This was first published by the Huffington Post.
100 years old this year, The Rockefeller Foundation likes to tell the tale of its founders’ responsiveness and foresight:
‘When a young Albert Einstein sent a request for $500 to John D. Rockefeller’s top lieutenant, Rockefeller instructed his deputy, “Let’s give him $1,000. He may be onto something.” It was bold and daring, intrepid and risk-taking.’
Time is important, as Einstein of all people taught us, so it’s relevant to know when that story took place. The answer is astonishing: it was 1924. The ‘young’ Einstein was 45 years old. He’d won a Nobel Prize the year before. [The cheque, below, even says ‘Professor’ on it.] The request came 19 years after his special theory of relativity, which shows among other things that E=mc2. It was 19 years after he laid the foundations of quantum theory (by explaining the photo-electric effect). And also 19 years after he’d explained the bouncing around of gas atoms that you probably saw down a microscope at school. (1905 was a big year for Einstein: one of the most significant for any scientist, ever.) It was seven years after publication of his general theory of relativity about the nature of space-time: arguably the greatest achievement of the human mind, and five years after observational confirmation of a major prediction of general relativity, hailed by The Times of London as a ‘Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe’.
So what’s with the ‘may be onto something’?
The story is striking for two reasons. First, that despite all those achievements, a Nobel winner was scrabbling around for tiny amounts of money, and having to approach donors himself. In today’s money, Einstein’s request was for just $6,500 – about £4,300 – not even enough to rent a decent office in London. And as for ‘risk-taking’, Rockefeller was probably the richest person in history, worth in today’s money 10 times what Bill Gates is worth.
And second, Rockefeller didn’t even trust Einstein with that money, but divided his gift into four installments. The Nobel winner, re-framer of the space and time, could apparently not be trusted with more than $1600 at a time.
Hardly ‘bold and daring, intrepid and risk-taking’, then. Instead, a depressing tale of a lionised genius forced to beg. No wonder Einstein commented that: “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I’m not sure about the former.”
Making giving more scientific:
Need a great Christmas gift for science-y donors? We humbly suggest–>
giving-evidence.com 
Einstein the biggest charlatan and impostor in the modern history of science!
1. Foreword
While studying psychology at the Humboldt University of Berlin, Institute for / to the section (for) Psychology in Oranienburger Straße 118 (1978-1983), his fellow student Martin Müller dealt with his degree subject in the Diploma phase from 1982 to 1983 with the history of psychology. His fellow student understood this absolutely not because he was the naive believe there would be no need for research and seemed to be present already stringent, clear scientific knowledge. Thereupon said Martin Müller an example that the seminar colleagues simply speechless! For example, should the Weber-Fechner law, the complex relation of objective physical stimulus R with the subjective sensation S and the specific Reizmodalität (light, pressure, sound, …), the k by a factor expression is given, undergoes reflection, in the later mathematical structure
E = k * ln (R / Ro) (1)
originally the German astronomer Steinheil (1837) go back that could derive this law in the observation of star clusters (*). Somehow one then also from the astronomy teaching 1968-1969 familiar. And this is not an isolated case in the history of science! There are plenty of examples and in the history of science, where so-called scientific “luminaries” intellectual property appropriated by other scientists, so that they were cheated out of the fruits of their labor. For example, should the theory of evolution by Albert Wallace have been established and not by Charles Darwin.
The Studiosus had thus have a serious mistake with his view
(*) According to information from Dr. Martin Mueller (2014) to have this law, the Frenchman Delezenne derived in 1827.
history of science! So it has certainly its legitimacy, that one is dealing with the history of science. Because in no other area of society is manipulated as much as on the sciences and the source documents sector are sometimes worse than useless, indeed doubtful. Recent spectacular examples of celebrities speak volumes for this, according to the motto: “Copying is in the eating”! According to the science program by Gert Scobel on 3sat from Donnertag, the 18.09.2014 are students and postgraduates, manipulated depending on the department from 30 to 80 percent of the work, downloaded from the Internet or one uses other methods of manipulation.
