Our site is sometimes visited with requests about the problems of SRT - the special theory of relativity. I repeated some of the queries in the Yandex search engine and found several articles that seemed to reproduce my own thoughts, but with a more thorough knowledge of their subject base.

The article by Vitaly and Gennady Sokolov "The Essence of the Special Theory of Relativity" states that the works devoted to the criticism of the special theory of relativity can be divided into two groups: those trying to find errors in the mathematical and logical justification of this theory and offering various experiments to refute the special theory of relativity . At the same time, in most cases, the essence of this theory remains unclear to the authors, and therefore neither their theoretical studies nor the experiments they propose can refute the theory.

I also talked about this. The "mistake" is not in the constructions of Einstein's special theory of relativity, but in its initial postulate about the constancy of the speed of light. The speed of light cannot remain constant relative to any moving and resting objects. From this, that is, from the distortion of reality in the original postulate, one should begin the analysis of SRT. According to the Sokolovs, the statement underlying the special theory of relativity that the speed of light does not depend on the movements of the source and the observer in a vacuum is made erroneously based on an analysis of experiments and observations carried out in real conditions, when light propagates in a real medium. Given the influence that the medium has on the speed of light, all known experiments and observations are simply explained from the Galilean point of view, and the special theory of relativity turns out to be redundant. As far as we know, the Sokolovs say, there are no such situations with the movement of a light source or an observer, which - taking into account the influence of the medium on the speed of light - confirm the special theory of relativity and cannot be explained from the Galilean point of view.

Well, the influence of the environment is only a special case, and the more general effect on the speed of light in terrestrial conditions is, in my opinion, the force field of the Earth. According to Einstein's general theory of relativity - GR, such an effect is exerted by the gravitational field.

The next article, which I enjoyed reading: "A little theory of relativity"

http://maxpark.com/user/4295049516/content/1627522

Many provisions of the theory of relativity were invented before Einstein. Fantasies about the fact that everything is relative also do not belong to Einstein, this idea is known, for example, from Plato. In general, Einstein, thinking about the structure of the surrounding world, did not believe in formulas, he believed that he was simply discovering the plans of the "creator of the world" because he was sure that "... the creator is sophisticated, but not malicious..."; "... To know that there is a hidden reality that opens up to us as the highest beauty, to know and feel this is the core of true religiosity ..."; "... The highest principles of our aspirations and judgments were given by the Jewish-Christian religious tradition ..." (A. Einstein, Science and Religion).

I also drew attention to this, that almost all geniuses are shifted in their worldview to religion or mysticism. Already Aristotle argued that a great scientist must be a little crazy, and some modern psychologists are of the opinion that the distance from a genius to a madman is only one step away. That's how nature decreed it.

Heisenberg and Pauli, according to the authors of the article, held idealistic and mystical views. Max Planck was a staunch Christian believer. Niels Bohr and Max Born adhered to materialistic terminology, but they were not materialists. Max Born wrote to Bohr: "... But I'm angry that you reproach me for materialistic ideas; that's just what I needed. I can't stand these guys..." And so on. There are too many examples to list them all.

In principle, to show the falsity of Einstein's theory, according to the authors, and the falsity of the theories associated with it can be quite simple. In the theory of relativity there are irreparable internal contradictions - here, perhaps, the authors mean, first of all, SRT. So, for example, one of the lists, in 14 paragraphs, where such contradictions are collected, was published by R. Penrose in 1982. But it is almost impossible to bring this to an understanding by the adherents of such theories that they are false. This is practically the same as showing the inconsistency of the mythology of any religion. Adepts of any religion because its myths are absurd, because it will not decrease. There are reasons for this, they are embedded in the peculiarities of human thinking, but it is more difficult to show them than to find contradictions in people's beliefs.

Based on the Poincaré formulas, Lorentz invented a mathematical transformation, according to which, in the direction of motion, the dimensions of a rapidly moving body are reduced.

In 1909, the famous Austrian physicist Paul Ehrenfest questioned this conclusion. “Let’s say that moving objects are really flattened,” he reasoned. “In this case, if we set the disk in rotation, then with increasing speed, its size, according to Einstein, will decrease; in addition, the disk will bend. When the rotation speed reaches the speed light, the disk will simply disappear. Where will it go?.."

The creator of the theory of relativity tried to challenge the conclusions of Ehrenfest by publishing his arguments on the pages of one of the special journals. But they turned out to be unconvincing, and then Einstein found another "counterargument" - he helped his opponent get the position of professor of physics in the Netherlands, which he had long been striving for. Ehrenfest moved there in 1912, and immediately the mention of the so-called "Ehrenfest's paradox" disappears from the pages of books on the special theory of relativity.

This is what the authors of the article say, but the late Einstein himself did not attach any categorical significance to SRT. According to him, the special theory of relativity is applicable only for inertial systems. In the language of physicists, these are systems that are not affected by external forces, and in ordinary language, they are systems that do not exist in nature.

However, let's continue. In 1973, Ehrenfest's speculative experiment was put into practice. American physicist Thomas Phips photographed a disk rotating at great speed. The size of the disk has not changed. "Longitudinal compression" turned out to be pure fiction. Phips sent a report of his work to the editors of the popular journal Nature. But there it was rejected. The article was placed on the pages of a special magazine published in small circulation in Italy.

Tom Van Flandern, a former employee of the NASA observatory, admitted, according to the authors of the article, that in the course of space research it turned out that when drawing up programs for controlling space objects, Einstein's provisions must be abandoned as untrue, but this was classified from the public. I met a similar statement about the inapplicability of the theory of relativity for controlling space objects in other sources. But some confirmation of the general theory of relativity, attributed at the same time to SRT, nevertheless, it must be said, is. However, let's continue on the topic of the article ...

Mythical quarks not found in practice, theorists from the legion of people with irrational thinking operating in science have invented more than real elementary particles have been found. The masses of these quarks, on the basis of the theory of relativity, can be, in an infinite number of times, greater than the masses of particles allegedly built from these quarks. The fantastic properties of quarks, as well as the fantastic properties of "black holes" and photons, do not confuse people with irrational thinking. After all, the theories of "quarks" and "black holes" are, apart from everything else, a way for them to understand the intention of the creator with the help of cabalistic symbols and numbers. Admirers of Kabbalah behind mathematical formulas do not at all lose their physical content, for them the physical content of their formulas has absolutely no meaning. Mathematical formulas, according to people with irrational thinking, are the "spiritual content" of the world and its "creator". Irrationalists with the help of these formulas try to find the intention of the "creator". The French scientist L. Brillouin described modern cosmology as a strange mixture of observations and their interpretation, in which analysis is replaced by fantasy.

In conclusion, the authors explain that such theories as Einstein's theory and the theories related to it, despite the weak opposition to them from individual true researchers of the world, in the 20th century became the basis of world philosophy not by chance. Behind them are very rich and powerful people who allocate huge amounts of money to support them. A powerful administrative resource is directed to support the theory.

Such, here, turned out to be a blitz review, I hope not useless for those interested in SRT.

