"According to the general theory of relativity, space is unthinkable without the ether."

Einstein, 1920

The denial of the theory of relativity is the denial of the doctrine A. Einstein in theoretical physics, which does not allow for the possibility of superluminal motion. A number of critics of the theory of relativity (RT) deny the ban on superluminal motion and point to the presence of superluminal motions (for example, the superluminal motion of quasars).

One of the prerequisites for the emergence of the "theory of relativity" was the experience A. Michelson. This experiment was aimed at finding the motion of the Earth relative to the supposed luminous medium - ether . The importance of this experience for the emergence of the theory of relativity is evidenced by the mention of the "zero result" of this experience in the very first lines of the publications of the "classics of relativism" - Lorenz, Poincaré and Einstein as a basis for further reasoning.

The problem of searching for "ether drift" was posed by J.K. Maxwell in 1877: in the 8th volume of the ninth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, in the article "Ether", he suggested that the Earth, in its orbital motion around the Sun, passes through a fixed ether, and therefore, when measuring the speed of light in different directions, researchers should fix a small difference. Maxwell, however, pointed to possible difficulties in detecting such a small amount of deviation. In a letter that Maxwell published in the English scientific journal Nature shortly before his death, he expressed doubt that man would ever be able to solve this problem.

The necessary accuracy was achieved due to the interference of light waves in the installation of A. Michelson, an experimenter who had previously become famous for accurately measuring the speed of light. Experiments were carried out in 1881 and 1887. A. Michelson and E. Morley. In 1904, joined the research D. Miller.

Starting from the first experiments, Michelson began to write about the absence of the ethereal wind:

Michelson, 1881:

“These results can be interpreted as no fringe shift. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether, therefore, turns out to be incorrect, whence it follows conclusion that this hypothesis is wrong».

Michelson, 1887:

"From the foregoing, it is obvious that it is hopeless to try to solve the problem of the motion of the solar system by observing optical phenomena on the surface of the Earth."

This conclusion of Michelson, which, however, contained many reservations and was refuted by Michelson himself in 1929.(see below), was picked up by the "scientific community" as a strictly "zero", or "negative" result of this experience:

Lorenz, 1895:

“Based on Fresnel's theory, it was expected that the interference fringes would shift as the apparatus rotated from one of these two 'principal positions' to the other. However not the slightest trace of such a shift was found».

At the International Congress of Physicists in Paris in 1900 Lord Kelvin gave a speech in which he considered the theory of the ether. He remarked that "the only cloud in the clear sky of theory is the null result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley."

Poincare, 1905:

“But Michelson, who invented an experiment in which the terms depending on the square of the aberration became already noticeable, in turn failed. This impossibility to show empirically the absolute motion of the Earth is, apparently, a general law of nature.

Einstein in 1905 considered search attempts luminiferous medium - ether"failed" and his introduction to relativity is "redundant".

This conclusion is also contained in modern educational literature. In particular, in the textbook of the Nobel laureate R. Feynman in the chapter on the theory of relativity, the result of the ether experience is declared to be zero without a shadow of a doubt.

Positive results of the ethereal wind

A number of experimenters obtained a positive result of the aether experience: in particular, this was done on the basis of their many years of experience by A. Michelson's colleague D. K. Miller, as well as A. Michelson himself, whose message about the positive result of measuring the aether wind was published only in 1929.

In 1929, Michelson, Peace and Pearson in the laboratory on Mount Wilson obtained the result of an ether wind of 6 km/s.

“In the last series of experiments, the apparatus was moved to the well-protected fundamental room of the Mount Wilson laboratory. The optical path length has been increased to 85 feet (26 m); the results showed that the precautions taken to avoid the effects of temperature and pressure were effective. The results gave a bias, but not more than 1/50 of the supposedly expected effect associated with the movement of the solar system at a speed of 300 km/s. This result was determined as the difference between the maximum and minimum displacements, taking into account sidereal (stellar) time. The directions are consistent with Dr. Stromberg's calculations of the supposed velocity of the solar system."

A. Michelson, 1929

To verify Miller's data, other experiments were made - Kennedy (1926), Illingworth (1927), Stael(1926) and Picard(1928). They showed a "zero result", however, they were produced in a facility closed with a metal box, which, according to Atsyukovsky, shields the ether. In addition, the length of the optical path in these experiments was less than 5 meters, which did not allow, according to Atsyukovsky's calculations, to provide the necessary accuracy of 0.002-0.004 fringes with 10-15% blurring of the interference fringes of the device.

Other experiences - Cedarholma and Townes(1958, 1959 also gave a zero result - not only due to shielding the device with metal, but also due to the use of an erroneous, according to Atsyukovsky, measurement technique: the experimenters tried to catch a change in the radiation frequency (which does not occur in the Michelson installation due to the equality of the number emitted and received vibrations per unit time), and not its phase.

In the 1980s about receiving a positive result of the on-air experience reported Stefan Marinov on a setup with rotating shutters or mirrors (coupled shutters experiment).

In 2000 Yu. M. Galaev, a researcher at the Kharkov Radiophysical Institute, published data on measurements of the ethereal wind in the radio wave range at a wavelength of 8 mm on a base of 13 km, while generally confirming Miller's data.

In 2002, Yu. M. Galaev published the results of measuring the speed of the ethereal wind in the range of optical waves. The measurements were made using a device (interferometer), which uses the laws of motion of viscous gas in pipes. In his work, he compared the historical data of D. Miller (1925) and the results of his own measurements in the radio band (1998) and the optical wave band (2001), demonstrating the similarity of the graphs.

A. Einstein's reaction to the non-zero result of ether experiments

Einstein in 1921, speaking of Miller's experiments, believed that a positive result of the ether experience would make the theory of relativity "take shape like a house of cards", and in 1926 - that this result would make SRT and GR in their current form invalid.

Sequence of the invention of the theory of relativity

FTL movement

Analyzing the expressions with the Lorentz multiplier, Einstein "came to the conclusion" that when approaching the speeds of light, the calculated values ​​become infinitely large, and when the speed of light is equal, division by 0 occurs:

Einstein, 1905:

« For speeds exceeding the speed of light, our reasoning loses its meaning.»;

Einstein, 1905:

“When v = V, the quantity W thus becomes infinitely large. As in previous results, so here, speeds faster than the speed of light cannot exist».

Einstein, 1905:

“Any suggestion about the spread of action with superluminal speed is incompatible with the principle of relativity».

Einstein, 1907:

"The relative motion of frames of reference with superluminal speed is inconsistent with our principles».

Einstein, 1913:

“Precisely, according to the theory of relativity, there are no means in nature that allow sending signals at superluminal speed,” "Electrical influences cannot propagate at superluminal speed».

Poincaré had earlier drawn the same conclusion (September 1904):

“On the basis of all these results, if they are confirmed, an entirely new mechanics would arise, which would be characterized chiefly by the fact that no speed could exceed the speed of light(Because the bodies would oppose increasing inertia to the forces tending to accelerate their movement, and this inertia would become infinite when approaching the speed of light.), just as the temperature cannot fall below absolute zero.

Criticism of FTL ban

K. E. Tsiolkovsky on Einstein's theory, 1935:

“The second conclusion of his: the speed cannot exceed the speed of light, that is 300 thousand kilometers per second. These are the same six days allegedly used to create the world».

V. A. Atsyukovsky, 2000:

“The logic of SRT is amazing. If SRT puts the speed of light as the basis of all reasoning, then, having scrolled through all its reasoning through a mathematical mill, it obtains, firstly, that all phenomena depend on this very speed of light, and secondly, that it is this speed that is the limit. This is very wise, because if SRT were based not on the speed of light, but on the speed of the boy Vasya on a camping trip, then all physical phenomena around the world would be connected with the speed of his movement. But the boy still, probably, has nothing to do with it. What about the speed of light?».