Now to the actual subject of the brochure: Already with the sixteenth year, the high school students Siegfried Marquardt of the Extended High School Strasburg in Mecklenburg dealt very seriously with various scientific disciplines, especially with physics and mathematics. Among other things, the prospective graduate sat very complete approach to the theory of relativity by Einstein. Then came the publication “The Lorentz transformations” (to the Lorentz transformations were there during GDR times mid-sixties, a 250-page script) in his hands. Now the high school students knew almost nothing – confusion and disorientation were the consequences! After all, in this work the most important findings on Einstein’s theory of relativity found a comprehensive presentation. For many years, even decades later “then burst node”, as he read an article in the newspaper DIE ZEIT in the summer of 2004 on the photoelectric effect, said to have been discovered in 1864 by French physicist Alexandre Edmond Becquerel. Now crashed virtually the image to the authority of Einstein and the authors who created the theory of relativity in his sense, completely together, that could be derived razor sharp, the conclusion with the result and had that Einstein’s not been the great genius, but a cheater and a plagiarist. Yes Einstein was the greatest charlatan in the (modern) history of science!
These facts inspired and animated the author to an article entitled “Not Einstein was a genius, but Lorentz ‘2010 post to the web (see http://www.mti-kw.de), which then acted as a concept and structure of this document.
And then you finally won absolute certainty: For the Lord’s Day 2013 had to explain the functional mechanism of the narrow-beam mathematics and physics graduates as part of a tutoring lessons learning support King Wusterhausen. In this context, attention was drawn to the Lorentz force again. And then “fell at last the penny”:
The experiments on the acceleration of electrons in magnetic fields was the key to the theory of relativity, since the supply of energy E = U * = U * q e is the velocity v and the mass me of the electron increases!
This was in fact the formula
m = mo: OE1 – (v: c) 2, (2)
be derived. After Ranniger (2001) developed the Lorentz electromagnetic theory of light and the electron theory (see Schulte, 2012 – Schulte speaks of electrons concept that Lorentz developed in 1891). Lorentz also formulated an integrative theory of electricity, magnetism and light, (see below), was directly and immediately from the experiments of his pupil Zeeman and could be derived. Together with the physicist George Francis Fitzgerald formulated Lorentz (1892) A mathematical model for change in the shape of a body, length contraction (the author), which says,
l = lo * E 1 (v: c). 2 (3)
“The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction was (with) a further contribution to the development of the theory of relativity”! (Quoted from Ranniger, 2001).
Already at this point one might conclude by arguing that Einstein was the spiritual father of the theory of relativity in any case.
But piquant is also that Einstein in the paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905) for the special theory of relativity the above relation (see formula 3) operated without naming the source. The derivation of the formula by Einstein is not comprehensible more than adventurous and mathematically!
And one more thing deserves a methodological, epistemological and methodological perspective, research must observe and record:
Lorentz and his colleague Zeemann (see below) could physical (light) observed effects in their experimental work directly and thus “capture” the context of moving electrons, light and magnetism and understand it, and the result of data and measurement series the corresponding correlations derived or produced!
Einstein, however, there is no single date, let alone a data or measurement series!
Furthermore, Einstein has stated in his work on special relativity in 1905 not a single reference to literature, a quote and no single source, still points on which he relied (Fischer, 1996, page 123 in Stelzner, 1998).
By the way, the author can confirm this finding: Sometime in the late sixties bought the author of this document, a small booklet in DIN A 6 – Format (white-red was this booklet) for special and general relativity. Out of sheer formulas were seen not easy and could understand hardly anything. However, there was not a single source and no source directory – because the author of this work can still remember exactly! And when you read the original article “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” for the special theory of relativity in 1905, one felt absolutely confirmed! In the first pages of the essay Einstein reflects the findings on the electrodynamics of a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field with and the associated Lorentz force (**), without mentioning Lorentz ever. Thus, Einstein himself disqualified and discredited because he violated basic rules of scientific work!
And that’s not all: Einstein, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” of 1905 to the special theory of relativity not only not only sources indicated in his book, but by page plagiarized the findings of Lorentz!
(**) Another question that even the Englishman Michael Faraday was able to verify this by Lorentz force named in 1821 in experiments with a compass and a current-carrying conductor (Hans Christian Oersted had this effect recently discovered).