As part of SRT, or rather the Michelson-Morley experience, my daughter once sent a fragment of my article to social networks regarding energy problems. In the fragment, in particular, there was a phrase that this experience does not prove anything about the validity of the SRT provisions. There was a comment on the social network about this, which I quote here:

"Let's assume that the ether, i.e. a certain physical medium, exists. And what will it give us in our daily life? Most likely, nothing.

But even if it exists, it is, among other things, probably also responsible for gravitational and inertial interactions. And this, in turn, means that the movement of the Earth will be a consequence of the movement of the "ether". Then you can measure the speed of the "ethereal wind" as much as you like, sitting on the surface of the Earth - the result will be zero. It's like measuring the speed of water flow in a river, while sitting in a boat moving along with the current - at best, you can measure turbulent currents and irregularities near the boat, arising from a break in the flow.

But what is truly stupid is to build theories (not hypotheses, but whole large-scale theories like general relativity and relativity) on the basis of these experiments, the results of which can be questioned by any schoolchild."

My daughter asked me to respond to the comment, and I, having hesitated at first, agreed. The answer is the following and, I hope, not without interest:

“One can agree that the now canonized interpretation of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment can be questioned by any schoolboy. However, for more than a century, not only schoolchildren, but also academics have been fooled, especially those who themselves wished to be fooled and, like religious ministers, found for yourself in GR and SRT occupation and bread.

As for the existence of the ether, the answer to this question apparently depends on the terminology: on the meaning put into the concept of "ether". On the whole, the situation can be likened to a sphere rotating in ocean water, the near-wall layer of which can be stationary relative to the surface of the moving ball. The Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out on the surface of the Earth in its near-wall layer of "ether" consisting of energy fields (including gravitational and inertial interactions), and the results of the experiment were extrapolated to the entire Universe. And even to infinity, which in a highly advanced interpretation has turned into some kind of "limited" non-infinity "closed on itself".

But these are "flowers" and "berries" begin with modern string theory, filled with statements that, like religious theses, cannot be either refuted or confirmed.

What gives us ether in everyday life is difficult to answer. It is easier to answer the question of what theories based on fabrications are taking away from us: they are taking away intellectual and material resources from the inhabitants of the planet. Maybe someday people will learn how to extract energy from "space" or "ether". But the basis for this, apparently, should be sought in reality, and not in virtual worlds.

The next day I decided to correct the inaccuracies and wrote an addition to the answer:

"We apologize for the inaccuracies made yesterday in the discussion of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

In physical science, there are "soulless" mathematical results and established, including unnatural, ways of talking about them.

There is the theory of relativity of Lorentz and the special theory of relativity - SRT - Einstein. In the mathematical part, they basically coincide, but differ significantly in their philosophical interpretation. The principle of constancy of the speed of light, supposedly following from the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, is directly related to SRT. But in the general theory of relativity - GR - Einstein, the movement of light and all other processes slow down under the influence of gravitational forces, which is experimentally confirmed by the readings of ultra-precise atomic clocks.

Objections from sane people are caused by mystical interpretations that have bred in modern physics. You can, for example, talk about slowing down processes and slowing down time. These are two ways of talking about mathematical or experimental results. But from the last way of interpreting time, it follows that the legs and head of a standing person live in different times, because these parts of the body are at different distances from the surface of the Earth. If philosophers from the physical sciences were not engaged in the distortion of the common language, then there would be much less misunderstandings about SRT and GR.

That's all for me personally fed up with the subject of SRT. Explanations of the SRT phenomenon should be sought not in the logic or mathematical constructions of RT, but in the psychology and defects of people's thinking. Einstein, apparently, understood this defectiveness of thinking better than his other scientific colleagues, he used it fairly, and in the end he showed mankind his protruding tongue explaining the chimera of SRT constructions - with a corresponding inscription on the photo.

Good luck to you in the service station and in all other matters!

1

The criticism of SRT in space research, during the operation of radar velocity meters (radar), using the longitudinal and transverse Doppler effect is analyzed. It is shown that the "Twin Paradox" in 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. Possession of the scientific method of cognition is an important principle of every scientist-researcher.

Criticism of SRT and GR

gravity theory

1. Einstein A. On the method of theoretical physics // Sobr. scientific tr. T. 4. - M .: Nauka, 1967. - p. 184.

2. Atsyukovsky V.A. Critical Analysis of the Foundations of the Theory of Relativity: An Analytical Review. - M .: Publishing house "Petit", 1996. 56 p. ill.

3. Lenin V.I. Materialism and empirio-criticism // Full. coll. cit., 5th ed. - 1961. - T. 18. - 423 p.

5. Semikov S.A. Variations in the speed of light as a possible source of errors in space navigation, radar and laser location. // Electronic journal "Journal of radio electronics". -2013. - No. 12.

6. Demin V.N., Seleznev V.P. "Comprehension of the universe ...". - M.: Nauka, 1989. - S. 140.

7. Radar speed meter. URL: nestor.minsk.by›sn/2007/26/sn72617.html.

8. Doppler effect. URL: Doppler effect webpoliteh.ru›subj/optika/325…effekt-doplera.html.

9. Yavorsky B.M., Detlaf A.A. Handbook of Physics: 2nd ed., Revised. - M: "Nauka", 1985. - S. 308.

10. Einstein A. Sobr. scientific tr. in 4 vols. // T. 1. Works on the theory of relativity. 1905–1920 // § 7. Theory of aberration and the Doppler effect. – M.: Nauka, 1965. – S. 25–27.

11. Sekerin V.I. The theory of relativity is a hoax of the twentieth century. - Novosibirsk: Art Avenue Publishing House, 2007. - 128 p.

12. Kasyanov V. A. Physics -10 cells. // Textbook for general education. educational establishments - 3rd ed., stereotype. – M.: Bustard, 2012. – 410 p.

13. Vorontsov-Velyaminov B.A. - Laplace. 2nd ed. - M.: Nauka, Main edition f-m. Literature, 1985. - S. 79.

14. Borisov Yu.A. Calculation of the speed of gravity. // International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research. - 2015. - No. 3-2. - S. 178-180. URL: International Journal of Applied and Basic Research.

15. Borisov Yu.A. On the Diffraction of Gravitational Waves // Successes of Modern Natural Science. - 2014. - No. 11-3. – P. 50–54. URL: Advances in modern natural science.

16. Borisov Yu.A. Gravity as a source of internal heat of planets. // International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research. - 2015. - No. 3–3. – S. 319–322. URL: International Journal of Applied and Basic Research.

17. Kauts VL Dark matter and anomalous events in the solar system. // Bulletin of MSTU im. N.E. Bauman: Natural Sciences. - 2011. - S. 141-148.

18. Big bang - Wikiknowledge. URL: wikiznanie.ru›wikipedia/index.php/Big bang.

19. Einstein A., Infeld L. The evolution of physics. - M.: "Nauka", 1965. - P. 63. URL: alexandr4784.narod. en›ei_21.htm.

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.

1. Space navigation and traffic police against service stations. The paper analyzes the systematic errors of space navigation, radar and laser ranging of space bodies and vehicles. In particular, the errors of Venus radar, the Pioneer effect, the Flyby anomaly, and irregularities in the rotation of the Moon and the Earth revealed by laser location are considered. The classical ballistic theory is considered, according to which these errors are caused by an unaccounted variation in the speed of radio signals and light under the influence of the speed of the source. It is shown that in all considered cases this classical theory correctly predicts the order of magnitude and sign of errors, and taking into account variations in the speed of light and taking into account the re-emission of radio signals can significantly reduce the magnitude of systematic errors.