V. N. Demin, 2005:

“If instead of the speed of light we substitute the speed of sound into relativistic formulas (which is quite acceptable, and such substitutions reflecting real physical situations have been made), then we get a similar result: the radical expression of the relativistic coefficient can turn to zero. But it does not occur to anyone to assert on this basis that a speed exceeding the speed of sound is unacceptable in nature.

Experimental proof of superluminal speeds

V. N. Demin:

"Concerning real superluminal velocities, they have long been obtained in experiments, which were set N. A. Kozyrev, A. I. Veinik, V. P. Seleznev, A. E. Akimov and other domestic scientists. Extragalactic objects with their own superluminal speed have also been discovered. Both Russian and American physicists have obtained similar results in active media.”

"Science and Life", N6, 2006:

“In 2000, it was experimentally shown in a number of publications that the speed of light in a vacuum can be surpassed. So, on May 30, 2004, the journal "Physical Review Letters 1" reported that a group of Italian physicists managed to create a short light pulse that traveled a distance of about a meter at a speed many times greater than the speed of light in a vacuum.

On July 20 of the same year, an article by a professor at Princeton University (USA) was published Lee Jun Wang(L.J. Wang et al.//Nature, 406, 243-244), where it was experimentally shown that a light pulse skipped the camera 310 times faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

"Technique-youth" No. 7 for 2000:

“The postulate, once put forward by A. Einstein, states that the speed of light, reaching 300 thousand km / s in vacuum, is the maximum that can be achieved in nature. Professor Raymond Chu from the University of Berkeley in his experiments reached a speed exceeding the classical one by 1.7 times.

Now researchers at the NEC Institute at Princeton have gone even further. A powerful pulse of light was passed through a 6-cm "flask" filled with specially prepared gaseous cesium, - the Sunday Times correspondent describes the course of the experiment, referring to the head of the experiment, Dr. Lijuna Vanga. And the devices showed an incredible thing - while the main part of the light passed through the cesium cell at its usual speed, some nimble photons managed to reach the opposite wall of the laboratory, located about 18 m, and register on the sensors located there. Physicists have calculated and made sure: if particles-“hurried” flew 18 m in the same time as normal photons passed through a 6-cm “flask”, then they the speed was 300 times the speed of light! And this violates the inviolability of the Einstein constant, shakes the very foundations of the theory of relativity.”

Extragalactic radio sources with superluminal motion

Visible motions faster than the speed of light (c > 300,000 km/s) have been observed since the early 1970s. from a number of extragalactic radio sources (for example, 3C 279 and 3C 273 quasars). Relativists explain the observed superluminal speeds as an "illusion".

The brightest quasar in the sky, 3C 273, is an extragalactic object from which superluminal speeds are observed.

Physicist Albert Chechelnitsky:

“There are a lot of interesting observational materials obtained with the help of modern telescopes and other means. The point is simple. There is a galaxy or a quasar that has been well observed for 20 years or more. For example, in 1970 there was a plasma ejection. He was photographed. Then this object was photographed in 1975, then in 1980, 85, 90, 95, etc. All this is in the picture plane. The problem is whether the distance to the galaxy (quasar) is known. - Distances to galaxies are determined by the brightness of Cepheids (variable stars) - if available. How do you find distances to quasars? - There are enough ways, including the magnitude of the redshift. If the distance is known, the linear velocity of the ejection components is calculated simply - from the angular velocity and distance. Most importantly, what are the speeds there? And here are some: V \u003d 2s, 7s, 21s, 32s ... "

Superluminal motion of particles in accelerators

A. V. Mamaev considered the behavior of particles at the ARUS synchrotron in Yerevan and other accelerators with a known multiplicity - in particular, the CERN proton synchrotron. "Multiplicity" according to the theory of relativity is the number of bunches on the circumference of the accelerator (in this case, there are 96 of them), which, according to the TSB, "group around stable equilibrium phases." This multiplicity, according to Mamaev, was needed to "save" the ban on superluminal motion in the "theory of relativity". If only one injected electron beam moves along the circle, and not 96, then it turns out that the speed of light exceeded 96 times.

Analyzing a photograph of a cosmic particle track from an article Anderson and Neddermeyer in 1938 (this photograph is currently considered experimental proof of the existence of the muon), A.V. Mamaev came to the conclusion that this track is formed by a positron with a speed of approximately 100 times the speed of light in a vacuum, and at the bottom of the photo - the speed of movement, approximately 15 times the speed of light in a vacuum.

According to D. Miller and other researchers (see above), the Earth is blown by the ethereal wind from the North Pole at an angle of 26° to it. According to the views of modern etherists, this can explain the asymmetry of a number of phenomena on Earth and in the solar system.

Blowing the Earth with an ethereal wind according to V. A. Atsyukovsky

Flares in the northern part of the Sun occur approximately 1.5 times more often than on the southern side (according to VAGO AN USSR, 1979)

Criticism of the theory of relativity

The founder of cosmonautics K. E. Tsiolkovsky in 1935 saw "wild nonsense" in the relativistic concept of "time dilation" and denied the limited size of the universe according to Einstein. Tsiolkovsky also denied the prohibition of the theory of relativity on superluminal motions., calling it the biblical "six days of creation, presented in a different image." Tsiolkovsky himself in his philosophical writings adhered to the model of an ever-existing and infinite universe.

In the last chapter of "Treasured Thoughts" (September 27, 1905), D. I. Mendeleev called the "overestimators" of the ether theory "usurpers of the real voice of science" and "rogues". In doing so, he referred to his 1902 publication An Attempt at a Chemical Understanding of the World Aether. In this work, Mendeleev expounded his ethereal theory on the basis of an ultralight inert chemical element - "Newtonium", which he placed in the zero period and the zero series of his periodic system of elements.

Founder of aerodynamics N. E. Zhukovsky in 1918 he stated:

“Einstein in 1905 adopted a metaphysical point of view, which elevated the solution of an ideal mathematical problem adjacent to the issue under consideration into physical reality. ... I am convinced that the problems of enormous light speeds, the basic problems of electromagnetic theory, will be resolved with the help of old mechanics Galilee and Newton. ... I doubt the importance of Einstein's work in this area, which has been studied in detail Abraham based on the equations Maxwell and classical mechanics.

Founder of solid state physics L. Brillouin(France, USA) called the theory of relativity a purely speculative construction. He claimed:

"The General Theory of Relativity is a brilliant example of a great mathematical theory built on sand and leading to more and more math in cosmology (a typical example of science fiction)."

Nobel Laureate P. Bridgeman rejected the general theory of relativity. He argued that general relativity has no physical meaning and is therefore not true because it uses non-operational concepts such as point events, covariant laws (that is, laws that hold for arbitrary coordinate systems), a geometrized gravitational field, which is given the status objective reality, etc. Bridgman wrote about the “equality” of time intervals and lengths of scales measured in different inertial frames of reference:

"It would be cruel to supply physicists with rubber rulers and exceptionally wrong clocks."

Criticism on the RAS website

The website of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the article “To whom did Einstein show his tongue?” dated 22 June 2009 stated:

Photo of Albert Einstein showing his tongue sold at US auction for $74,300. The photo was taken at the celebration of the physicist's birthday. Einstein gave this photograph to his friend, journalist Howard Smith. The caption on the photo says that the protruding tongue is addressed to all mankind.

Albert Einstein became famous for his Theory of Relativity. However, the very theory and authorship of Einstein was repeatedly questioned.

Einstein worked at the Patent Office from July 1902 to October 1909, mainly doing peer review of invention applications. It was during these years that the physicist, according to some researchers, borrowed other people's ideas for his theory, in particular from Lorentz and Poincaré.

In 1921, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize with a very vague wording "For services to theoretical physics, and especially for the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect." That is, the prize was awarded not for the Theory of Relativity, which looks very strange, but the photoelectric law was discovered even before Einstein.