On the other hand, some mathematical and physical derivations in the paper by Einstein (1905) are more than doubtful! In addition, Einstein clearly has the Lorentz transformation T (Einstein here uses the Greek letter β for T)
T = 1: OE1 – (v: c) 2 (4)
simply copied because the derivation of Einstein’s illogical. Incidentally, the paper by Einstein is written in German abysmal, so that the statements can hardly follow – the essay has yet to be translated into German!
To put it into perspective but to formulate: The theory of relativity had many fathers! Us mention here the American physicist Michelson, who had proved the constancy of the speed of light and the two Dutch physicist Lorentz and Zeeman, which dealt with the electrodynamics of the electron, so that Lorentz derived from the Lorentz transformation (1904) as the foundation of the theory of relativity could.
But special services to the general theory of relativity comes to the German astronomer J. Soldner, who in 1801 could calculate the deflection of light by the sun of distant star bodies with Newtonian mechanics, examining the light waves than particles of light. He had his colleagues over 100 years ahead! It must also be assumed that Soldner in its calculations with the supposedly famous Einstein’s formula
E = m c² * (5)
operated and therefore had to already know this mathematical relationship! On the other hand, refers Stelzner in his essay (1998) that, according to Martin sticks this formula to the Austrian physicist Friedrich Hasenöhrl is expected to decline (1874-1915), who was unable to establish the equivalence of mass and energy in his experiments with the cavity radiation. After Jamin (2012), the Austrian Hasenohrl had this formula can be derived in 1904 in cavity bodies in connection with the investigation of electromagnetic radiation, the specific mathematical structure formed looked like this:
Eem = 0.75 * mem * c². (6)
Later, the Austrian physicist said to have brought the formula (6) to the form of (5). On the other hand, other authors are also conceivable. For example, should after the two physicists Georg Galeczki and Peter Marquardt (1997 – quoted by Rohmer, 2008) the author of this formula Wilhelm Eduard Weber be that dealt with the radiation pressure of electromagnetic waves in 1900, which he was able to calculate a differential equation (5) , Both physicists lead also still Henri Poincaré and Heaviside on.
After Rohmer (2008) Henri Poincaré is formulated on the basis of the Lorentz transformation in 1900 the mathematical and physical apparatus of the theory of relativity. Henri Poincaré thus making it clear the creator of the theory of relativity!
This brochure is intended to follow the motto of Max Jammer: “What is physics, can only be understood historically” (Jammer, Max, 1964), but although in this document also mathematical-physical facts, calculations and relations as arguments, evidence and “evidence” to move to the language.
And at the end of the introduction to the following quote by Gotthard Barth in his work from 1987 “The gigantic fraud with Einstein”, which is very enlightening and deepening the analysis-project “Einstein” in detail, as well as with respect to the history of science as a whole and in general proves to be performed:
“That the formula is correct for the skilled worker that he knows that he has memorized in school (high). In our authoritarian (high) school students (and students) is forbidden to think or even to see the error of authority itself. Since the inviolability of authority is high for the expert to the truth, him every opportunity to correct a detected error is missing. We see again that the truth is not suppressed by a lack of intelligence, but by lack of ethical responsibility consciousness ”
(Barth, 1987; the bracketed expressions were added by the author of this document).
2. Working hypotheses to Scripture
2.1. The American physicist Michelson has demonstrated the constancy of the speed of light with his experiments and not Einstein.
2.2. From the constancy of the speed of light results in the end, the Lorentz transformation, the Lorentz in 1904 derived (Schulte, 2012), which formed the basis of the special theory of relativity. And do not employ the term of relativity, Einstein formulated, but the Frenchman Henri Poincaré!
2.3. The experimental work on electric dynamics of the electron in an electromagnetic field of Zeeman and the experimental work of Michelson thus laid the foundation for the formulation of the Lorentz transformation.
2.4. The deflection of light rays in the gravitational field of gravitational bodies as the basis of Einstein’s general theory of relativity is not going to Einstein, but to the German astronomer J. Soldner back, who calculated the deflection of light in the gravitational field of the sun in 1801 with Newtonian mechanics by the light waves considered as particles. It must be assumed that it is the equivalent equation
E = m c² *, which is to go back to Einstein supposedly, must have served! According to Martin sticks to officially this formula to the Austrian physicist Friedrich Hasenöhrl (1874-1915) back who could make the equivalence of mass and energy in his experiments with the trapped radiation in a cavity (zit. By Stelzner, 1998). Jamin (2012) points out that this formula in a modified form Hasenohrl in 1904, a year before Einstein published his treatise on special relativity theory, could be derived. Other authors are also conceivable. For example, should after the two physicists Georg Galeczki and Peter Marquardt (1997 – quoted by Rohmer, 2008) the author of this formula Wilhelm Eduard Weber be that dealt with the radiation pressure of electromagnetic waves in 1900. About the radiation pressure of light blends with the differential bill actually derive this formula. Both physicists have also lead to as author Henri Poincaré and Heaviside.