Radar errors from unaccounted for variations in the speed of light can reduce the accuracy of space programs and lead to accidents in spacecraft, as well as simple ships and vehicles with GPS. However, the "constancy of the speed of light" in space has not yet been unequivocally verified using satellites, rockets and radars.

The false "shift" of Venus in orbit was first noticed by the space navigator who trained the first detachments of astronauts - prof. V.P. Seleznev, employee of S.P. Koroleva and the author of the monograph "Navigation Devices" (Moscow: Oborongiz, 1961), who created the navigation systems of the first spacecraft. Seleznev showed that without taking into account the classical ballistic theory, "on the basis of scientific information about light, celestial navigation is in principle impossible." He also noted the importance of ballistic theory in the navigation of AMS and space probes, a number of accidents of which, say, with the Phobos-I and Phobos-II spacecraft, are caused by radar errors. It is possible that the accidents of a number of other spacecraft sent to Venus and Mars in different years were caused by systematic errors in measuring the positions of spacecraft and planets based on radar data.

In the book by V.N. Demin and V.P. Seleznev points out that a possible reason for the death of our Phobos-1 and Phobos-2 spacecraft directed to Mars (their cost without the cost of launches is more than 800 million rubles, or $ 1 billion) is the calculation of the location and flight trajectory along SRT formulas. While the American spacecraft, the trajectory of which is calculated according to classical mechanics, having circled all the planets, left the solar system. It's time for Russia to understand the perniciousness of relativism

R. Hutch, a pioneer in the development of the GPS system, the head of NavCom and the Institute of Space Navigation Systems (ION), has repeatedly stated about errors in the GPS system and contradictions in its data from the theory of relativity.

Note that when “shooting” from satellites with a laser beam at ground control targets, one has to take into account the classical ballistic principle - without this, the beam always goes a few meters forward due to the aberration effect (that is, adding the orbital velocity vector of the satellite to the velocity vector of the light beam emitted by it ).

Radar speed meters, or radars, use the Doppler effect to determine the speed of a vehicle. The radar speed meter (radar) used by the traffic police emits an electromagnetic (e / m) signal that is reflected from the surface of metal objects. The reflected wave is again received by the radar. The frequency of the signal reflected from a moving object differs from the frequency of the emitted signal by an amount proportional to the speed of the object. By the frequency difference, the radar determines the speed of the object.

Rice. 1. The operation of the radar speed meter. The length of the e / m wave in the systems K and K′ remains the same

On fig. 1 at point A there is a reference body - the source of the e / m wave - the radar (1), which is also the receiver. The wave from the radar propagates with speed (c) in the positive direction of the X-axis of the fixed reference frame K; λ is the length of this wave. On fig. 1 for the e/m wave shows only the electrical component. Let a car (2) move towards the e/m wave in the direction to the radar (point A) with a speed (υ) as a reference body of the moving K′ reporting system. The car is at rest in this moving reference frame. In each of the reference systems are traditionally located by the observer.

Consider, from the point of view of classical concepts, the definition of the speed of a car in a fixed reference frame K. The radar emits an e/m wave in the direction of the car at the speed of light (c), which can be expressed as:

If the system K′ is at rest together with the car, then the wave velocity in this frame of reference for an observer in the car will also be determined by formula (1). In this case, it should be noted that the length of the car (distance BD) fits (conditionally) three wavelengths (λ) at any time. Wave motion can be mentally imagined as a snake modeled from wire moving along the AX axis. Now let the system K′ move together with the car at a speed (υ) (see Fig. 1). This movement can also be simulated. Then it is easy to see that the frequency of the e/m wave will increase: ν′ = ν + Δν, because The “number of hits” of wave crests at point (B) will increase. The wavelength (λ′ = λ) will not change, because the length of the vehicle (BD) will also fit 3 wavelengths; the speed (c′) will be the sum of (c) and (υ). Then in the system K′ associated with the car, the equation for the speed (с′) of the wave incident on the car and passing relative to it (plane Y′Z′) similar to (1) will be:

с′ = λ*ν′ , (2)

с + υ = λ (ν + Δν). (3)

The e/m wave emitted by the laser, falling on the metal surface of the car in the Y′Z′ plane, causes the movement of electrons in the metal surface of the car. This movement induces an e/m wave reflected towards the radar receiver (point A) with a speed equal to the speed of light plus the speed of the car (с + υ) in the frame of reference K′ and increased by Δν frequency. Thus, an e/m wave moves to the radar receiver in a fixed reference frame K, expressed by an equation similar to equation (3):

с + 2υ = λ (ν + 2Δν), (5)

from which we can obtain equation (6) similar to equation (4):

or finally:

Equation (7) can also be obtained by considering the reflection of the e / m wave from the car as from a mirror. In this case, the radar with the wave studied by him can be represented as a virtual image behind the mirror on the same line with the car. The distance from the radar to its image is twice as long as to the car, and the travel time is the same. Therefore, the approach of the radar image to the receiver will occur at a speed 2 times greater than the speed of the car in the same direction. The change in the frequency of the e / m wave will occur in proportion to its speed. Which corresponds to equations (6) and (7).

From the above material (see equations 3 and 5) it can be seen that the wavelength of the reflected signal does not change. And the frequency and speed of this signal increases, i.e. the speed of the e/m signal increases in direct proportion to its frequency. Thus, the speed of light in different frames of reference varies. And how did the relativists get confused in the three letters of the equations (1 and 2)?

Relativistic analysis considers two cases of the Doppler effect: longitudinal and transverse. If the receiver moves relative to the source along the straight line connecting them, then the longitudinal Doppler effect is observed (see Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Longitudinal motion of the receiver (Ex.) in the K′ system to the wave emitted by the source (I) in the K system

If the source and receiver are close:

here ν > ν0.

From this equation, given the condition υ « с, we can obtain equation (7) for determining the speed of the body (υ). And in cases of their mutual removal (see Fig. 2):

here v< ν0.

Equations (8 and 9) show that the speeds of light and the object are added and subtracted.

The relativistic theory considers the transverse Doppler effect observed when the source moves perpendicular to the line of observation (see Fig. 3). The transverse Doppler effect is expressed by the formula:

Rice. 3. The transverse motion of the receiver (Ex.) in the system K′ to the wave emitted by the source (I) in the system K

In the article “on the electrodynamics of moving bodies” in 1905, A. Einstein considered the only special case when the receiver moved transversely at a speed (υ) relative to some “infinitely distant light source”. With the transverse Doppler effect ν< ν0 т.е. всегда наблюдается уменьшение частоты сигнала.