In 1922, Einstein was elected a foreign corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. However, in 1925-1926 Timiryazev published at least 10 anti-relativistic articles.

Broke the theory of relativity and K. E. Tsiolkovsky. In "The Bible and the Scientific Trends of the West" (1935), he rejected relativistic cosmology and the relativistic speed limit.

The article was removed from the RAS website a few days later (September 18-24, 2010) after the link was published ( copy).

Permanent war against the aether

The theory of relativity is a stage of the war against the ether. The first stage was the won war against vitalism. In the nineteenth century, as evidenced by Driesch already could send a scientist to a psychiatric prison for expressing vitalistic views. In the twentieth century, opponents of the knowledge of the ether acted more decisively and cruelly. Destruction for opposing or doubting TO is a whole chapter in the history of the elimination of scientists.

Moscow 2000 UDC 530.1 A96, V.A.Atsyukovsky. The brilliance and poverty of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. M.: "Petit", 2000, 17 p. ISBN 5-85101-049-5.

V.A.Atsyukovsky

The brilliance and misery of Einstein's Theory of Relativity

And the king is naked! »

G.H. Andersen. The king's new dress.

Despite the numerous victorious cliques about the achievements of science and technology in our age of the scientific and technological revolution, we have to state with regret that in fact We live in a world about which we know almost nothing.

Scientists of the past centuries have studied a wide variety of natural phenomena and, on this basis, obtained generalizing dependencies that have received the status of "laws". Many systems and technologies were created on their basis, and humanity began to feel much more comfortable than in the cave age. On the same basis, the concept of the structure of the surrounding nature has been developed. But this knowledge is very scarce, and there is no reason to believe that the Universe is subject to the theories created by the "great" scientists.

– What is electricity? The professor asked.

“I knew, but I forgot,” the student replied.

What a loss for humanity! exclaimed the professor. No one in the whole world knows what electricity is. One person knew and he forgot! When you remember, tell us, we want to know too!

Indeed, why do two identical electric charges repel each other in accordance with Coulomb's law while they are at rest, and begin to attract if they are moved together in space? Now they are currents that attract in accordance with Ampère's law. What has changed for them, because they are still at rest relative to each other! There are many such questions. And although electrical engineering, radio engineering, electronics and much more, entire industries have been created on the basis of electromagnetic theories, we have no idea why they all work, what underlies those physical phenomena that we so successfully use for our needs.

All of the above applies not only to electricity. We use gravity every day because we walk on the Earth and do not fly into space, but we have no idea what it is. The same applies to the structure of matter, the same applies to any physical phenomenon.

Failure to understand the essence of physical processes leads to the fact that huge research costs are thrown to the wind. Where is the long-promised "thermonuclear" designed to provide humanity with free energy forever? "Tokamaks" were created, there were victorious statements about the creation of a "sustainable1" plasma that lasted "whole" 0.01 seconds. There were conferences, dissertation defenses and awards. Only the “thermonuclear” itself is missing, and now no one can say whether it will ever exist at all. The same applies to magnetohydrodynamics, high-temperature superconductivity, and much more. Lack of understanding of the essence of the matter, for which scientists undertake, takes revenge cruelly. And we have to agree that some research programs have already been closed all over the world as unpromising. An example of this is the High Energy Accelerator Research Program.

All this testifies to a deep crisis that has engulfed physics, and with it the whole of natural science.

It should be noted that such crises have already happened in the history of mankind. At the end of the 18th century, Lavoisier was in a panic because he did not understand why the most diverse resultant substances could be obtained from the same starting substances, depending on their ratio and external conditions. But the situation began to become clearer when he introduced the concept of "element", and shortly thereafter Dalton, in 1824, introduced the concept of "atom" to denote the minimum amount of "simple" matter. Molecules turned out to be combinatorics of atoms that served as their building material. And the crisis was resolved, chemistry and electricity began to develop.

A similar story happened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A mass of incomprehensible new phenomena was discovered, and physicists were in a panic: the foundations of classical theory were crumbling. V.I. Lenin then pointed out in the well-known work “Materialism and Empiriocriticism” that it is necessary to correct the theory and not get carried away too abstract mathematics. Then the situation was corrected by the fact that physicists introduced the concept of "elementary particles", atoms turned out to be the combinatorics of this building material, and natural science moved on, and this provided the basis for obtaining atomic energy.

Now there is something similar. Nobody knows anymore how many of our scientists have piled up these same "elementary particles" substances - either 200 or 2000, depending on that. How to count. All of them, after mutual collision, can transform into other "elementary particles", and no one knows what to do with it. And the detection of the magnetic moment of neutrinos is now considered an urgent task. This magnetic moment is probably o-very small, but whether it exists or not is the question! To do this, however, it is necessary to allocate a lot of funds, but this is such an important task! Almost as important as recently considered the task of detecting gravitational waves, which, as it turned out, do not exist in nature ...

With regret, we have to agree that yes, they do: this is an attempt by the dominant schools in science to maintain their outdated and, in general, unsuitable positions at all costs in order to maintain their prestige and position, primarily material. To re-educate these schools means to drag them away from the well-established public feeding trough, and they will not allow this. The only way out is to create new schools in new scientific directions and wait until they die out on their own.

But technically, there is also a way out of the situation that has been created in theoretical physics, the same as always: it is necessary to introduce into consideration a new building material, of which all “elementary particles” of matter consist. Since vacuum is able to create the same particles, this means that this building material is also contained in vacuum, that it fills the entire world space, that it is ether, a material medium from which various structures can form and whose movements are perceived as physical fields of interactions . Created by the author of this article "Etherdynamics" shows that on this path all the contradictions of modern physical theory are resolved more than successfully.

But it turns out that it is impossible to deal with aether at all, because its existence is categorically rejected by the greatest of theories of modernity, created genius of all times and peoples mister Albert Einstein at the beginning of the 20th century. This is the Special Theory of Relativity. Truth, General theory of relativity, created by the same genius a little later, in the same way categorically asserts the presence of ether in nature, which the author of both these halves of one Theory himself claims in his scientific works. And now everyone can read about it in Russian (see A. Einstein. Sobr. scientific tr. Moscow: Nauka, 1965, 1966. T. 1, p. 145-146, p. 689; vol. 2, p. 160).

Ah, this one Theory of relativity! How many copies were broken at one time due to the fact that not everyone recognized the authorship of Einstein! But all this is over, and now the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) is being studied at universities and schools, and many other theories are now emerging on its basis. The theory of relativity gave rise to such fundamental ones as modern cosmology, relativistic astrophysics, theories of gravity, relativistic electrodynamics, and a number of others. And now Einstein's Theory of Relativity has become the standard of correctness of any other theories: all of them must comply with the provisions of The Theory of Relativity and in no case contradict it. In 1964, a special Decree of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR was even adopted about this: any criticism of Einstein's Theory of Relativity should be equated with the invention of a perpetual motion machine, the authors should clarify their misconceptions, and criticism of the Theory of Relativity should not be allowed to print. because it's unscientific.

The theory of relativity created a new form of thinking: the seemingly obvious truths of "common sense" turned out to be unacceptable. Revolutionizing the thinking of physicists Theory of relativity was the first to introduce the "principle of non-visibility", according to which to imagine what asserts Theory, fundamentally impossible.

Physically, the processes turned out to be manifestations of the properties of space-time. Space curves, time slows down. True, unfortunately, it turns out that the curvature of space-time cannot be directly measured, but this does not bother anyone, since this curvature can be calculated.

Legends have been created around the Theory of Relativity and its author Albert Einstein. It is said that only a few people around the world truly understand the Theory of Relativity ... Indulgent lecturers introduce the sacraments to a wide audience Theories - Einstein's train, the twin paradox, black holes, gravitational waves, the Big Bang... It is remembered with reverence that the author of the Theory of Relativity loved to play the violin and that he, a modest man, used ordinary soap for shaving ...