2.5. The photoelectric effect is not based on Einstein’s work, but on the French physicist Alexandre Edmond Becquerel, who in 1864 in connection with the luminescence discovered this effect. In 1887 (according to the internet 2015; Lindner after 1966 until 1888), the German physicist Wilhelm Hall wax already dealt systematically on an experimental basis with the photoelectric effect.
2.6. Subsumierend must be formulated that Einstein was simply the greatest charlatan of the modern history of science! Because Einstein himself had never worked experimentally and there is not a single person in the world who might quasi from “nothing” out without experimental or empirical work, establish a theory and formulate! Without data recovery and create a series of measurements can be no law, let alone a theory be derived! Einstein has not given a single source in his work on special relativity, in violation of fundamental rules of scientific work! So much genius and inspiration simply does not exist, that “nothing” could derive from pure intuition, almost out of the theory.
3. Estimation of the three headings of Einstein
There should be at this point no overall review of the three fonts for special and general theory of relativity in 1905 and 1916.. Only one thing is certain: The font of June 1905 to the special theory of relativity has hardly been easy to understand. We understand the contents of this paper are difficult, not because they would be overwhelmed cognitively, but because this script was discussed in bad German. On the other hand, a source directory are hardly sources, let alone been given. In all three writings of Einstein, there are also a lot of mathematical and physical inconsistencies. In the article on the special theory of relativity of June 1905 partially illogical and no mathematical-physical sense resulting representations were made. For example, Einstein had formulated shorten and simplify the equation on page 904 (June 1905)
τ = t * T = t – (1-T) * t (6)
can easily save money because this mathematical formulation is simply meaningless, since after the dissolution of the right-hand side
τ = t = t * T * T (7)
follows. In addition, variables are not defined in the paper by Einstein (1905) and it carried mathematical transitions that are absolutely incomprehensible. Also, the equation
E`: E = √ (1-v: c): (1 + v: c) (8)
on page 914 of Einstein’s article from June 1905 fundamentally wrong because, after rearranging the formula 11 of this brochure
E` = E: √1-v²: c² (9)
should apply and not
E` = E * (1 + v.c): √1-v²: c². (10)
This E` and E represent the energy of light and v is the velocity of the body, eg an electron and c the velocity of light. Even more adventurous seems the formula
v` = v * √ (1- v c): (1 + v c) (11)
on page 912, which must be classified as physical and mathematical nonsense and classified! Even more adventurous designed on the side 818, the calculation of the value x of the formula
x = K * 8 * π: c² (12)
where it should be, for the gravitational constant K with K = 6.7 * 10-8. First here is quite formal criticize that K is not 6.7 * 10-8 is but 6.67 * 10-11 * N² m² / kg² (see Lindner, 1966, Golm, Heise and Seidel, 1967). The numerical value is therefore not exactly – the result differs by three orders of magnitude from the unit and it was not specified. But what Einstein as a result of the above formula with 1.87 * 10-27 offers the reader takes the biscuit ground! Einstein made a mistake here by 5 orders of magnitude, as would the value
x = 8 * 3.14 * 6.7 * 10-8 (3 * 108) ² = 8 * 3.14 * 6.7 * 10-24 =
1.67 * 10-22 (13)
accurately read by its data requirements. Not even the product of the first three numbers (8 * 3.14 * 6.7) Einstein was able to correctly determine because it is not 1.87 (with orders of magnitude offset) as indicated in (62), but about 1, 67, performed as described in (13).