From equations (9) and (10), taking into account that the oscillation period, or time interval, is inversely proportional to the oscillation frequency, we obtain (notations in Fig. 2 and 3):

The paradox is that equations (11) and (12) have different forms. This means that the time scales in the moving reference frames K' in Fig. 2 and 3 are different. Reference system K′ in fig. 3 moves so conveniently that the experimenter stands in the fixed reference frame K in fig. 3 move the source of e / m radiation to the position shown in fig. 2, so immediately the time scale will change from formula (12) to formula (11). Since the time scale, according to the relativistic theory, in moving reference systems determines the scale of objects, their mass and energy, these quantities will also change. This is contrary to common sense. It is better to completely turn off the source of e / m radiation - then everything will fall into place, and there will be no problems with the theory of relativity. In his work “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” in 1905 and 1915, A. Einstein considers the longitudinal displacement of a moving frame of reference, and he obtained the coordinate transformation equations for the transverse displacement of a moving system, including the equation we have given increasing the time interval (12), or see equation (14) below, which are included in all school and university textbooks. The coordinate transformation equations in a moving ISO relative to a fixed ISO depend on the direction of movement of this ISO, the location of points in space, as a result, in a moving ISO, the scale of time and space changes from point to point, as well as in time (because the system moves, and the angle between the receiver and the source decreases continuously, passing to the limit in the condition shown in Fig. 2). And this is determined only by the angle at which the source of e / m radiation is located in a fixed ISO, or a point (or object) in the space of a moving ISO is visible, for example, using a telescope in the space of a moving ISO from a fixed point and the speed of movement of this point. Is it really possible to compress a passing spaceship with one direction of view? Indeed, according to A. Einstein, in SRT all processes are not apparent, but real. And, thanks to this idea, a relativistic concept and the term "space-time" arose.

At present, relativists have abandoned the possible increase in mass with an increase in the speed of the body, and have associated this phenomenon with an increase in the energy of the body. Recall that the energy and mass of a body are scalar (non-directional) quantities, time also has no spatial direction, while the relativistic theory considers the influence of a vector quantity (velocity) on the characteristics of bodies in moving IFRs. In the direction perpendicular to the direction of the velocity of the moving reference frame, the components of this velocity are equal to zero, i.e. there is no speed, so the specified vector components of the bodies (for example, width, height, etc.) do not change. This means that a change in scalar (non-directional) values ​​should also not occur. After all, the terms longitudinal and transverse mass, energy and any other scalar quantity (including in our opinion and time) cannot be according to their definition. Nevertheless, A. Einstein considered the longitudinal and transverse masses of the electron, giving the corresponding formulas.

2. Education vs. SRT. Here are the reviews of V.I. Sekerin in his book on the practice of teaching the theory of relativity in schools and universities. “The theory of relativity was formed gradually, scientists E. Mach, A. Poincaré, G. Lorentz and others did a lot of preparatory work, but they had their own view of the theory of relativity, which differed from Einstein's position. During the existence of the theory of relativity, science has not advanced in understanding the nature of electromagnetic radiation. The method of cognition formed by relativism, in which mathematical notations and graphic symbols are taken as real objects and studied, leads to a dead end. At present, the theory of relativity is a brake on world science. The theory of relativity, like any manifestation of philosophical idealism, has a particularly detrimental effect on the fragile consciousness of youth, since its ideas cannot be understood, cannot be correlated, coordinated, put into a system with previously acquired knowledge, they can only be taken on faith and remembered. Therefore, teaching theory in schools and universities leads to the education of an inferiority complex, when, having made every effort, a person does not understand anything and considers his abilities to be the reason for this, or double-dealing, when, in case of misunderstanding, it is stated out loud that everything is clear. And in all cases, ideological omnivorousness, eclecticism and lack of conviction are brought up.

Let us present the material from a textbook for secondary schools on time dilation in inertial reference systems (ISF) when they move at a constant speed (υ) relative to a fixed IFR. This material will allow, in the words of the author, "to study deeper" the concept of time. The designations of the quantities in fig. 4 and in the equations are given according to the textbook.

Rice. 4. Measurement of time by a stationary observer. According to the observer, the light pulse travels a greater distance in a longer period of time: t > t'

“A light clock (one of the varieties of clocks) is two mirrors installed at a distance (l) parallel to each other (Fig. 2). A light pulse, reflected from the surfaces of the mirrors, can move up and down between them over a period of time (t'= l/s). A pilot aboard a spaceship moving at a speed (υ) can measure time using this clock, which is at rest relative to the ship (t'). Time (t') is called proper time. Proper time is the time measured by an observer moving along with the clock. To an external observer, the path of the light pulse (when the light clock moves along with the rocket) diagonally will seem longer than to the pilot of the ship (Fig. 2). In this case, in accordance with the second postulate of SRT, the movement of a light pulse must occur at the speed of light (c), which is the same in all IFRs. Let us introduce the time interval (t) during which the pulse will reach the upper mirror (from the point of view of an external observer). During this time, the spacecraft will travel a distance (υt), and the light pulse will travel a distance (ct). Applying the Pythagorean theorem to ΔAB'A', we have:

(ct)2 = (υt)2 + (ct')2. (thirteen)

After rearranging the terms in (1), we find the time interval (t) in the moving reference frame for a stationary observer:

This means that a stationary observer detects a slowdown of a clock moving at a speed (υ) compared to exactly the same clock, but at rest, by a factor of γ = t/t'.

The effect of time dilation has nothing to do with the special properties of light or the design of a light clock, but is an inherent property of time itself. Since time dilation is a property of time itself, it is not only moving clocks that slow down. When moving, all physical processes slow down, including chemical reactions in the human body, so the course of life slows down in the corresponding number of times. Accordingly, the aging process of space travelers also slows down: The "twin paradox" is explained by the slowing down of time. The twin who returned from space travel ages much less than his brother, who remained on Earth.

In order to see from the above material the elements of SRT insolvency, let's pay attention to inconsistent points:

For a deeper study of the concept of time, one must first at least give a general definition of time, and not the same as in SRT: t = x/c, but related to the biological and practical life of a person.

In equation (14) we replace the ratio (υ2/c2) by (сos φ) as it can be seen from the triangle in fig. 4. Further, using simple trigonometric transformations, we get:

Equations (14) and (15) are absolutely identical. Equation (15) shows that the control of the time interval in the space-time continuum of the moving reference frame is performed by a simple trigonometric function (sin φ). And so “efficiently” that in this system, according to SRT, the mass of bodies, their energy actually increase, and the length of objects decreases. The scale of the purpose of the function is striking! And who will believe it?

According to SRT, the “twin paradox” is also explained by time dilation. On the example of twins, contradictions in SRT are easily revealed on the basis of the classical principle of relativity. The traveler twin, together with the primed system, moves relative to the unprimed system at rest, connected with the Earth, where the stay-at-home twin is located as an observer. For him, the time interval in the moving system will be expressed by equation (15). But, thanks to the principle of relativity, the twin remaining on Earth moves relative to the traveling twin at rest for him in his K’ system. Then for it the time interval in the system K will be expressed by an equation similar to equation (15), by replacing the value of the time interval in the unprimed IFR by the time interval in the primed IFR:

We substitute t' from equation (16) into equation (15) as a result of simple transformations we get:

sin φ = 1. (17)

Replacing from the triangle AA’B’ with (Fig. 4) through the relation sin φ = ct’/ct we finally get:

Thus, the twins, having met on Earth, will age in the same way, which means that time flows in the same way in the fixed and moving frames of reference, and, as a result, the scale of objects, their mass and energy, as well as the homogeneity and isotropy of space and time isochronism. In his work, A. Einstein considers the "dialogue of a relativist with a critic" on the "twin paradox". There, in order to justify the “paradox”, he replaces the traveler’s inertial frame of reference with a non-inertial one, emphasizing that, moving with acceleration, the traveler lives less time. It is clear that such a substitution is invalid. - Expressed by the proverb: "We tell you about Thomas, and you tell us about Yerema." Based on the analysis of the material cited from the textbook, students themselves will be able to draw a conclusion, did it help them to “deeply study” the concept of time, or did it just confuse them? According to students and teachers of the leading universities of the Volga region: "the theory of relativity is studied in accordance with official programs, but with subsequent analysis and modern objective interpretation."

