main page   list of papers   library  

© Copyright - Karim A. Khaidarov, 2003. Updated August 1, 2003


Dedicated to the bright memory of my daughter Anastasia

In December of 1998, there was published a seminal work using precise measure-ments of supernovae magnitudes and leading to the conclusion of an apparent accel-erated expansion of observed part of Universe. But when we approach the processing of these precise data from a classical ethereal position, without relativistic ad-justments, we get another picture, and we believe it is the correct one. It is presented in this paper.


And so, cosmology has gained the real status of a respectable science. It already has splendid results, forming hard foundation, which will remain forever. Theory of "Big Bang" has such a status.

Ya. B. Zeldovich

There is nothing eternal, alas, except eternity.

Paul Fort

In December of 1998 a seminal work using precise measurements of supernovae magnitudes was published by S. Perlmutter et al. [1] This work was elaborated within the framework of the "Supernova Cosmology Project" by using data of the "Calan/Tololo Supernova Survey".

Its main cosmological conclusion consisted of an apparent accelerated expansion of observed part of Universe. This conclusion is noteworthy because it disagrees with each of three variants of the reigning Einstein-Freedman Universe Model1

The present author has used supernovae data from [1] without relativistic adjustments, and taken as a basis the classical idea that there exists of universally present substance - ether - that is the carrier of EM-field waves, and that subjects such waves to constant fading, just like waves in the usual isotropic physical media: solids, liquids, gases.

In this case, energy of quanta EM-radiation will follow a function of time (see a good review of this approach in [2]):

hν = hνo e -Ht


Here h is Planck's constant,
      νo is the original quantum frequency,
      ν is the quantum frequency after time t,
      H is the Hubble constant (the factor of ether absorption),
      t is time between emission and reception.

The definition of redshift parameter z is:

z = λ / λ 0 - 1 = ν0 / ν - 1 ,


where λ is the wavelength of received light,
      λ0 is the wavelength radiated,
      ν is frequency of received light,
      ν0 is frequency of the radiated light.

From (1) and (2) we get dependency of t upon z:

t = ln(z+1) / H ,


In these terms it is possible to calculate normalized peak power of supernova radiation:

W = t2 2.512 M1 – m x peak ,

where t is time [ 109 years],
      2.512 is the base of star luminosity scale,
      M1 is the supernova luminosity, extrapolated to 109 light years,
      mx peak is the observed supernova peak luminosity.

This Author reviewed data [1] and found pinpoint accuracy for its correspondence to Eq. (1). Average absolute Type Ia supernovae luminosity is determined by

M0 aver = M1 – 2.5 lg(108/3.263)2 = -18.5

The supernovae distribution on time scale (3) using sample [1] is shown on Fig. 1. (For source data, see table 1.)

To reduce data dispersion for small z, a correction for the velocity of the observer with respect to the Cosmic Microwave Background is made. This velocity is taken as 390 km/s or 0.0013 of the light velocity2.

Fig.1. Distribution of 52 supernovae on non-relativistic time scale [106 years]
for H = 72 km/sMps (fading of light already substracted from data).

For more exact checking Eq. (1) data on Type Ia supernovae from 1973 to 2003 were examined [2]. If value of M0 were differed from earlier received average M0 by no more than on 0.8 luminosity unit, it was encluded to further processing. If the redshift of supernova were not indicated, it was restored from "relativistic (Doppler effect) velocity".

As a result, the distribution shown on figure 2 was constructed (For source data, see table 2).

Fig.2. Distribution of 433 supernovae on non-relativistic time scale [109 years]
for H = 72 km/sMps (fading of light already substracted from data).

Unlike data in [1], catalogue data are not so precise, and the dispersion of their distribution is higher. However estimate of average M0 differs from that of the first sample by only -0.182.

The correctness of statistics of the sample used is seen from the histogram, shown on Fig. 3.

From the results of this data processing, it was determined that most ancient supernova 1995bf (Gal-Yam, Sharon, Maoz) has the age 25.9 109 years. That is to say, its age is nearly two times more, than the presumed age of "relativistic" Universe (This supernova is unique in its remoteness, which is not clearly revealed by relationships on Fig. 2.)

Histograms of supernovae distribution on time and supernovae normalized frequency by volume within observed part of Universe are shown on Fig. 4.

Fig. 3. Histogram of supernovae amount distribution on energy in sample.

Fig. 4. Distribution of supernovae amount (red curve) on time descending to the past [109 years] and distribution of supernovae frequency in observed Universum (blue curve).

The distribution of supernovae frequency shows that 6-7 109 years ago, intensity of supernovae origin decreased exponentially. So in our galaxy and nearby galaxies, the intensities of supernovae origin are lower than observed in distant cosmos.