In the essay “Does the Inertia of a body of its energy content dependent?” From September 1905 Einstein writes on page 641 simplifies formulated such that the mass m of a body to
E m = (9 * 1020) (14)
would increase as the energy E doubled. This is mathematically and physically wrong! Because the mass then rises to
m = E: c² = E: (300.000.000² m² / s²) = E: 9 * 1016 m² / s². (15)
Again, Einstein was wrong to four orders of magnitude! This implies the conclusion that Einstein neither the simple multiplication statement, nor the power calculations dominated! [See also (12) and (13)].
Conclusion: Einstein mastered neither the elementary, yet higher mathematics!
For example, the differential equation
τo = √-g * dτ (16)
in the double sense of mathematical extreme nonsense.
It is reasonable suspicion so very close that Einstein did not just simply plagiarized, but still wrong! Indication of this is that Einstein simply confused the naming of variables that were already even then standard. For example, he used for the energy E, the variable L. On the other hand matrices are massively listed in the minutes of the general relativity theory, arising absolutely no sense and should be understood as a mathematical “garnish”!
Finally, a Boumont: After Hamer (2012), Einstein was simply a mathematical “illiterate” who had to drop out of school early due to miserable performance in school and leave.
4. Summary
In the end, all working hypotheses could in this document to refute the “greatest geniuses of all time”, be verified! Einstein was not the greatest genius of all time, but the biggest charlatan in the modern history of science! Because: When he submitted his work to both special and general theory of relativity in 1905 and 1916 existed in his two writings
1. No single data and measurement series,
2. Furthermore, no single source or even a source directory was specified in his essay on the special theory of relativity in 1905; in his work on general relativity in 1916, only the name Eötvös, D. Hilbert and E. mention Friendly three footnotes. In the text itself only appear the names of Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel, Ricci Levi-Civita,
Thus Einstein violated clearly against elementary principles of scientific work!
3. as awesome as Einstein back in the past and has been shown, is not a man, because the research process almost continuously (with some jumps) and has to go back the results of the research process to many authors,
4. No matter how brilliant scientist can derive a theory from scratch or from intuition – to derive theories a research process with defined steps is always required
5. Americans Michelson has the constancy of the speed of light notes of his experiments in 1881; in his essay of 1905, “Is the inertia of a body depend on its energy content” Although Einstein takes on the constancy of the speed of light in the second footnote on page 639 reference – but he is not the primary source of this,
6. from the constancy of the speed of light results in the Lorentz transformation, the Dutch physicist Lorentz was derived based on the experimental work of his colleagues and students Zeemann – again missing the source! Einstein plagiatierte page by page in its original certificate of 1905 the theory of relativity, the findings of Lorentz Electrodynamics of the electron,
7. electrodynamics of (moving) electrons and the electron theory of reasoned Lorenz on the basis of the experiments of Zeeman with the spectroscope for spectral analysis of cadmium (…)
8. If the light quantum effect is not from Einstein, for which in 1921 he received the Nobel Prize, but primarily by the French physicist Becquerel (weak source location). It is certain that already Hall growth in 1881 systematically experimented for light quantum effect,
9 the famous formula
E = m c² *, (17)
which is not found in any font from Einstein did not originate with absolute certainty by Einstein, but various authors for the formulation of this relationship in question, such as the German physicist Wilhelm Eduard Weber (1881) and the Austrian physicist Friedrich Hasenöhrl (1874-1915 ) as the source of research revealed
10. Einstein to last quantum mechanics vehemently fought against (“The old man does not play dice”) – this is the logical proof that Einstein had not even understand “his own photoelectric effect”!
Quintessence and Conclusion: Einstein must have read the latest publications on Physics in Bern patent office, which he possessed by Rohmer (2008) and have just written together everything that was then published on the latest scientific findings and results in physics – without a single source ,
One thing is absolutely certain: the development of the theory of relativity was a long historical process and had many fathers, of Newton, on Soldner, Hasenohrl, Weber and Lorentz to Poincaré!
Max Born wrote in his book “The Theory of Relativity Einstein” (1920): The theory of relativity should not be linked to specific date and a specific name, strictly speaking. She was around 1900, so to speak in the air, and several great mathematicians and physicists – to name just a few: Larmor, FITZGERALD, LORENZ, PONCARÉ – were in possession of important results. (……) (Quoted by Rohmer, 2008).
But it is also clear that Henri Poincaré, building on the work of Lorentz, the construction of the mathematical formalism of the theory of relativity completed (p 409, Simonyi, mutatis mutandis, quoted by Romer, 2008, page 9).