The above analysis of educational material from a textbook for secondary schools confirms the conclusions of V.I. Sekerina at work:

“The theory of relativity is untenable as a physical theory. Consequently, its further teaching in schools and universities is a deliberate deceit and leads to moral damage to pupils and students, and continued funding of false research papers leads to material losses for the state.”

The work of V.A. Atsyukovsky. In this work, the author, criticizing the theory of relativity, notes that it is unreasonable to synchronize clocks in various IFRs using light propagating at the maximum speed known in the time of A. Einstein. Moreover, it is stated that "There cannot be an interaction that can be used to transmit signals and which can propagate faster than light in a void." Thus, the concept of simultaneity, together with the concept of a time interval, is defined by Einstein, on the one hand, the relationship of space and time, on the other hand, the dependence of dimensions, mass, momentum and energy on the speed of the body. Here the speed of propagation of light is a fundamental quantity. Curious in connection with this is the conclusion made by A. Einstein about the limiting speed of light when summing speeds. In the same way, one could take as a basis some hypothetical speed that is greater than the speed of light, and then one could come to the conclusion that it is impossible to exceed this hypothetical speed. Such a speed could be the speed of gravity, which, according to Laplace's research, is 8 orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. This is also confirmed by our calculations. As a result, the speed of light, a particular property, is actually elevated in SRT to the rank of a universal invariant and, as you know, it is used in the same capacity in A. Einstein's theory of gravity, or GR (general relativity).

3. Equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses. The concept of the equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses was not immediately adopted in GR. At first, an "erroneous" expression of the equivalence principle was used. According to this principle: “no experiments inside an isolated system can determine 1) whether this system is in a gravity field with intensity (g) or 2) moves with acceleration (a = g) away from gravitating bodies.” A reservation is made that this principle operates in a limited space, because gravity field - a central field with a quadratic dependence of the intensity on the center of the gravitating body. As a criticism of the original principle of equivalence in general relativity, we can consider the replacement of gravity by inertia (accelerated motion), if the experience from the elevator is transferred to the surface of the Earth, then, according to this principle, we can assume that it is not the test body that falls to the Earth with acceleration (g), but the surface of the Earth is approaching it with acceleration (g). Very unusual! Beautiful! But then where did the gravitational field go? Is he not? There is a continuous "swelling" of gravitating bodies. No one will accept such a performance! Then A. Einstein introduces a deformation of space around gravitating bodies or in front of rapidly moving objects (for example, in front of an elevator, and behind the elevator there will be antigravity). Then, for this deformed space-time, one can write down the equations of the gravitational field, and in order to hide from possible criticism the original principle of equivalence, it was replaced by the principle of equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses. This principle has long been used in classical mechanics. One record of the equations of the gravitational field in general relativity will not solve the problems of the theory of gravitation. GR also did not predict new phenomena related to gravity. For the further development of the theory of gravitation, its objective experimental studies are needed. There are still not fully understood many properties of the gravitational field: propagation velocity, diffraction, carriers of the gravitational field - gravitons, their radiation, propagation and energy transfer function have not been detected.

4. Development of the theory of the gravitational field. The papers present the alternative concepts of gravitational interaction that we are developing. We believe that the gravitational field is carried by the wave particles of this field - gravitons propagating in a straight line from the radiation source. The absorption of gravitational energy by a body and its transformation into the kinetic energy of the body or its parts (atoms) is an essential property of gravitational interaction. In our article, as a methodological technique, the method of analogies between gravitational and electromagnetic fields was used. The equation for the intensity of the gravitational field of a gravitating body was obtained:

where g is the intensity of the gravitational field, G is the gravitational constant, the velocity of propagation of gravitational waves. In this work, the ideas of the theory of short-range action are used, the essence of which is as follows. The gravitational force is determined by the masses of gravitating bodies. Masses are concentrated in the nuclei of atoms, which emit and absorb gravitational waves in the form of quanta of these waves - gravitons. The paper estimates the velocity of propagation of gravitational waves: σ ≈ 1.2·10 15 m/s. The paper estimates the length of gravitational waves: λ ≈ 10·17 m and, accordingly, their frequency: ν ≈ 1.2·10 32 Hz. The possibility of diffraction of gravitational waves was also shown there, which proves the wave nature of gravitational interaction. It is shown that the position of the planets and other objects of the solar system is determined by the position of the diffraction maxima of the gravitational field of the Sun (similarly, the position of the satellites and rings of planetary systems is determined by the position of the diffraction maxima of the gravitational field of the planets). Experimental measurements of gravitational fields in the solar system were carried out during research flights of the Pioneer-10 and -11 spacecraft. According to the measurements carried out, the maximum strengths of the gravitational field were found. Moreover, the detected maxima fall on the location of the planets and their satellites. The results obtained are experimental proof of the diffraction of the gravitational field and its wave nature. The existence of diffraction maxima makes it possible to explain the stability, origin and evolution of the solar system and its planetary systems. The coefficient of absorption of quanta of gravitational waves (gravitons) by the receiving nuclei of gravitating bodies is very low and probably depends on the size of the nuclei relative to the volume of atoms, the absorption conditions, and the state of aggregation of matter. Such objects involved in the emission and absorption of quanta of the gravitational field of the bodies of the solar system are the nuclei of atoms. The absorption of the energy of the gravitational field, in our opinion, is the main factor in the increase in temperature in the bowels of the planets. Here, an equation was obtained for the average intensity (Jg) of the radiation of a gravitational oscillator at a distance R from it:

where m0 is the mass of the oscillator, d0 is the amplitude of the oscillations of the oscillator, ω is its frequency, σ is the velocity of gravitational waves. Equation (20) shows that the intensity of gravitational radiation is proportional to the fourth power of frequency and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the radiation source. Redshift and background cosmic radiation (relic) are explained by the interaction of photons with gravitons. The latter have a higher speed, catch up with photons and quench their energy.

5. The Big Bang is a cosmological model (erroneously called a theory) that does not correspond to nature, describing the imaginary early development of the Universe and the imaginary beginning of its imaginary expansion. It is argued that before the Big Bang the Universe was in an imaginary singular state (in the form of a point - the primordial atom). Physics does not have evidence that there could ever be a Big Bang in the history of the Universe. There are several experimental data (redshift in the spectra of distant galaxies, the so-called cosmic microwave background radiation, etc.) that the proponents of the model mistakenly take for evidence of the Big Bang:

Redshift. 1929, Hubble established the fact of "redshift" and deduced the dependence of "shift" (z) on the distance (R) to the object:

where (H) = 3 10-18s-1 (Hubble's constant).