Those who doubt the validity of any particulars of the Theory are usually told that the Theory is too complicated for them and that it is best for them to keep their doubts to themselves. Criticism of the Theory is equated with attempts to create a perpetual motion machine and is not even considered by serious scientists. And yet, the voices of doubters do not stop. Among those who doubt, there are many applied people who are accustomed to dealing with visual processes. Applicants face practical problems, and before solving them, they must imagine the mechanism of phenomena: how else can they start looking for solutions? But their voices are drowned in the general laudatory tone of the followers of Theory.

So what is Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

The theory of relativity consists of two parts − The special theory of relativity - SRT, considering relativistic phenomena, i.e. phenomena manifested by the movement of bodies at speeds close to the speed of light, and General Relativity - GR, which extends the provisions of SRT to gravitational phenomena. At the heart of both the one and the other are postulates– positions taken without evidence, on faith. In geometry, such statements are called axioms.

SRT is based on five postulates, and not two, as the supporters of Theory claim, and in the foundation of GR, five more are added to these five.

The first postulate of SRT is the statement about the absence of ether in nature. For, as Einstein wittily remarked, "... it is impossible to create a satisfactory theory without renouncing the existence of a certain medium that fills all space." Why not? It can be assumed that since Einstein himself did not succeed with the ether, then no one will succeed either. So it's impossible.

Second postulate is the so-called "principle of relativity", which states that all processes in a system that is in a state of uniform and rectilinear motion occur according to the same laws as in a system at rest. This postulate would be impossible if the ether existed: we would have to consider the processes associated with the motion of bodies relative to the ether. And since there is no ether, then there is nothing to consider.

Third postulate is the principle of the constancy of the speed of light, which, as this postulate says, does not depend on the speed of the light source. This can be believed, since light, being a wave or a vortex structure, can move with its light speed not relative to the source, but only relative to the ether in which it is currently located. But the conclusions from this situation will already be different.

Fourth postulate is the invariance (constancy) of the interval, consisting of four components - three spatial coordinates and time multiplied by the speed of light. Why at the speed of light? And not why. Postulate!

Fifth postulate is the "principle of simultaneity", according to which the fact of the simultaneity of two events is determined by the moment the light signal arrives at the observer. Why exactly a light signal, and not sound, not mechanical movement, not telepathy, finally? Also no reason. Postulate!

Here are the postulates.

General Relativity - general relativity adds five more to these postulates, of which the first in this five and the sixth in the general queue extends all the previous postulates to gravitational phenomena, which can be immediately refuted, because the phenomena considered above are light, that is, electromagnetic. Gravity is a completely different phenomenon, not electromagnetic, having nothing to do with electromagnetism. Therefore, it would be necessary to somehow justify such a spread of postulates, or something. But it is not justified, because there is no need for it, because it is postulate!

Seventh postulate lies in the fact that the properties of scales and clocks are determined by the gravitational field. Why are they defined this way? This is a postulate, and asking such questions is tactless.

Eighth postulate states that all systems of equations with respect to coordinate transformations are covariant, i.e. are converted in the same way. The rationale is the same as in the previous paragraph.

Ninth postulate pleases us with the fact that the speed of propagation of gravity is equal to the speed of light. See the rationale for this in the previous two paragraphs.

The tenth postulate reports that space, it turns out, "is unthinkable without the ether, since the General theory of relativity endows the space with physical properties." Einstein guessed this in 1920 and confirmed his foresight in this matter in 1924. It is clear that if GR did not endow space with physical properties, then there would be no ether in nature. But once it has endowed it, it has the right to be, despite the fact that there is no ether in SRT and it has not earned the right to exist in it (see postulate No. 1).

Like this! The author found a good "coincidence" between the first and tenth postulates.

By the way, all the remarkable mathematical discoveries of Einstein about the dependence of the mass of a body, its length, time, energy, momentum and much more on the speed of the body were derived by him on the basis of the so-called “Lorentz transformations”, which follow from the fourth postulate. The subtlety here lies in the fact that these same transformations were introduced by Lorenz back in 1904, that is, a year before the creation of SRT. And took them out Lorentz from the idea of ​​the existence in nature of an ether motionless in space, which is very contradictory postulates of SRT. And therefore, when relativists joyfully shout that they have received experimental confirmation of calculations performed in accordance with the mathematical dependences of SRT, then they mean the dependences based on Lorentz transformations, the initial theory of which is based on the idea of ​​the presence of ether in nature , which is in complete contradiction Einstein's theories, although it received the same dependencies, but for completely different reasons ...

The logic of SRT is amazing. If SRT puts the speed of light as the basis of all reasoning, then, having scrolled through all its reasoning through a mathematical mill, it obtains, firstly, that all phenomena depend on this very speed of light, and secondly, that it is this speed that is the limit. This is very wise, because if SRT were based not on the speed of light, but on the speed of the boy Vasya on a camping trip, then all physical phenomena around the world would be connected with the speed of his movement. But the boy still, probably, has nothing to do with it. What about the speed of light?

And in the basis of the logic of general relativity it is assumed that masses with gravity bend space, because they introduce a gravitational potential. This potential curves space. And curved space causes masses to attract. Baron Münghausen, who once pulled his hair out of the swamp along with his horse, was probably the teacher of the great physicist.

And already absolutely wonderful the situation with Theories of relativity with experimental confirmations, which had to be dealt with in detail, about which those who wish can read the author's book “Logical and Experimental Foundations of the Theory of Relativity” (M.: MPI Publishing House, 1990) or its second edition “Critical Analysis of the Foundations of the Theory of Relativity (Zhukovsky, publishing house "Petit", 1996). Having carefully studied all the available primary sources, the author, to his amazement, found out that there is not and never has been any experimental confirmation of any SRT or GR. They either ascribe to themselves what does not belong to them, or engage in direct juggling of facts. As an illustration of the first statement, we can cite the same Lorentz transformations mentioned above. One can also refer to the principle of equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses. For classical physics from its very birth considered them always equivalent. Theory of relativity brilliantly proved the same thing, but appropriated the result.

And as a second statement, we can recall the work of Michelson, Morley (1905) and Miller (1921-1925), who discovered the ether wind and published their results (Michelson, however, did not do this immediately, but in 1929), but relativists they didn't seem to notice. They didn’t recognize them, you never know who intended what! And thus they committed a scientific forgery.

You can also remember how the results are processed measurements of angles of deflection of light rays from the stars during a solar eclipse: out of all possible extrapolation methods, the one that best gives the result expected by Einstein is chosen. Because if you extrapolate in the usual way, the result will be much closer to Newtonian. And such "trifles" as warpage of gelatin on the plates, which was warned by the Kodak company, which supplied these plates, like air flows in the shadow cone of the Moon during a solar eclipse, which the author discovered, looking at the pictures with a fresh look, like the solar atmosphere, about which previously not known, but which, nevertheless, exists, all this has never been taken into account at all. And why, if the coincidences are good anyway, especially if you take into account what is profitable, and not accept what is not profitable.

Today there is no more reactionary and false theory in the world than Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It is fruitless and incapable of giving anything to applied practitioners who need to solve pressing problems. Her followers are not shy about anything, including the use of administrative measures against their opponents. But the time allotted by the history of this "Theory" has expired. Dam of relativism erected n way of development of natural science by interested parties, cracks under the pressure of facts and new applied problems, and it will inevitably collapse. Einstein's theory of relativity is doomed and will be thrown into the dustbin in the near future.

Application:

A Brief History of the Search for the Aether Wind

1877 . J .K .Maxwell in the 8th volume of the Encyclopædia Britannica publishes the article “Ether”, in which he gives a statement of the problem: the Earth, in its orbital motion around the Sun, passes through a fixed ether, and therefore an ether drift should be observed on its surface, which should be measured.

