Vasile Effect

 Quantum mechanics = Junk science    General relativity =   Junk science         => Quantum mechanics = General relativity = Junk science Unification complete.

The standard cosmoillogical Lambda Cold Dark Matter model is based on the cosmoillogical constant Lambda, which Einstein made up in order to prevent his general relative universe from generally contracting. He later removed it, calling it his biggest blunder, but that did not stop big bang fanatics like Friddman to use it in his equations as it was needed to make the universe expanding, according to Friddman. Because according to Einstein it was needed to make the universe static, and he rejected Friddman's equations, which are used by big bang pseudo-scientists to mathematically expand the universe by adjusting this constant. Which is not really a constant, since its value can vary from 0 to whatever value they want it to have, depending on the rate of expansion they think the universe has based on their illogical interpretation of redshift from space expansion. They claim that this cosmoillogical constant is the dark energy of vacuum, which expands the universe at an accelerated

  Since  E=mc^2, and vacuum has no mass, then it follows that empty space or vacuum has no energy. How can anyone claim that vacuum has energy, without rejecting this equation and special relativity altogether ? And even if vacuum had energy, how does that expand space ? When in General Relativity space is curved by mass and energy. It simply does not follow why a space that contains energy will expand, it is a non sequitur. And a clear contradiction of Einstein's theory. So in order to claim that empty space has energy, you need to reject Special relativity. And in order to claim that this energy expands space, you need to reject General relativity. Big bang cosmologists claim both, so they reject both, while at the same time claiming that both are true and building their standard cosmoillogical model on them. And then they wonder why cosmology is in a crysis !

  Einstein's theory of gravity is based on the notion that space-time can curve and uses geodesics to describe its curvature.  But space is not a physical object which can expand or bend. It is the lack there of.  Attributing geodesics to space(time) makes no sense because a geodesic is, by definition,  the shortest line between two points on a spherical or curved surface  (Oxford def.). Space has no surface, and time does not have one either, so space-time geodesics are a complete non-sense. The notion of Geodesic comes from Geodesy, the science which studies earth's shape, which has a curved surface (Geo meaning Earth in latin). It has nothing to do with space, which has no shape or surface. General relativity is based on a complete misuse and misunderstanding of the notion of geodesics. It is completelly illogical as it ignores the definition which requires a surface, which space obviously does not and cannot have. Unless it is a physical object, like the solid sky firmanent

How Radio waves destroy photons. The particle-line duality.  In quantum mechanics, electro-magnetic waves are claimed to be particles, or photons, in a contradictory postulate which is called 'particle-wave duality'. This enlightening revelation was formulated by Einstein in his photo-electric effect 'explanation', where he explained that light waves are indeed particles, as indeed they are waves, as they are indeed both. Amazing explanation, Nobel academy said, and gave him their junk science prize. So by equating a wave with a particle, all properties of the EM wave, such as frequency and wavelength (and no amplitude ?!), are transferred to the photon particle. The problem which obviously occurs is that in the case of radio waves their wavelength can be many kilometers long. Ergo, you end up with a photon particle that is many kilometers long. Which is kind of wrong if you ask me. Like many kilometers wrong. Another obvious problem that arises from this particle-wave

  The particle-line duality. Quantum mechanics debunked. Marius Lucian Vasile @Vasile Effect March 15, 2024   In quantum mechanics, electro-magnetic waves are claimed to be particles, or photons, in a contradictory postulate which is called 'particle-wave duality'. In this theory an EM wave is equivalent to a particle, named photon, and a photon particle is, obviously, equivalent to an EM wave. So by equating a wave with a particle, all properties of the EM wave, such as frequency and wavelength (and no amplitude ?!), are transferred to the photon particle. The problem which obviously occurs is that in the case of radio waves their wavelength can be many kilometers long. Ergo, you end up with a photon particle that is many kilometers long. Another obvious problem that arises from this particle-wave duality is that photons do not have any amplitude, while radio waves and all waves obviously do have one. Because a wave with no amplitude is just a straight line, and

Radio waves disprove the photon particle-wave duality. Quantum mechanics debunked. Marius L. Vasile @Vasile Effect March 12, 2024 In quantum mechanics, electro-magnetic waves are claimed to be particles, or photons, in a contradictory postulate which is called 'particle-wave duality'. In this theory an EM wave is equivalent to a particle, named photon, and a single photon particle is, obviously, equivalent to an EM wave. So by equating a wave with a particle, all properties of the EM wave, such as frequency and wavelength (and no amplitude ?!), are transferred to the photon particle. The problem which obviously occurs is that in the case of radio waves their wavelength can be many kilometers long. Ergo, you end up with a photon particle that is many kilometers long. If all EM waves are particles (aka photons), then how can a radio wave particle (photon) be several MILES long ? Obviously, it can't, and obviously, quantum mechanics are wrong. Which was obvious from t

  AN INTRODUCTION TO REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, AND HOW IT WAS CONFUSED WITH GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT. GENERAL RELATIVITY DEBUNKED. Marius L. Vasile @Vasile Effect   In this paper I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes, but the frequency remains constant. Since f=v/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too in order to preserve the frequency. This results in an increase of wavelength or a redshift when the s