Hubble's law has been repeatedly tested by various astronomers and corresponds to reality. In experiments, the spectrum of stars (galaxies) is compared with the usual spectrum. The value (z) is determined by the mutual arrangement of the characteristic lines of the spectrum, and the distance (R) is determined by the brightness. From here, the value of H is found, which turned out to be approximately the same for many measurements.

The redshift is explained by the photon-neutrino interaction, ignored by the Big Bang model. The reason for the redshift may be the interaction of photons with gravitons - quanta of gravitational radiation from stars. Having a higher speed than photons and a common direction of movement with them, gravitons continuously catch up with photons and enter into energetic interaction with them. In this case, light quanta expend energy on interaction with gravitational radiation quanta of the star along the entire path of their movement. The loss of photon energy corresponds to a decrease in the frequency of the star's light emission and its shift to the red side of the spectrum. Consequently, the "redshift" does not indicate the "expansion of the Universe", but the loss of energy by photons. There is no reason to believe that the "redshift" of the spectra of distant galaxies confirms general relativity.

Relic radiation is explained by natural sources. To date, physics has established some natural sources of background cosmic radiation, historically erroneously called relic. One such source is neutrino interactions. Next, it is necessary to study in detail the entire spectrum of background cosmic radiation, determine its components, and also establish their possible sources. At the moment, physics can argue that there has not been and could not have been a Big Bang in the history of the Universe. Even the existence of the expansion of the Universe itself is only an assumption built on a one-sided interpretation.

The background cosmic radiation (relic radiation), apparently, can also be explained similarly to the redshift by the interaction of photons with gravitons - quanta of gravitational radiation from stars, but located at a much greater distance from the Earth. This confirms the model of the infinite Universe, according to which the entire celestial sphere should shine as if there was a radiating star at each of its points. So it is, only the radiance of each star as a result of the interaction of photons with gravitons has turned into "background cosmic radiation."

6. Science and scientific method of knowledge. Every scientist-researcher must master the scientific method of cognition, without which there can be no science. Science is a system of knowledge about the laws of functioning and development of objects. Science is always fixed in the most specific (for each level) language. Science represents knowledge empirically tested and confirmed.

The result of cognition is fixed in scientific theory. The purpose of the theory being created is, first of all, to understand all the already known experimental facts. Then the theory is required to "stretch its neck", that is, to make certain statements, predictions on obtaining new results, which can be verified by experiment or observation. As soon as the theory passes this test, it faces the next task - to make the next prediction, and more and more new ways of testing open up. This is how a theory develops, or its inconsistency is revealed at some stage. The theory must be rigid. A chemical or physical theory is scientific insofar as it can be refuted, unlike, for example, religious dogmas, which cannot be refuted. If the theory lacks certainty and can be adapted to any new facts, then such a theory is just a miserable play on words. The touchstone of science is not whether a theory is reasonable or not. The decisive circumstance is the answer to the question: does the theory work or does it not work. In this regard, it is appropriate to remind readers of the prophetic words once spoken by the outstanding scientist of the 20th century, the Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded in 1921 for his work in the field of the photoelectric effect, foreign honorary member of the USSR Academy of Sciences A. Einstein: “There are no eternal theories in science. ... Every theory has its period of gradual development and triumph, after which it may experience a rapid decline.

Methodology of scientific research. The most important in the methodology of scientific research is the powerful scientific method of cognition developed at the beginning of the development of science (XVII century), before the development of which there was no science. The essence of the scientific method of cognition 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. In the scientific method of cognition, there are also the following principles: the principle of objectivity, the principle of openness to the new and the principle of correspondence. The principle of objectivity asserts the independence of research results from the one who conducted the experiments, the results must be reproducible and repeatable by independent experiments of other researchers. The principle of openness to new establishes the possibility for the researcher to publish the results of his work, even if these results contradict generally accepted views. Subsequently, if these results are not confirmed, they will be rejected by science itself (other studies). In science, there is a principle of correspondence, according to which well-tested laws and relationships remain unchanged after a new significant discovery or scientific revolution.

General principles of scientific and philosophical methodology. Among the philosophical methods, the most famous are: dialectical and metaphysical. Metaphysics considers things and phenomena in isolation, separately, independently of each other. Metaphysical thought strives for the simple, the unified, and the whole. Dialectics considers the studied objects and phenomena in interconnection and movement in the light of dialectical laws:

a) unity and struggle of opposites;

b) the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones;

c) negation of negation (development with renewal).

Dialectics uses general logical research methods: analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy. Analysis is a research method by which the studied phenomenon or process is mentally divided into its constituent elements in order to study each separately. Varieties of analysis are classification and periodization. Synthesis is a research method that involves the mental connection of the constituent parts or elements of the object under study, its study as a whole. Methods of analysis and synthesis are interconnected, they are equally used in scientific research. Induction is the movement of thought (cognition) from facts, individual cases to a general position. Induction leads to universal concepts and laws that can be taken as the basis of deduction. Deduction is the derivation of a single, particular from any general position; the movement of thought (cognition) from general statements to statements about individual objects or phenomena. Analogy is a way of obtaining knowledge about objects and phenomena based on the fact that they are similar to others; reasoning in which, from the similarity of the studied objects in some features, a conclusion is made about their similarity in other features.

findings

1. The use of SRT for calculations in space navigation, radar and laser location is a probable source of errors and accidents for several AMS.

2. An E/M wave emitted by a radar at the speed of light, after reflection from a moving object (car) has a higher speed than the speed of light.

3. According to SRT, the control of the time interval in the space-time continuum of a moving reference frame is performed by a simple trigonometric sine function, and is so “efficient” that in this system, the mass of bodies, their momentum, energy actually increase, and the length of objects decreases. The scale of the purpose of the function is striking!

4. Teaching the theory of relativity in schools and universities of the country is flawed, meaningless and practical.

5. Continue further research on gravity, its radiation, propagation, absorption and diffraction of gravitational waves, research on the registration of particles of the gravitational field - gravitons, which is important for the development of the theory of gravity. Continue research on the interaction of light with particles of the gravitational field - gravitons.

6. The reason for the redshift and background cosmic radiation may be the interaction of photons with gravitons - quanta of gravitational radiation from stars. Having a higher speed, gravitons continuously catch up with photons along the entire path of their movement and enter into energy interaction with them. The loss of energy by photons corresponds to a decrease in the frequency of the star's light emission and its shift to the red side of the spectrum.

7. Each scientist-researcher must master the scientific method of cognition (without which there can be no science) and use the following scientific principles in their scientific work: the principle of objectivity, the principle of openness to the new and the principle of correspondence.

Bibliographic link

Borisov Yu.A. REVIEW OF THE CRITIQUE OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY // International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research. - 2016. - No. 3-3. – P. 382-392;
URL: https://applied-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=8740 (date of access: 09/25/2019). We bring to your attention the journals published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural History"

"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 "Aether", 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 estimated speed 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 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 at the basis of all reasoning, then, having scrolled 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 the 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 at its usual speed passed through the cesium cell, 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.