Thus, the spiritual author and creator of the theory of relativity with certainty Henri Poincaré should be!
Siegfried Marquardt, King Wusterhausen in April 2015
Wissenschaftlicher Humbug!
Wie den Medien zu entnehmen war, wollen die amerikanischen Physiker mit ihrem Observatorium zum Nachweis von Gravitationswellen angeblich die Längenänderung von einem Tausendstel des Durchmessers eines Wasserstoffatomkerns gemessen haben. Dies ist zurzeit absolut unmöglich und muss als wissenschaftlicher Blödsinn klassifiziert und qualifiziert werden! Denn der Durchmesser eines Wasserstoffprotons beträgt DH2p= 2,8*10-15 m. Ein Tausendstel davon wären nach Adam Ries dann 2,8*10-18 m. Übrigens erzeugt jede natürliche Erschütterung (vorbeifahrendes Auto, ja ein Fußgänger) in der Umgebung des Observatoriums eine bedeutend größere Erschütterung und Abweichung, wie die angeblich gemessene Längendifferenz von ∆s=2,8*10-18 m. Unabhängig davon, beträgt die maximale Auflösung von Licht allgemein ca. 0,5 der Wellenlänge oder ∆x = λ/2. Da vom Laser des amerikanischen Observatoriums zur Detektion von Gravitationswellen nicht der Wellenbereich angegeben wurde, soll das gesamte sichtbare Spektrum für die Berechnung des Auflösungsvermögens betrachtet werden. Das sichtbare Spektrum der Wellenlängen reicht von ca. 390 nm (Nanometer – ein Milliardstel Meter) bis ca. 780 nm. Die Spannweite des Auflösungsvermögens bewegt sich also von 195 nm bis 390 nm. Dies sind rund 2*10-7 bis 4*10-7 m. Das maximale Auflösungsvermögen im optischen Bereich liegt bei 2 *10-7 m und kann wie folgt berechnet werden:
d= λ/(2*A)=0,55 µm:2*1,4 ≈ 2*10-7 m, (1)
wobei d der Abstand zweier Punkte darstellt, die gerade noch wahrgenommen werden können, λ die Wellenlänge mit 0,55 µm bedeutet, wo ein maximales Sehen garantiert wird und A die numerische Apertur des Objektes bedeutet, hier mit dem Wert von 1,4 für die Berechnung eingesetzt. He-Ne-Laser im Infrarotbereich arbeiten mit einer Wellenlänge von ca. 3400 nm. Das Auflösungsvermögen beträgt also in diesem Falle ca. 1,7* 10-6 m und liegt um 12 Potenzen unter dem erforderlichen Auflösungsvermögen von 2,8 *10-18 m. Das höchste Auflösungsvermögen, das jemals im optischen Bereich mit einem Interferometer erzielt wurde, konnte von Joos 1930 mit einer Apparatur, die in den Jenaer Zeisswerken konstruiert wurde mit 1/1000 der verwendeten Wellenlänge (ca.5,5*10-10 m) registrieren. Laserinterferometer haben nur ein Auflösungsvermögen von maximal/minimal einigen 10-7 m und liegen damit „Galaxien“ vom erforderlichen Leistungsvermögen entfernt. Mit leistungsstarken Elektronenmikroskopen kann man ein Leistungsvermögen im Pikobereich erzielen (10-12m). Nach Lindner (Das Moderne Bild der Physik, Uraniaverlag, Leipzig, Jena, Berlin, 1973) soll das erzielbare Auflösungsvermögen von Elektronenmikroskopen sogar 10-15 m bei 15.000 V betragen. Beim experimentellen Nachweis des Compton-Effektes konnte mit einer komplizierten Versuchsanlage eine Wellenlängenänderung von 2,4 *10-12 m gemessen werden (Comptonwellenlänge des Elektrons). Nun könnten die amerikanischen Forscher ganz clever gewesen sein und die Laufzeitdifferenz gemessen haben. Da ergibt eine noch katastrophalere Bilanz! Die Laufzeitdifferenz ∆t beträgt nämlich zirka 10-26 s. Denn:
∆t= ∆s:c= 2,8*10-18 m: 3*108 m/s ≈ 10-26s. (2)