“If it were possible to determine the speed of light by observing the time it takes to travel from one point to another on the surface of the Earth, then by comparing the observed speeds of movement in opposite directions, we could determine the speed of the ether in relation to these earthly points. But all methods that can be applied to finding the speed of light from terrestrial experiments depend on measuring the time required for a double transition from one point to another and back. And the increase in this time due to the relative speed of the ether, equal to the speed of the Earth in its orbit, would be only about one hundred millionth of the total transition time and was would, therefore, be completely imperceptible.

J .K .Maxwell. Ether. Articles and speeches. M.: Nauka, 1968. S. 199-200.

1881 . A. Michelson made the first attempt to detect the ethereal wind, for which he built a cruciform interferometer. But it turned out that the sensitivity of the device is low, and the interference, mainly vibrations, is very strong. The result is indeterminate.

A. Michelson.Relative motion of the Earth in the luminiferous ether. 1881 In Russian in Sat. Ether wind. Ed. d.t.s. V.A.Atsyukovsky. M.: Energoatomizdat, 1993. S. 6-7. Per. from English. L.S. Knyazeva.

1887 . Michelson enlisted the help of a professor E.Morley . The interferometer was placed on a marble slab, which was mounted on a wooden annular float floating in a trough filled with mercury. This eliminated vibration interference. The result was obtained in the form of an ethereal wind speed of 3 km/s. This contradicted the original position, according to which it was expected that the speed of the ethereal wind should be 30 km/s (Earth's orbital speed). There was an assumption that under the influence of the ethereal wind, the lengths of the interferometer arms are reduced, which levels the effect, or that the speed of the ethereal flow decreases with decreasing height. We decided to continue the work by raising the interferometer to a height above ground level.

A. Michelson and E. Morley. On the relative motion of the Earth and the luminiferous ether. Ibid, p. 17-32. Per. with acngl . L.S. Knyazeva.

1904-1905Michelson does not participate in the work, they are carried out by professors E.Morley and D.K.Miller . At an altitude of 250 m above sea level (Euclidean heights near Lake Erie), the speed of the ethereal wind was obtained at 3-3.5 km/s. The result is certain, but incomprehensible. Written reports and articles. They wanted to continue the work, but the land was taken away, the work was postponed.

E.Morley and D. Miller.Report on the experiment to detect the effect " Fitzgerald-Lorenz". Ibid, p. 35-42.

1905 . A. Einstein publishes his famous article "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", in which he writes that with the introduction of two premises - the first, "that for all coordinate systems for which the equations of mechanics are valid, the same electrodynamic laws are valid", and the second, that light in void always propagates at a certain speed, which does not depend on the state of the radiating body.Then “The introduction of the “light-bearing ether” will turn out to be redundant, since the proposed theory does not introduce an “absolutely resting space” endowed with special properties, and no velocity vector is attributed to any point in space in which electromagnetic processes take place.”

A. Einstein.On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Sobr. scientific works. I .: Nauka, 1965. S. 7-8.

1910 . A. EinsteinIn his article "The Principle of Relativity and its Consequences", referring to Fizeau's experiment on the dragging of light by a moving liquid (water), carried out in 1851, he writes:

“So part of the light is dragged along by the moving fluid. This experiment rejects the hypothesis of complete aether drag. Therefore, two possibilities remain.

1. The ether is completely immobile, i.e. he takes absolutely no part in the motion of matter.

2. The ether is carried away by the moving matter, but it moves at a speed different from the speed of the matter.

The development of the second hypothesis requires the introduction of any assumptions regarding the connection between the ether and the moving matter. The first possibility is very simple, and for its development on the basis of Maxwell's theory, no additional hypothesis is required that could complicate the foundations of the theory.

"It follows from this that a satisfactory theory cannot be created without renouncing the existence of some medium that fills all space."

This is the whole rationale for the absence of ether in nature: with ether, the theory turns out to be too complicated!

A. Einstein.The principle of relativity and its consequences. Ibid, p. 140, 145-146.

1914 . M.Sagnac publishes the results of experiments on measuring the speed of rotation of a platform on which light from a light source located on it with the help of mirrors runs around the platform around the periphery clockwise and counterclockwise. A shift of the interference fringes was found, the value of which is proportional to the platform rotation speed. A similar experiment was carried out by F. Garres (Iena, 1912). At present, the Sagnac effect is used in laser ADSs (angular velocity sensors), which are manufactured by the industry in many thousands of copies.

S.I. Vavilov in his book "Experimental Foundations of the Theory of Relativity" writes:

“If the Sagnac phenomenon had been discovered before the null results of the second-order experiments were revealed, it would, of course, be considered as a brilliant experimental proof of the presence of the ether. But in the situation created in theoretical physics after Michelson's experiment, Sagnac's experiment explained little. The small Sagnac interferograph detects an "optical vortex", hence it does not carry the ether with it. This is the only possible interpretation of this experience based on the idea of ​​the ether.

S.I.Vavilov.Experimental foundations of the theory of relativity” (1928). Sobr. op. M.: ed. AN SSSR, 1956, pp. 52-57.

1915 . A. Einstein in the second part of the article "The Theory of Relativity" for the first time formulates the basic principle of the General Theory of Relativity:

“... the properties of scales and clocks (geometry or metrics in general) in this continuum (four-dimensional continuum of space-time - V.A.) are determined by the gravitational field; the latter is thus a physical state of space that simultaneously determines gravity, inertia, and metric. This is the deepening and unification of the foundations of physics, achieved thanks to the current theory of relativity.

A. Einstein.Theory of Relativity (1915). Sobr. scientific works. Moscow: Nauka, 1965, p. 424.

1920 . A. Einstein in the article “Aether and the Theory of Relativity” he writes that “... the general theory of relativity endows space with physical properties; thus, in this sense, the ether exists. According to the general theory of relativity, space is inconceivable without ether; indeed, in such a space, not only would the propagation of light be impossible, but there could be scales and clocks and there weren't there would be no space-time distances in the physical sense of the word. However, this ether cannot be imagined as consisting of parts traceable in time (parts are in space, in time - processes! – V.A.); only weighty matter has this property; in the same way, the concept of motion cannot be applied to it.

A. Einstein.Aether and the Theory of Relativity (1920). Ibid, p. 689.

1924 . A. Einstein in the article “On the Ether” he says that “... we cannot do without the ether in theoretical physics, i.e. without a continuum endowed with physical properties, because the general theory of relativity, the basic ideas of which physicists will probably always adhere to (?! - V.A.) excludes direct long-range action; each theory of short-range action presupposes the existence of continuous fields, and consequently, the existence of the ether.”

A. Einstein."About ether". Ibid., vol. 2, 1966, p. 160.

1925 . A. Michelson and G. Gel in the article "The influence of the rotation of the Earth on the speed of light" they published the results of experiments on measuring the speed of light in iron pipes with a diameter of 305 mm., located on the ground on Mount Wilson along the perimeter of a rectangle 620x340 m, from which air was pumped out. The results clearly fixed the rotation of the Earth, which could only be explained by the presence in the pipes of the ether, which is motionless relative to the world space.

A. Michelson and G. Gel. Effect of the Earth's rotation on the speed of light. In Russian on Sat. Ether wind. Ed. d.t.s. V.A.Atsyukovsky. M.: Energoatomizdat, 1993. S. 22-61. Per. from English. L.S. Knyazeva.

1925 . D.K.Miller at the Washington Academy of Sciences read the paper "The Aether Wind", in which he outlined the positive results of the work on the discovery of the ether wind on Mount Wilson at an altitude of 6000 feet (1860 m)

D.K.MillerEther wind. Paper delivered at the Washington Academy of Sciences. Per. from English. S.I. Vavilov. Ibid, p. 62-67.