The special theory of relativity (SRT) of Albert Einstein, like no other, received a surprisingly powerful response in wide circles of the public, even very far from science. At the same time, she divided the scientific world into her unshakable apologists and implacable opponents. From the moment of its creation in 1905 to official recognition, it did not have to wait long, much less than it took Newton's theory of gravitation. Einstein was called a genius for the creation of SRT, although he received the Nobel Prize for much more modest work on the explanation of the photoelectric effect. Speaking about the official recognition of the theory of relativity, I mean that it was supported by many prominent scientists, it entered university courses, textbooks and reference books on physics, its conclusions were used in other scientific and technical projects and studies, and also that very curious circumstance that criticism of SRT was even banned by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. At the same time, there were relatively few defenders of the STO, and its opponents kept multiplying. At the same time, the theory itself did not develop, except for several attempts to re-state it more logically and accurately. The first of these attempts was made by V.S. Ignatovsky in 1910.

The debunkers of SRT mainly hit three targets: experiments, the results of which motivated the choice of the postulate of the independence of the speed of light from the reference frame (Michelson-Morley), experiments that supposedly confirmed its consequences (Lorentz flattening of the equipotential surface of a moving electron, detection of muons near the Earth’s surface due to time dilation), as well as internal inconsistency (twin paradox). The volume of targets, as well as their number, increased during the transition from SRT to the general theory of relativity (GR). I will mention only a few: the secular shift of the perihelion of Mercury, the gravitational curvature of the trajectory of a light beam, the redshift of radiation due to gravity, the transverse Doppler effect. The arguments of the opponents of the theory of relativity deserve serious attention and can be reduced to the following main types.

First, the results of experiments interpreted by defenders in favor of the theory appear to its opponents as ambiguous or questionable from the point of view of accuracy and from the methodological point of view (for example, the Michelson-Morley experiments). Secondly, many effects predicted by the theory of relativity can be explained without it (for example, the transverse Doppler effect, the deflection of a beam of light near gravitating masses). Thirdly, there are experiments whose results contradict the predictions of SRT (for example, the narrow-band radar of Venus by Academician Kotelnikov's group). Fourth, the logic of the theory seems to be contradictory. Arguments of the first three types, I consider weighty and interesting. They are mainly related to problems of theory verifiability, and information about them is very abundant and accessible. Therefore, I will not discuss them in detail here. I will only note that no matter how many new arguments of this kind are added, this will not crush the theory of relativity. But on the other hand, you will better understand both physics and what science is in general. The defenders of the theory of relativity parry the available arguments of the fourth type by saying that paradoxical consequences must be considered not from outside, but from within the theory; in this case, they say, the paradoxes will cease to be such. This, in particular, concerns the twin paradox. This approach seems to me completely unsatisfactory. Problems of a logical and methodological order are due, in my opinion, to the violation of the principle of objectivity, which any scientific theory must satisfy. These are the issues I'm going to focus on.

First of all, let us briefly consider the main motives for the development of SRT. By the time of its publication, physics had the classical mechanics of material points and Maxwell's theory of the electromagnetic field. The first was intended to describe the material world, and the second - another form of matter, a field that differed significantly from the first. Nevertheless, I really wanted to combine them within the framework of a certain general theory. It was natural to assume that Maxwell's new theory should be included in good old classical physics, and not vice versa. However, at the beginning of the path to this goal, difficulties immediately arose. I wonder what and how they tried to overcome?

Authoritative classical mechanics in describing the motion of objects (material points and their systems), starting from the 17th century, rested on the fundamental principle of Galileo's relativity: no mechanical experiments inside a physical system can detect the rectilinear and uniform motion of this system. In other words, all mechanical phenomena occurring in two "laboratories", one of which moves relative to the other in a straight and uniform way, are indistinguishable. To this principle are added simple linear equations for the transformation of spatial coordinates for the transition from one frame of reference to another, moving relative to the first in a straight line and at a constant speed (uniformly). The time is the same in both systems. Coordinate systems (or references) moving rectilinearly and uniformly relative to each other are also called inertial. It is clear that all inertial systems are equal, since all mechanical phenomena occur in them in the same way. This provision has been somewhat clarified: the laws of mechanics in inertial systems have the same form. In other words, the laws of mechanics are invariant with respect to inertial systems.

Maxwell, as he himself modestly believed, created the theory of the electromagnetic field as a mathematical form of Faraday's ideas, which arose as a result of deep reflection on a huge number of experiments. At the same time, the invention of the field equations was carried out on the assumption of the existence of a certain medium, called the ether. So, field waves were considered as propagation of ether stresses. In other words, it was believed that electromagnetic waves propagate not in a vacuum, but in a hypothetical ether, the nature and structure of which, however, remained unclear. At the same time, the presence of the ether in the theory was essential, since the field equations contained as one of the parameters the speed of wave propagation, determined with respect to the ether, and not to any arbitrary reference frame. The uncertainty of the physical (mechanical) essence of the ether is undoubtedly a defect of the theory, but, firstly, it does not destroy Maxwell's theory and, secondly, it does not determine the difficulties of including Maxwell's laws in classical mechanics. After all, one could wait until better times, when the aether would either gain a theory or dissipate like an unreal fiction. It is believed that the main problem was that Maxwell's equations are not invariant, in contrast to the laws of classical mechanics, with respect to Galilean transformations, that is, their form changes depending on the coordinate reference system. This circumstance can be understood as the fact that the laws of the electromagnetic field cannot be imported into the family of laws of classical mechanics, and even more strictly: they are not laws at all from the point of view of the latter. Nevertheless, Maxwell's equations were and are now of such great value that it was neither possible nor expedient to discard them or somehow reform them. Let's consider the current situation in more detail.

In Maxwell's equations, as already noted, the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves relative to the ether appears, which, if desired, can be considered as a reference frame, relative to which this speed is determined. However, in classical mechanics there are no laws containing the velocities of motion with respect to any (inertial) frames of reference, since all its laws are invariant with respect to any of them. In the laws of mechanics, only the speeds with which objects or their parts move relative to each other are allowed. For example, it is legitimate to consider the speed of approach of a bullet and a target, which are both objects of a certain theory, but the speeds of each of them relative to a certain coordinate system have no mechanical meaning and cannot appear in the laws of mechanics. This may seem paradoxical, but only at first and superficial glance. The speed of approach or removal of objects is their relative speed, which is absolute in the sense that it is preserved in any coordinate system.

So the situation is contradictory. On the one hand, in order for Maxwell's equations containing velocity to be imported into classical mechanics, it is necessary to consider the ether as one of the objects of the electromagnetic field theory, but this is prevented by the vagueness of its physical nature. On the other hand, if the ether is considered just a frame of reference, then, bearing in mind the non-invariance of Maxwell's equations with respect to Galileo's transformations, we come into conflict with the principle of relativity about the equality of all inertial frames of reference (it turns out that the ether is a frame of reference different from all others).