Das Auflösungsvermögen von optischen Atomuhren beträgt gegenwärtig 10-17 s und liegt damit deutlich unter dem hypothetisch berechneten Auflösungsvermögen. Und bei der Betrachtung der Energiebilanz wird deutlich, dass aus einer Entfernung von
s= t*c=1,3 *109*365*24*3600 s* 300.000 km/s ≈ 1,3*109*3,2 *107*3*105 km ≈
1,2*1022 km (3)
von der Energie der drei Sonnen mit der Energie
ESL=m*c²= 3*2*1030 kg* 9*1016 m²/s² ≈ 5,4*1047 J (Joule) (4)
nur noch rund
EE=9*10 9 J=9*109 Ws ≈ 2,5 MWh (5)
auf die Erdatmosphäre auftreffen und dann von ihr mit Sicherheit total absorbiert würden. Denn es gilt
EE= ESL: [(16*ASL:AE)* (R²:RE²]. (6)
weil die Energiedichte mit dem Quadrat der Entfernung vom Fusionsort der beiden schwarzen Löcher mit einer Gesamtmasse von 29+36=65 Sonnenmassen abnimmt und sich im Raum homogen verteilt. Anderseits bildet die Erde in Relation zu den beiden schwarzen Löchern nur eine ganz geringe Fläche, wobei sich das Verhältnis der beiden Flächen von den schwarzen Löchern mit dem Radius rSL und der Erde mit dem Radius rE allgemein wie folgt errechnet:
n=³√(65)²rSL²: rE². (7)
EE= ESL: [(16*ASL:AE)* (R²:RE²].Damit ergibt sich eine Energie von
EE= 5,4*1047 J: [(16*0,5*1012): (41*106)]*[(1,44*1044: 0,5*1012)] ≈
9*109 J=9*109 Ws ≈ 2,5 MWh (8)
die auf die Atmosphäre der Erde treffen und hier wohl nahezu absorbiert werden würden. Zudem ist davon auszugehen, dass die Energie der Gravitationswellen nur einen ganz minimalen Anteil an den 2,5 MWh ausmachen. Zum Observatorium selbst würden nur wenige J gelangen, wenn man das Flächenverhältnis der Erde in Relation zur Ausdehnung des Observatoriums setzt, wie leicht nachvollziehbar ist. Anderseits soll nach einer Quelle im Internet (Gravitationswellen, wikipedia, 2016) die Amplitude der Gravitationswellen umgekehrt zur Entfernung des Fusionsortes abnehmen. Dies bedeutet, dass es sich um gedämpfte Wellen handelt, die der mathematisch-physikalischen Relation
At=Ao*e (-δ*t) (9)
gehorchen (Ao-Anfangsamplitude. At-Amplitude zum Zeitpunkt t und δ- Dämpfungsfaktor), wobei die Amplitude von Gravitationswellen 10-23 bis 10-20 m betragen sollen [Max Camenzind, (2015): Gravitationswellen, Würzburg, 2015]. Geht man davon aus, dass die Energie von Wellen in der Regel über die Amplitude übertragen wird, ist leicht einzusehen, dass die Energie der Gravitationswellen auf „Höhe“ der Erde bei null liegen müsste. Im Moment der Fusion der beider Schwarzen Löcher entstehen Gravitationswellen mit einer Amplitude von 10-21 m bei einer Frequenz von 1 kHz. Wie sollen diese Wellen mit einer Wellenlänge von
λGW=3*108 m/s: 10³ Hz= 3*105 m (10)
mit den Wellen des sichtbaren Laserlichtes im grünen Bereich mit einer Wellenlänge von 550 nm und einer Frequenz von ca. 1015 Herz interferieren können? Im Interferometer wird sich kein Interferenzmuster der beiden extrem unterschiedlichen Wellentypen abbilden können. Ja, wie sollten die Gravitations- und elektromagnetische Wellen unterschiedlichster physikalischer Eigenschaften miteinander interferieren können? Dies wäre ja gerade quasi so, als wenn Schallwellen mit elektromagnetische Wellen, oder Wasserwellen mit Schallwellen interferieren würden. Und die winzige Energie eines Gravitons mit
EGW=h*νGW=6,625 *10-34 Ws²*1000 Hz ≈ 6*10-31 Ws (11)
zu einem Photon mit der Energie von
EPh=h*νPh=6,625 *10-34 Ws²*1015 Hz ≈ 4*10-19 Ws (12)
