Relativity Theory as an Accident

Butkov, Scientists about my discoveries

In 2009, the publishing house “Rostizdat” published a book by Vladimir Butkov “Relativity Theory as an Accident”. In his book, the author refers to the theory by Vasily Yanchilin.

ISBN 978-5-7509-1252-3

About the author:

Vladimir Butkov is an engineer, 30 years worked in the Communications Research Institute. During 10 years he was a head of the research sector.

Download a book in Russian:

Теория относительности как несчастный случай

Book cover:


Title page:







Титульный лист

The pages of the book, in which the author refers to the theory by Vasily Yanchilin:

Finally, the last. If the outstanding theoretical physicists, beginning with Einstein and the creators of quantum mechanics and ending with Yanchilin, knew about the existence of Zeno and Aristotle (or, more precisely, about any “nonsense”, thought up by these “eccentrics” – about  “isotachia”, “renovation”, “kekineme” – the so-called “paradoxes of discrete motion”), Einstein would never have come to accept the continuum of spacetime or to argue that the speed of light is absolute. And Yanchilin would not have to waste his time and energy for his genious (without irony) interpretation of the physics of nonlocal processes, in order to reinvent, in particular, the concept of “renovation”. This concept has been not only known for almost 2,5 thousand years, but it has also been artificially “derived”  by people who had no idea about quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity and fractal symmetry.


On page 82, the mention of Yanchilin’s theory to his work, indicated by [19]. You will find this paper in References.

You can study in more detail a path of ray near the Sun, for example, in [19] (pp. 17-19, 40-46). But this is for especially suspicious people who want to make sure that they are not really deceived.


On page 89, the mention of Yanchilin’s theory to his work, indicated by [19] (2 times). You will find this paper in References.

However, the two mutually exclusive interpretations of the redshift exist in modern science.

Both are described in detail in Chapter 4 of [19], to which we refer the reader.

Apparently, the second way, which is wrong, of explaining the redshift (contradictory to general relativity since it excludes the slowing down of time and our conclusion about the independence of electromagnetic field and gravitational field) is tenacious of life because the first “correct” way of explaining also contradicts the general relativity, although implicitly, through the need to revise its concept of space: it does not work in the continuum.

The main paradox of the incorrect explanation of the redshift is that it, being absolutely incompatible with general relativity, is often used by modern “classics” of general relativity for “clarifying its physical meaning” (see review in [19]).


On page 90, the mention of Yanchilin’s theory to his work, indicated by [19]. You will find this paper in References.

Thus, general relativity cannot consistently explain the effect of redshift of the radiation spectra near large masses.

It remains to be wondered why this effect is considered to be corroborating general relativity: after all, confirming some consequence, it destroys the very foundations of general relativity.

The following is also surprising: for its explanation, this effect does not need any general relativity (neither equivalence nor the assumption of time delay) [19]. For example, R. Dicke and R. Feynman explained the law of conservation of energy and the equality of inertial and gravitational masses to explain the redshift [21, 22] (without comment).



8. Yanchilin V.L. Logic of the quantum world. M., “New Center”, 2004.


  1. Yanchilin V.L. Mystery of gravity. M., “New Center”, 2004.


Leave a Reply