1926 . D.K.Miller publishes an extensive article "The Significance of the 1925 Experiments to Detect the Aether Wind at Mt. Wilson". The article describes in detail the description of the device, the methodology for conducting experiments and processing the results. It is shown that the ethereal wind has not an orbital, but a galactic direction and has an apex in the constellation Draco (65o N, 17h). The speed of the ethereal wind at an altitude of 6000 feet is 8-10 km/s.

D.K. Miller.The Significance of the 1925 Aether Wind Detection Experiments on Mt. Wilson. Per. from English. V.M. Vakhnin. There. pp. 71-94.

1926-1927R. Kennedy , and then C. Illingworth published the results of measurements of the ethereal wind on Mount Wilson using a small (with an optical path length of 1 m) interferometer, sealed in a metal box and filled with helium. To raise the sensitivity, they used a stepped mirror. The result is indeterminate, within the error.

R.J .Kennedy. Improvement of the experiment Michelson-Morley. Per. from English. V.A.Atsyukovsky. Ibid, p. 95-104.

C.K. Illingworth . Repeating the experiment Michelson-Morley using the Kennedy enhancement. Per. from English. L.S. Knyazeva. Ibid, p. 105-111.

1927 . 4 and 5 February.A conference was held at the Mount Wilson Observatory to discuss the results obtained by various researchers in experiments on the ethereal wind. Leading scientists of that time spoke with their views. Reports were made by D.K. Miller and R. Kennedy. The first reported his results, the second that he received nothing. The conference thanked them for their interesting reports, but did not draw any conclusions.

Experiment Conference Michelson-Morley held at Mount Wilson Observatory, Pasadena, California, February 4 and 5, 1927. Per. from English. V.A.Atsyukovsky and L.S.Knyazeva. Ibid, p. 112-173.

1927 . June 20 at 10 pm on the balloon "Helvetia" A. Piccard and E Stael undertook the ascent of the interferometer to a height of 2600 m. A small interferometer was used, 96 revolutions were made. The result is indeterminate.

The experiment was repeated on Mount Rigi at an altitude of 1800 m above sea level. A value of 1.4 km/s was obtained with an instrument error of 2.5 km/s. It is concluded that there is no ethereal wind.

E.Stael . Michelson's free balloon experiment. Per. with him. S.F. Ivanova. Ibid, p. 173-175.

A. Piccard and E. Stael. Michelson's experiment carried out on Mount Rigi at an altitude of 1800 m above sea level. Per. with him. S.F. Ivanova. Ibid, p. 175-177.

1929 . A. Michelson with your helpers F.Pisom and F. Pearson again conducted an experiment to detect the ethereal wind, this time on Mount Wilson in a fundamental house specially built for this purpose. The result is about 6 km/s.

A.A.Mikelion , F.G.Peace , F. Pearson. Repeating the experiment Michelson-Morley. Per. from English. V.A.Atsyukovsky. Ibid with 177-178.

F.G.Peace . Experiment on the ethereal wind and determination of the absolute motion of the Earth. Per. from English. L.S. Knyazeva. Ibid, p. 179-185.

1933 . D.K.Miller published a long final article about his work. She did not receive any resonance in the scientific community.

D.K. Miller.Experiment on the ethereal wind and determination of the absolute motion of the Earth. Per. from English. V.A.Atsyukovsky. Ibid, p. 185-259.

1958 . A group of authors led by the inventor of masers and Nobel Prize winner Ch. Townsom conducted an experiment using masers. Two masers were placed on a turntable, their radiations were directed towards each other. The frequency beat was about 20 kHz. In the presence of an ethereal wind, a change in the received frequency was assumed due to the Doppler effect. The rotation of the platform should have changed the frequency ratio, which was not observed. It was concluded that there is no ethereal wind in nature, and therefore no ether.

J .P .Sedarholm , G.F.Bland , B.L.Havens , C.H. Towns . New experimental verification of the special theory of relativity. Per. from English. V.A.Atsyukovsky. Ibid, p. 259-262.

J .P .Sedarholm , C.H. Towns. New experimental verification of the special theory of relativity. Per. from English. V.A.Atsyukovsky. Ibid, p. 262-267.

1993 . V.A.Atsyukovsky collected and for the first time translated into Russian the main articles of the authors of experiments on the study of the ethereal wind. In the final article to the collection "Aether Wind" all the problems, mistakes made by the authors of the experiments, and tasks for further research of the ether wind are considered. The article shows the fundamental importance of such works for the fate of natural science, since confirmation of the presence of an ether wind on the Earth's surface automatically means the presence of ether in nature, and this radically changes the entire theoretical basis of natural science and opens up many new research and applied areas. It also shows the possibility of creating a device of the 1st order based on a laser: under the influence of the ethereal wind, the laser beam will deviate from a rectilinear direction like an elastic cantilevered beam under wind load. With an optical path length of about 5-10 m at an ether wind speed of 3 km/s, one can expect a beam deviation of 0.1-0.3 mm, which is quite fixed by bridge photodetectors with an amplifier.

V.A.Atsyukovsky . Ethereal wind: problems, mistakes, tasks. Ibid, p. 268-288.

2000 . Yu.M. Galaev , a researcher at the Kharkov Radiophysical Institute published data on measurements of the ethereal wind in the radio wave range at a wavelength of 8 mm on a base of 13 km. The ethereal wind velocity gradient and the rotation of the earth were used. Data were recorded automatically during 1998 and then statistically processed. It turned out the presence of an ethereal wind at the Earth's surface in the Kharkov region of about 1500 m/s, basically corresponding to the data of Miller in 1925. The difference could be explained by the different height of the experiment site and the presence of various local objects.

Yu.M. Galaev.Effects of the ethereal wind in experiments on the propagation of radio waves. Radiophysics and electronics. V. 5 No. 1. S. 119-132. Kharkov: Nat. Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. 2000.

Review of criticism of the theory of relativity

Borisov Yu. A.

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Volga State Technological University" Volga Branch,

Volzhsk, Republic of Mari El, Russia,e- mail: [email protected]

annotation : The critique of SRT in space research is analyzed, while working radar speed meters (radar), using the longitudinal and transverse Doppler effect.Shown, that "The twin paradoxin SRT is apparent. Teaching the theory of relativity in schools and universities of the country is flawed, meaningless and practical. The reason for the redshift and background cosmic radiation may be the interaction of photons with gravitons - quanta of gravitational radiation from stars. Directions for further research and development of the theory of gravity are recommended.Ownershipthe scientific method of cognition is an important principle of every scientist-researcher.

Keywords: Criticism of SRT and GR. Theory gravity.

REVIEW CRITICISM OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
Borisov Y.A.

Volzhsk department of theVolga State University of Technology;

Volzhsk town, Republic of Mari El, Russia, e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract : We have analyzed the criticism of SRT in space research, while working with speed measuring devices (radars), while using longitudinal and transverse Doppler Effect. It is shown that the "twin paradox" in SRT is flawed. The teaching of the theory of relativity in schools and universities of the country is flawed, and does not make any sense and practicality. The cause of the redshift and background cosmic radiation may be the interaction of photons with gravitons - quanta of gravitational radiation of stars. The areas for further research and development of the theory of gravitation are recommended. The possession of the scientific method of knowledge is an important principle of every scientist researcher.

keywords: Criticism of SRT and GRT. The theory of gravity.

Introduction. This analytical review includes material related to the analytical and experimental foundations of the theory of relativity, published earlier and recently. The review does not claim to be complete, it reflects only those materials that contain criticism of the special and general theory of relativity.