verhält sich wie Eins zu 1012. Bei der Betrachtung der Masseverhältnisse sieht die Situation noch extremer aus: Die Masse eines Gravitons soll nach Wassiljew und Stanjukowitsch (Im Banne der Naturgewalten, Urania-Verlag Leipzig* Jena*Berlin, I965) nur 5*10-63 kg betragen. Die Masse eines Photons bei einer Wellenlänge von 550 nm hingegen ist im Verhältnis zu einem Graviton ein Schwergewicht und deren Masse beträgt nach (12) rund
m= E:c²= 4*10-19 Ws : 9*10-16 m²/s² ≈ 4*10-36 kg. (13)
Das Masseverhältnis eines Gravitons zu einem Photon ist analog einer Tonne zur Masse der Erde mit rund 6*1024 kg und beträgt ca. 1 zu 1024! Das winzige Graviton kann damit gar keine physikalische Wirkung auf das Photon ausüben! Nach einem anderen Modell wird wohl streng genommen nicht ein J auf der Erde ankommen können, weil das All vom interstellaren, kosmischen Staub und den Planeten auf einer Entfernung von E=1,2*1022 km bis zur Erde völlig dicht und abgeschirmt sein muss. Denn zwischen dem Ursprungsort der Fusion der beiden Neutronensterne und dem Observatorium befinden sich neben Michstraßen, Sonnensystemen und Planetensystemen über 108 Tonnen undurchdringbare Materie. Eine andere Frage wäre noch von Interesse: Wie verändert sich das Gravitationsfeld zwischen Fusionsraum der schwarzen Löcher und der Erde, wenn die drei Sonnenmassen in Energie verwandelt wird? Nach dem Newtonschen Gesetz ändert sich das Gravitationsfeld wie folgt:
∆F= γ*ME*3*MSL:r²= 6,76*10-11*6*1024*2*1030*3 N: 1,44*1044 ≈ 17 N. (13)
Es wirkt also eine Kraftfeldänderung von 17 N auf die gesamte Erde ein. Diese Kraft ist nicht in der Lage, eine merkliche mechanische Änderung in der Versuchsanlage des Observatoriums zu bewirken. Es ist wohl so, dass Gravitationswellen aufgrund der physikalischen Eigenschaften des Lichtes mit ihrem beschränkten Auflösungsvermögen kaum jemals detektiert werden können. Denn das höchste Auflösungsvermögen wird mit Elektronenrastermikroskopen nach Lindner (1973) mit 10-15 m bei 15 kV angeblich erzielt. Nach neusten Erkenntnissen liegt ist aber weit unterhalb dieses Wertes und beträgt 2*10-12 m. Es fehlen also noch 6 Zehnerpotenzen, um die Gravitationswellen detektieren zu können. Die Amerikaner sind wohl irgendwie auf Dummenfang gegangen, um an Forschungsgelder und an den Nobelpreis ranzukommen. Sehr gewagt ist anderseits die These/Hypothesen von der vermeintlichen Existenz von Gravitationswellen und der Fusion von schwarzen Löchern auf die Urknall-Theorie des Universums zu schlussfolgern bzw. zu extrapolieren, nach dem das Universum innerhalb von einer Millionstel Sekunde vor 13,8 Milliarden Jahren entstanden sein soll! Denn erstens: Aus dem Nichts, kann nichts entstehen, wie bereits eine einfache logische Überlegung erkennen lässt. Mit anderen Worten: Materie, wie Masse und Energie kann nicht entstehen und nicht verschwinden – sie ist einfach präsent und erfährt eine ständige Transformation! Und zweitens müsste das Weltall eine endliche Ausdehnung von ca. 1,3*1023 km besitzen. Dies impliziert, dass das Universum eine endliche Ausdehnung von 1,3 *1023 km mit einer gigantischen Oberfläche O von
OAll =π*4* r²=3,14*4 (1,3*1023)² km² =3,14*4*1,69*1046 ≈ 2*1047 km² (14)
besitzt, das kontinuierlich pulsiert, also expandiert und implodiert.
Siegfried Marquardt, Königs Wusterhausen