Vasile Effect

Fact: Einstein predicted that the universe must CONTRACT with his general relativity. Because he didnt like the ideea, as he thought the universe was static, he made up an ad-hoc cosmoillogical constant to counteract gravity. Which was really retarded, as Einstein himself later admitted. Then another retard called Friddman, who was a meteorologist, predicted that it can either contract or expand, or fluctuate using the same theory. So you just cant get a wrong prediction with his 'weather forecast' of the evolution of the universe. You hit the jackpot everytime:  'Tomorrow it will rain, or it will not rain, or it will snow, or not snow, or it will fluctuate, depending on several factors like temperature, pressure and humidity.' LOL, how was that retard even taken seriously I dont get it. I mean I do, because the other retard aka catholic priest turned him into a big bang predicter who confirmed his creation myth. This Vatican priest claimed that the weatherguy found a...

 Marius Lucian Vasile’s “Test for Aether Using the Doppler Effect” is a bold attempt to revisit a long-abandoned concept in physics: the luminiferous aether. In his paper, he challenges the standard interpretation of the Doppler effect for light, arguing that—unlike in Einstein’s theory of relativity—light might actually propagate through a preferred frame of reference, much like sound does through air A TEST FOR AETHER USING THE DOPPLER EFFECT - Academia.edu](https://www.academia.edu/115569810/A_TEST_FOR_AETHER_USING_THE_DOPPLER_EFFECT). He proposes an experiment designed to reveal this hidden medium by detecting differences in Doppler shifts depending on whether the source or observer is moving. This would contradict the relativistic view, which treats all inertial frames as equivalent and denies the need for an aether. It’s a provocative idea, especially since it directly critiques the foundational assumptions of the Michelson–Morley experiment, which famously found no evidence ...

Many if not all astromorons claim that stars from galaxies like our Milky Way are orbiting around a super massive black hole which lies in its center. Like most things astromorons say, that is simply not true. The stars orbit their shared center of mass, or barycenter. Here is why: Marius: Do galaxies have a barycenter ? Gemini:   Yes, galaxies have a  barycenter , which is the center of mass for the entire system.   Individual Galaxy Barycenters The Galactic Center:  For a single galaxy like the Milky Way, the barycenter is the point around which all its stars, gas, and dark matter rotate. Location:  This point is usually located in the  galactic bulge , near a  supermassive black hole  (like  Sagittarius A*  in our galaxy). Misconception:  Contrary to popular belief, stars do not "orbit the black hole" in the same way planets orbit the Sun. The black hole’s mass is only a tiny fraction (about 0.000003%) of the galaxy's total ...

 The Big Bang theory is a creation myth developed by a catholic priest who was a wannabe scientist, who was infiltrated by the Vatican in mainstream science, and is now the current religion of most scientists. And like all religious fanatics, they will not accept it is wrong despite obvious contradictions and failed predictions of the model. For example, the fact that galaxies are colliding with each other shows that galaxies are not moving away from each other, as their theory predicted. This is clear and in your face evidence that their expanding universe theory is wrong. Then the fact that galaxies from the so called 'early universe' look exactly the same as the ones from now, which again contradicts all their predictions about galaxy formations which should have been much smaller, and no large eliptical and spiral galaxies should have been formed in that early period. And these large galaxies are formed when smaller galaxies COLLIDE, so again how do they collide if they...

  Da — în fizica clasică, lungimea de undă aparentă se schimbă pentru un observator care se mișcă față de o sursă staționară. Dar hai să o formulăm în stilul tău preferat: fără ambiguități, fără amestec de cadre, cu ecuații explicite. 🔍 Cadru clar: fizică clasică, mediu staționar, sursă staționară, observator în mișcare Viteza undei în mediu: (v) Frecvența emisă de sursă: (f) Lungimea de undă reală în mediu: [ \lambda = \frac{v}{f} ] Aceasta este lungimea de undă în mediu , independentă de observator. Dar întrebarea ta este despre lungimea de undă aparentă , adică lungimea de undă măsurată de observatorul aflat în mișcare . 🎯 Rezultatul clasic (fără relativitate) Pentru un observator care se deplasează cu viteza (u) spre sursă: Frecvența percepută: [ f' = f \left( \frac{v + u}{v} \right) ] Lungimea de undă percepută: Observatorul vede fronturile venind cu frecvența (f'), dar fronturile se propagă în mediu cu viteza (v). Deci lungimea de undă aparentă este:...

  Se schimba pentru ca lungimea de unda e definita ca: lambda= v/f sau lambda = vT, unde v=viteza de propagare a undei, f e frecventa si T e perioada undei Cand un observator se misca fata de o sursa stationara, frecventa aparenta f' si perioada aparenta T' se schimba (efectul Doppler clasic), dar viteza de propagare a undei NU se schimba, pentru ca ea nu depinde decat de proprietatile mediului si NU se compune cu viteza sursei sau a observatorului. Prin urmare, daca frecventa/perioada undei se schimba, dar viteza nu, lungimea de unda aparenta se schimba si e egala cu: lambda'=v/f', sau lambda'=vT' E destul de simplu, dar fizienii relativi nu inteleg asta. Pentru ca ei confunda viteza relativa dintre observator si unda cu viteza undei, si considera lungimea de unda ca fiind invarianta, in loc sa considere viteza undei ca fiind invarianta. De aceea ei nu inteleg de ce viteza luminii e invarianta pentru toti observatorii in miscare. Pentru ca observatorii percep o...