In his lecture “On the Method of Theoretical Physics”, delivered in 1933, A. Einstein sets out his idea of ​​how theoretical physics should be built in the following way: “... the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience, but must be freely invented... Experience may suggest to us the corresponding mathematical concepts, but they can by no means be deduced from it. But the real creativity is inherent in mathematics. Therefore, I consider, to a certain extent, justified the belief of the ancients that pure thinking is able to comprehend reality. Quoted from a review.

Comparing such statements with the well-known position of dialectical materialism that “the point of view of life, practice should be the first and main point of view of the theory of knowledge”, that “the recognition of the objective regularity of nature and the approximately correct reflection of this regularity in the human head is materialism” , we can state a significant difference in assessing the role of practice in the knowledge of the laws of nature. At present, a powerful scientific method of cognition developed at the beginning of the development of science (XVII century) is generally accepted, the essence of which can be expressed by the formula: observation - theory - experiment- and again, all over again, - such is the endless, upward spiral along which people move in search of truth. Possession of the scientific method of cognition is an important principle of every scientist-researcher.

I am not criticizing the theory of relativity, I am looking for the truth

And I explain why the theory is fiercely criticized.

And yet, with a large team it is more convenient to look for a needle in a haystack,

The search for truth is more productive in silence and solitude.

At present in Russia, to criticize the theory of relativity is devoid of elementary meaning, since it means putting the work in the "basket" for many years, due to the fact that at the state level a decision has been made to ban publications that are somehow involved in the criticism of this theory. theories. Here is a message about this ban.

In the magazine "Young Guard" (1995, No. 8, p. 70) we read:

“In 1964, the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR issued a closed decree forbidding all scientific councils, as well as journals, scientific departments, to accept, consider, discuss and publish works that criticize Einstein's theory.”

Introduction.

Without calling to consider the consequences of such a step by the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences, I have the honor to compare the current situation with the following picture. A young teacher at a school or a professor at a university, addressing the audience when considering the foundations of the theory of relativity, offers a thought experiment with two inertial frames of reference, one of which moves relative to the second.

Focusing the attention of the listeners on the moment of “coincidence of volumetric coordinates” of the moving and stationary inertial frames of reference, the lecturer literally states the following: “... and then a new physics begins, and in order to realize this moment, significant intellectual efforts are required, and many fail to do this ... .".

In an arbitrary interpretation, it sounds something like this. The professor, when explaining the theory of relativity, shows students a drawn white circle and says, if you pretend to understand the theory of relativity, you must answer everywhere and everywhere, and especially in the exam, that the circle is black. Whoever claims that the circle is white will not only fail the physics exam and remain an unsuccessful student, but will never be able to publish his scientific work. To prevent this from happening, graduates of physics departments are required to take an oath and swear that they will make every intellectual effort to preserve the theory of relativity as a foundation for studying the physical picture of the world.

In 1972 having no idea about the above, the author found a contradiction between the theory of relativity and the laws of formal logic. The essence of the contradictions was as follows.

LOGICAL ASPECT.

In the process of studying the application of the laws of formal logic, it was found that there were some coincidences when considering the initial provisions of the theory of relativity and the laws of formal logic. In particular, when considering the process of the transition of matter from one physical state to another physical state, the laws of formal logic require the presence of Δt, in the same way, the presence of Δt is assumed when considering the process of propagation of electromagnetic oscillations at the moment of their transition from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference.

At the same time, the physical state of matter refers to the state of one or another material particle, for example, a water molecule, which can be in solid, liquid or gaseous states.

From the point of view of the laws of formal logic, the indicated water molecule can, for example, be in the solid and gaseous states at the same time, in principle, since Δt is required for this water molecule to absorb a certain amount of energy, in connection with which its transition from the crystalline state first to liquid and then to a gaseous state.

Attempts to experimentally detect Δt in the field of electromagnetic radiation using an interferometer, started by D. Michelson in the 19th century, ended and continue to end in failure for his followers. To explain the situation at the end of the 19th century, the mathematician H. Lorenz proposed mathematical transformations, in the case of which Δt is lost in the calculations. Subsequently, these transformations were given the name of Lorentz.

Specialists were acquainted with the revealed contradiction of the laws of formal logic with the basis of the theory of relativity. Although this discovery was not published, it did not go unnoticed and quite possibly, after a stormy closed debate, a decision was made to narrow the scope of applicability of the theory of relativity, in connection with which the theory of relativity began to be called an illogical theory, i.e. a theory to which the laws of formal logic do not apply.

Giving preference to the laws of formal logic, the author continued to study the causes of the contradictions that arose, and in 1980 a specific physical aspect was established, which is the basis of critical claims to the theory of relativity.

PHYSICAL ASPECT.

The meaning of the physical aspect is as follows.

The basis of the whole theory of relativity (hereinafter referred to as the theory) is the Lorentz transformations, and the basis of the Lorentz transformations (hereinafter referred to as the transformations) is a thought experiment with two inertial reference frames (hereinafter referred to as the system or systems). At the same time, the transformations assume that one of the systems is in uniform rectilinear motion relative to the other system. The key point of the presented mental experiment is the coincidence of the volumetric coordinates of the two systems at some point in time t = 0 and the subsequent movement of the moving system in the same direction for some time t = 1.

The theory, having put forward as a postulate the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light in each of the inertial frames of reference, voluntarily established that since Δt is not found experimentally and in mathematical calculations performed in accordance with the Lorentz transformations, there is no need for an ethereal medium, which is required as material basis for the propagation of electromagnetic oscillations, including light.

A large army of physicists, each time studying the process of superimposing the volumetric coordinates of inertial reference frames at the time t = 0, failed to understand the mechanism of this process, as a result of which they continue to give preference to Lorentz transformations. And only a few from this army, frankly indignant and calling the theory "a haven of rogues", nevertheless, continue to use the mathematical formulations of the indicated transformation, pedantically focusing on some minor problem and thus, once again "confirm the inviolability" of the theory of relativity .

An example is the work of G. G. Dmitrenko (see: http://www.vixri.ru/d/G. G. Dmitrenko_FIZIChESKIE OSNOVY SPE...) . The author literally examines the smallest details of the Lorentz transformations under a microscope, but the main thing remains unnoticed and once again the theory triumphs. In place of A. Einstein, in response to the work of G. Dmitrenko and his ilk, it would be written that for the theory it does not matter at all what color a solid cylinder reaches the desired points in one or another reference frame. Let the cylinder turn red in the direction of the receding system or turn blue in the direction of the approaching one - the essence remains the same.

It makes no sense for us to repeat once again with explanations of the main moment of transformations, although we still have to draw the volumetric coordinates of two equivalent inertial reference frames, which in various versions are used by all supporters of relativism without exception when explaining the foundations of the theory of relativity, including A. Einstein, still have to (Fig. 1).

According to the Lorentz transformations, the inertial frame S having volumetric coordinates X, Y, Z moves in space at a speed close to the speed of light and at the moment of coincidence with the volumetric coordinates X¹, Y¹, Z¹ of the system S¹ at the time t = 0 ... . Further…

Further, revealing the great secret of the reason for the impossibility of applying transformations in the theory of relativity, at the same time, with all the necessity, the question is raised before the scientific community about the expediency of using Lorentz's mathematical transformations as a basis for understanding the physical picture of the world. Although, it is reported about the remarks of the author of the transformations, Mr. H. Lorenz, about the unsuitability of mathematical transformations for their application when considering physical phenomena.

And so, it is proposed to focus on considering the issue of the possibility of reproducing the physical process as such at the moment of “combining” the volumetric coordinates of the inertial reference frames S and S¹. It should be noted that this very moment, cited by all physicists of the world, remains unnoticed until now, and therefore the theory of relativity remains the foundation for modern physics.

In fact, attempts can be made to combine the volumetric coordinates of any two material bodies, for example, two cars located in two different trains, and one of the trains must move at sublight speed. One can try to “combine” the volumetric coordinates of two cabins located in two different but identical ships, one of which must also move at sublight speed. The author of the theory of relativity proposes to consider such "cars" or "cabins" as analogues of inertial frames of reference.