From this study, we can draw following conclusions:


The author thanks Valery V. Petrov for his corrections, which have improved this presentation.

The author thanks Dr. Cynthia Kolb Whitney and Daniel Whitney for important help with English version of this article.

1 Three types of Einstein-Freedman's Model are options with О© <1 (eternally expanding Universe), О© =1 (expanding to stationary) and О© >1 (expanding, then shrinking). О© is normalized density of Universe.

2 390+30 km/s velocity is average value of different authors measurement of absolute Earth's motion in the ether. Besides Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropy, which Space-oriented frequency changing corresponds to that velocity, there are measurements of light group velocity changing made by D.G. Torr and P. Kolen [Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 617, 1984], prof. St. Marinov [Austria, 1987] and others.


  1. Measurements of О© and О› from 42 high-redshift supernovae. - S. Perlmutter et al., 1998.
  2. A.K.T. Assis & M.C.D. Neves, "The Redshift Revisited", Astrophysics & Space Science 227, 13-24 (1995).
  3. Supernovae Catalogue of the SAI. - D. Yu. Tsvetkov, N. N. Pavlyuk, O. S. Bartunov, Yu. P. Pskovskii, 2003.
  4. A correlation of the cosmic microwave sky with large scale structure. – S. Boughn & R. Crittenden, 2003.
  5. V.A. Kotelnikov, "Radar installation using during Venus flexing in 1961", Radiotekhnika i elektronika 7 (11) 1851 (Moscow, 1962).
  6. V.A. Kotelnikov, et al., Results Venus radar flexing in 1961, Radiotekhnika i elektronika 7 (11) 1860 (Moscow, 1962).
  7. Hypothesis of the Space Structure. - V.F.Shipitsin, A.A.Zhivodiorov, L.G.Gorbich, - Yekaterinbourg, Ural State Univer. Publishers 1996.

Karim Khaidarov
Borovoye, August 1, 2003.

home Download the articleDownload article in PDF-format file Download article in Windows Word-97 format file

main page   list of papers   library  

Сайт ПДСНПСР. Если ты патриот России - жми сюда!

Юрий Болдырев: Метафизические бубенчики для преемника Ельцина (15.03.17)

Знаете ли Вы, что такое мысленный эксперимент, gedanken experiment?
Это несуществующая практика, потусторонний опыт, воображение того, чего нет на самом деле. Мысленные эксперименты подобны снам наяву. Они рождают чудовищ. В отличие от физического эксперимента, который является опытной проверкой гипотез, "мысленный эксперимент" фокуснически подменяет экспериментальную проверку желаемыми, не проверенными на практике выводами, манипулируя логикообразными построениями, реально нарушающими саму логику путем использования недоказанных посылок в качестве доказанных, то есть путем подмены. Таким образом, основной задачей заявителей "мысленных экспериментов" является обман слушателя или читателя путем замены настоящего физического эксперимента его "куклой" - фиктивными рассуждениями под честное слово без самой физической проверки.
Заполнение физики воображаемыми, "мысленными экспериментами" привело к возникновению абсурдной сюрреалистической, спутанно-запутанной картины мира. Настоящий исследователь должен отличать такие "фантики" от настоящих ценностей.

Релятивисты и позитивисты утверждают, что "мысленный эксперимент" весьма полезный интрумент для проверки теорий (также возникающих в нашем уме) на непротиворечивость. В этом они обманывают людей, так как любая проверка может осуществляться только независимым от объекта проверки источником. Сам заявитель гипотезы не может быть проверкой своего же заявления, так как причина самого этого заявления есть отсутствие видимых для заявителя противоречий в заявлении.

Это мы видим на примере СТО и ОТО, превратившихся в своеобразный вид религии, управляющей наукой и общественным мнением. Никакое количество фактов, противоречащих им, не может преодолеть формулу Эйнштейна: "Если факт не соответствует теории - измените факт" (В другом варианте " - Факт не соответствует теории? - Тем хуже для факта").

Максимально, на что может претендовать "мысленный эксперимент" - это только на внутреннюю непротиворечивость гипотезы в рамках собственной, часто отнюдь не истинной логики заявителя. Соответсвие практике это не проверяет. Настоящая проверка может состояться только в действительном физическом эксперименте.

Эксперимент на то и эксперимент, что он есть не изощрение мысли, а проверка мысли. Непротиворечивая внутри себя мысль не может сама себя проверить. Это доказано Куртом Гёделем.

Понятие "мысленный эксперимент" придумано специально спекулянтами - релятивистами для шулерской подмены реальной проверки мысли на практике (эксперимента) своим "честным словом". Подробнее читайте в FAQ по эфирной физике.