics: of Gauss, Weber, Clausius, Ritz, Riemann, F. Neumann, K. Neumann, Grossman and other. However only law of the Weber [24] meets an experimental and empirical electrodynamics created by researches of Oersted, Arago, Ampere and Faraday.

Subsequently, relativists have declared the formula STR based on a factor of the Lorentz as a true electrodynamics, because the electrodynamics of the Weber did not respond a general relativity. It became possible due to the factor of the Lorentz close enough described an electrodynamics on large speed range. However hereinafter they have taken self-deception, asserting that the relativistic laws of motion of fundamental particles on accelerators are correct down to 0,9998 speed of light. The matter is that speed of particles is determined through a factor of the Lorentz from the retrieved energy. It is difficult to dispute with relativists how correctly they determined the energy of accelerated particles (I, for some reasons, is not bent to trust to relativists). The careful researches are indispensable for this purpose. However it is possible with confidence to assert, that if the laws of the retarded potential were applied to definition of speed, its calculated value would be much lower, that, probably, corresponds to a reality.

Gerber generalized the law of universal gravitation on speed of interaction in 1898 [25]. The displacement of perihelion of planets, calculated by this law, correspond observable. Besides, the law of graviodynamics explains justice of a law of universal gravitation for a circular orbit, as the derivative of a scalar value of distance between planets (on a line them connecting) enters in it, which one is equal to null at a circular orbit. The derivative is value of the second order of smallness at the elliptic orbit (and is responsible for an abnormal perihelion displacement).

Thus it is possible to state, that the main basis of origin GTR, abnormal perihelion displacement of a Mercury and other planets, moving at elliptic orbit, was explained and described by the law within the framework of a classic mechanics 17 years prior to origin of a relativism.

The form of the law of the retarded potential depending on a hypothesis of the mechanism of interaction

The scheme of interaction of a trial body at free fall in a field of a central force. An inference about longitudinal vibrations of a trial body

Energy of motion of a trial body at free fall taking into accont longitudinal vibrations

Length, frequency and energy of longitudinal vibrations

De Broglie`s waves. Planck's constant


Full version of the article in PDF (146 kb)



  1. Noskov N.K., To a Problem on the Restriction of Field of Application of a Classical Mechanics. SPE «Print», Institute of high-energy physics, Academy of Sciences; Kaz. SSR, Alma-Ata, 1991.
  2. F. Harress. Die Geschwindigkeit des Lichtes in bewegten Körpern. Dissertation, Jena, 1912.
  3. G. Sagnac. L'éther lumineux démontré par l'éffect du vent rélatif d'éther dans un interférométre en rotation uniforme. C. R., 1913, 157, p. 708...710.
  4. A.A. Michelson. The effect of the Earth's rotation on the Velocity of light. I. Astrophys. J., 1925, 61, p. 137...139; A.A. Michelson, H. Gale. Idem II, Astrophys. J., 1925, 61, p. 140...145.
  5. B. Pogany. Über die Wiederholung des Harres – Sagnaschen Versuches. Ann. Phys., 1926, 80, p. 217...231.
  6. S.I. Vavilov. The experimental basis of a relativity theory. The collected works. v. 4, Akademisdat, M., 1956. In Russian.
  7. Fiseau. About a hypothesis concerning a light ether and about one experiment, which, apparently, shows, that the movement of bodies changes velocity, with which light is propagated inside these bodies. C. R., 1851, 33, p. 349...355.
  8. M. Hoek. Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainée une onde lumineuse traversant un milieu en mouvement. Arch. Neerl., 1868, 3, p. 180...185; 1869, 4, p. 443...450.
  9. A.A. Michelson, E.W. Morley. Influence of motion of the medium on the velocity of light. Amer. J. Sci., 1886, 31, p. 377...386.
  10. P. Zeeman. Experiences sur la propagation de la lumiére dans les milieux liquides ou solides en mouvement. Versl. Akad. Amster., 1914, 23, p. 245.
  11. O. Fresnel. The letter to Arago «Concerning influence of movement of the Earth on some optical phenomena». 1818.
  12. A.A. Michelson. Relative movement of the Earth and a lightcarriing ether. Amer. J. Phys., 1881, 22, p. 120...129.
  13. A.A. Michelson and E.V Morley. About relative movement of the Earth in an lightcarriing ether. Amer. J. Sci., 1887, 34, p. 333...345.
  14. A.A. Michelson, D.C. Miller. The report on experiment on detection of effect Fitzgerald – Lorentz. The philosophical logbook, 8 (6), 680...685, 1905.
  15. D.C. Miller. An ethereal wind. The report read in the Washington Academy of sciences. Science, 1926, v. LXII, No. 1635.
  16. D. Bradley. The letter to Galleo. 1728.
  17. O. Römer. The proof concerning velocity of light. 1675.
  18. Riemann. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 130. In Russian.
  19. K. Pearson. Ether squirts. Am. J. Math., 13, p. 309...362, 1891.
  20. 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.
  21. Â. Thomson. On the ultramundane corpuscles of LeSage. Phil. Mag. (Ser. 4), 45, 1873, p. 321... 332.
  22. K.A. Bjerknes. The pulsation theory of gravitation. 1856. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. Mir, M., 1985, page 125. In Russian.
  23. C.F. Gauss. Transactions, v. 5, Royal science foundation, Goettingen, 1867.
  24. W. Weber. Werke, Vol. 4, 247... 299, Springer, Berlin, 1894.
  25. Gerber P. Die räumliche und zeitliche Ausbreitung der Gravitation. Z. Math. Phys., v. 43, p. 93...104, 1898.