In exactly the same way, it is necessary to “combine” the volumetric coordinates of two real inertial frames of reference. And if, from a mathematical point of view, the process of "combining" the virtual volumetric coordinates of any reference systems does not raise objections, in fact, this is where the "new physics" begins, i.e. relativism, then from the point of view of the physics of the mechanism of the combination process, such a combination cannot exist in nature in principle, since such a process should be called the process of “collision” of two material bodies. An attempt to “combine” two inertial frames of reference will also be considered the same collision, since, as a last resort, massive stars such as the Sun are usually considered as such systems.

And since it is possible to combine the volumetric coordinates of two stars only virtually, and it is not clear for what purpose, therefore, all subsequent conclusions from such a “combination” have an exclusively virtual meaning, which in no way can be applied to real physical phenomena, and hence to understanding physical picture of the world. At the same time, even assuming the possibility of a collision of two inertial systems, then in this case, the consequences of such, although not a full-fledged "combination" of the volumetric coordinates of inertial systems, should be considered as a giant cosmic catastrophe, with unpredictable subsequent events for the nearest celestial bodies.

Consequently, the theory of relativity in its entirety is not suitable not only as a theory, but also cannot have the status of a hypothesis, and even more so cannot be the foundation for modern views on the physical picture of the world. Thus, the virtual hypothesis of the theory of relativity should remain in the history of physics as a monument of mathematical fallacies, unprovenly using mathematical transformations to explain physical processes.

Consequently, the study of the foundations of the virtual hypothesis of relativity should be immediately stopped in all secondary and higher educational institutions due to the identified fundamental error, the use of which distorts the students' understanding of the physical picture of the world.

It is well known that modern physical science “does not keep up” with the discoveries made by experimenters, therefore, the termination of funding for experimental work in general would be erroneous, with the exception of the termination of funding for experimental work directly or indirectly aimed at obtaining evidence of non-existent consequences arising from the mathematical formulas of the theory of relativity. .

It should be noted that proposals to eliminate errors directly or indirectly made in the performance of experimental work, allegedly not capable of detecting Δt, were repeatedly proposed to scientists, but each time these proposals were rejected with vague wording.

But let's try to "save" the theory by proposing the following version of a thought experiment for the Lorentz transformations.

And so, the professor, when explaining the theory of relativity, shows the students a vessel half filled with black paint and a vessel half filled with white paint says, imagine that the black paint in the vessel is a moving inertial frame of reference like the planet Jupiter (let's call the paint "Jupiter"), and white paint - a fixed inertial frame of reference like the Sun (let's call it "Sun"). Further, according to the Lorentz transformations, we move the vessel with "Jupiter" to the vessel with the "Sun" with sublight speed and at the time t = 0 we merge "Jupiter" into the vessel with the "Sun".

In accordance with the Lorentz transformations, a given moment of time corresponds to the "combination of volumetric coordinates" of two inertial frames of reference at the moment of time t = 0.

Further, in accordance with the transformations, we pour "Jupiter" into the previous vessel and, with the same sublight speed, move it to a certain distance from the vessel with the "Sun". This procedure corresponds to the movement of a moving inertial frame of reference in the same direction according to the Lorentz transformations at the time t = 1. According to the transformations adopted in the theory of relativity, electromagnetic oscillations from a light flash must propagate equally in volumetric coordinates in each of the vessels, as in a vessel with the "Sun" , and in the vessel with "Jupiter", despite its movement at some distance by the time t = 1… .

In principle, the indicated process of "the same propagation of electromagnetic oscillations in each of the inertial frames of reference" takes place in reality. In the same way, the situation of a collision of two celestial bodies, which are the basis of inertial frames of reference, is quite possible. But what cannot be fundamental in the physical picture of the world, and this should be clear to every sane person, is the combination of the volumetric coordinates of two inertial systems with the subsequent exit from the combination process in its previous form.

This moment is well demonstrated by the example of the “combination” of black and white paints in one vessel, which, after mixing, will acquire a uniform gray color, thus meaning that there is no more white paint in the vessel with the “Sun” or black paint in the vessel with “Jupiter”. will never.

Consequently, the last attempt to rehabilitate the theory of relativity suffered a complete failure, thus meaning the validity of the requirements to prohibit the study of the theory of relativity as a theory as the basis of the physical picture of the world.

Bibliographic list

1. G.G. Dmitrenko, http://www.vixri.ru/d/G

References

1. G.G. Dmitrenko, http://www.vixri.ru/d/G . G. Dmitrenko_FIZIChESKIE OSNOVY SPE…).

Tsiolkovsky was skeptical about the theory of relativity (relativistic theory) of Albert Einstein. In a letter to V. V. Ryumin dated April 30, 1927, Tsiolkovsky wrote:

“It is very frustrating for scientists to be fascinated with such risky hypotheses as Einstein's theory, which is now shaken in fact.”

In the Tsiolkovsky archive, articles by A. F. Ioffe “What experiments say about Einstein’s theory of relativity” and A. K. Timiryazev “Do experiments confirm the theory of relativity”, “Experiments of Dayton-Miller and the theory of relativity” were found cut out by Konstantin Eduardovich from Pravda .

On February 7, 1935, in the article “The Bible and the Scientific Trends of the West,” Tsiolkovsky published objections to the theory of relativity, where he, in particular, denied the limitation of the size of the Universe to 200 million light years according to Einstein. Tsiolkovsky wrote:

“Indicating the limits of the universe is as strange as if someone had proved that it has a diameter of one millimeter. The essence is the same. Are not these the same SIX days of creation (only offered in a different image)?

In the same work, he denied the theory of the expanding Universe on the basis of spectroscopic observations (red shift) according to E. Hubble, considering this shift to be a consequence of other reasons. In particular, he explained the redshift by the slowing down of the speed of light in the cosmic environment, caused by "an obstacle from the side of ordinary matter scattered everywhere in space", and pointing out the dependence: "the faster the apparent movement, the farther the nebula (galaxy)".

Regarding the limitation on the speed of light according to Einstein, Tsiolkovsky wrote in the same article:

“The second conclusion of his: the speed cannot exceed the speed of light, that is, 300 thousand kilometers per second. These are the same six days allegedly used to create the world.

Denied Tsiolkovsky and time dilation in the theory of relativity:

“The slowdown of time in ships flying at subluminal speed compared to Earth time is either a fantasy or one of the regular mistakes of a non-philosophical mind. … Time slowdown! Understand what wild nonsense is contained in these words!

With bitterness and indignation, Tsiolkovsky spoke of "multi-storied hypotheses", in the foundation of which there is nothing but purely mathematical exercises, although curious, but representing nonsense. He claimed:

“Successfully developed and not met with due rebuff, senseless theories won a temporary victory, which, however, they celebrate with unusually magnificent solemnity!”

Tsiolkovsky expressed his opinions on the topic of relativism (in a harsh form) also in private correspondence. Lev Abramovich Kassil in the article "Astrologer and countrymen" claimed that Tsiolkovsky wrote letters to him, "where he angrily argued with Einstein, reproaching him ... in unscientific idealism." However, when one of the biographers tried to get acquainted with these letters, it turned out that, according to Kassil, “irreparable happened: the letters died.”

Demin V. N. Tsiolkovsky. - M. "Young Guard", 2005. - 336 p. - (ZhZL; Issue 920). - 5000 copies. - ISBN 5-235-02724-8
M. S. Arlazorov "Tsiolkovsky" Chapter Four. Long live life!
K. E. Tsiolkovsky “The Bible and Scientific Trends of the West” (1935, February 7) // article from the book: K. E. Tsiolkovsky “Essays on the Universe”, Kaluga: “Golden Alley”, 2001, p. 284