Einstein resolved this contradiction in the following way. Since the ether cannot be either an object or a frame of reference, then it should not exist at all and it is better to forget about it. And the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves should then be postulated as a constant for all inertial frames of reference, so that the principle of relativity of Galileo is fulfilled. At the same time, one more problem remains - the invariance of the equations during transitions between reference systems. The laws of classical mechanics are invariant, as already mentioned, with respect to the Galilean transformations, but the laws of the electromagnetic field are not, but they turned out to be invariant with respect to the Lorentz transformations, which were already known by the time SRT was created. However, the catch was that the laws of classical mechanics are not invariant with respect to the latter. And then it was decided to modernize classical physics. Namely, having retained the very principle of Galileo's relativity (the invariance of laws with respect to all inertial systems), it was only necessary to replace Galileo's transformations with Lorentz ones, which was done in SRT.

Lorentz's transformations, like Galileo's, are linear, but contain a constant denoting the speed of electromagnetic waves (light). In this case, the velocities of the relative movement of objects and reference systems cannot exceed the speed of light, since otherwise a negative value will appear in the transformation equations under the square root sign. In addition, and this is the most important distinguishing feature, not only spatial coordinates, but also time are subject to transformations. Time in a moving coordinate system turns out to depend on the place of its measurement and the speed of movement of this system relative to the fixed one. Taking into account the new, Lorentzian, transformations, the old laws of classical physics were transformed into relativistic ones so that at ordinary velocities, much lower than the irresistible velocity of propagation of electromagnetic waves in vacuum, they passed into the old, classical laws with sufficient accuracy for practice. This allowed the apologists of the theory of relativity to declare that the latter is a generalization and refinement of the old physics.

Please note that no experiments are needed to carry out the described plan for reforming physics. Everything can be done with the "tip of a pen" on a small number of pages. So it was in reality. Einstein's first paper in 1905, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," is about thirty pages long. At the same time, for the theory of relativity to be accepted by physicists as a physical theory, its physical substantiations were necessary. Therefore, the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in all frames of reference, together with the uselessness of the ether, was supported by the experiments of Michelson and Morley, in which it was not possible to detect the motion of the Earth relative to the ether and which, however, still cause controversy. And another, but already theoretical, justification, put forward also as the main motive, was that the simultaneity of two or more events is fundamentally relative. So, not only spatial coordinates are relative, but also time, which was taken into account in the theory of relativity.

So, the theory of relativity was created, from which the inexperienced people took out only one thing with admiration: everything in the world is relative - everything is everything! Perhaps he was pleased because this revelation had previously been intuitively clear to him, and now it has also become scientifically substantiated. And the last word, as we used to think, belongs to science. However, the object of Einstein's theory is not relativity at all, but, as his apologists believe, space and time, now merged into a single and indivisible space-time continuum. How else? After all, a theory must have objects that it describes and which have analogues in the outside world. Otherwise, the whole theory of relativity turns simply into a certain principle that lies not in physics, but outside of it. However, Galileo's principle of relativity is metaphysical, and the corresponding coordinate transformations are only coordinate transformations, and not the laws of physics. This should be so, if only because the transformation equations refer to coordinate systems, which have no place in a theory whose content is laws that are invariant with respect to coordinate systems. It is interesting that formally the Galilean and Lorentz transformation equations are themselves invariant with respect to inertial coordinate systems. Moreover, when deriving the latter, such invariance is not obtained by itself, but is postulated explicitly. This circumstance indicates that it was very desirable to endow the rules of transformations with the same main property as other laws of physics. How else? After all, the Lorentz transformations should now play the role of not only tools for constructing images of the real world, but form the core of the laws of space-time itself. But the inclusion of coordinate systems and the rules of transitions between them in a theory deprives the latter, I repeat once again, of objectivity. And the difficulties with its verifiability are fundamentally due to the fact that this is a supertheory containing what is depicted as imaginary (in terms discussed in the article "Where does sedition nest in science?" - ).

We deal with images very often. And this happens every time we use our sense organs and measuring instruments. Objectively only that which does not depend on the latter. The objective is fixed by our mind as imaginary in itself, without our tools and "scaffolding". In this case, we can project the imaginary onto the imaginary, which has a more direct connection with the external world, and check whether our imagination is not groundless. One can, on the contrary, project the depicted onto the imaginary in order to try to understand the former. If we have only images, then we will not understand anything, but we will confirm everything as real. In intermediate cases, some will hallucinate, while others will speculate. This was manifested most clearly at first in popular science publications on the theory of relativity, of which I especially single out the elegant and witty work of C. Durrell "The ABC of the Theory of Relativity". This was followed by fantastic novels, in which the elusive certainty only plays into the hands of the authors, and it is also interesting for the readers. But even in serious works, a strange phenomenon called the stroke paradox was discovered. O.E. drew attention to him. Akimov (http://sceptic-ratio.narod.ru). In one reference system, the coordinates and time are indicated without a stroke, and in the other - with a stroke. Clearly, this is to distinguish images of the same event in different coordinate systems. Obviously, in addition to direct coordinate transformations, there are also inverse ones. Further, various authors begin to confuse the application of these transformations. And all this is because an observer is launched into the theory of relativity, who rushes between coordinate systems, between images of some object in them. Such an approach reflects only the real torment of another observer located outside of this "theory". And the object itself eludes the wrongly prepared imagination.

Reviews

Hello Konstantin.
The idea of ​​quantizing gravity is very interesting. Once upon a time I read about an amazing regularity in a series of ratios of planetary radii. This is no accident, I thought and forgot. I wish you success, I will follow as much as possible.

Tell me, Konstantin, did you establish the connection between the ratios of radii as a function of n and phi (golden section)? Would you like to state your model sequentially, and not as a set of declarations. So far, as I understand it, your theory is exclusively phenomenological. But what about the connection with dynamics (forces, conservation laws, etc.)?

Dear Konstantin.
You are referring to this article to (my hypothesis) find something else. My answer will not appear until you answer.
Good luck.

It's funny, but the (almost global) reference system seems to still exist. It is known (or at least believed) that the observed space is isotropically filled with relic radiation with a temperature of something around 2 K. The entire sky in the surrounding space appears as a surface heated to this temperature. It is also known that the temperature in one direction is slightly higher than in the opposite direction. This temperature difference is interpreted as the result of a displacement due to the Doppler effect caused by the movement of the solar system and (or) our galaxy relative to the CMB. So it turns out that the relict background can quite well play the role of a universal reference system, though not in the sense that Maxwell assumed. After all, according to Maxwell, the movement relative to the ether could be detected both being in an isolated box and being guided only by the results of studying the contents of this very box.
I apologize if I messed up something: I have more than an indirect relation to physics.

Dear Konstantin,

You write: "So, the situation is contradictory. On the one hand, in order for Maxwell's equations containing velocity to be imported into classical mechanics, it is necessary to consider the ether as one of the objects of the electromagnetic field theory, but this is prevented by the ambiguity of its physical nature. On the other hand, if the ether is considered simply a frame of reference, then, bearing in mind the non-invariance of Maxwell's equations with respect to Galileo's transformations, we come into conflict with the principle of relativity about the equality of all inertial frames of reference (it turns out that the ether is a frame of reference different from all others)."

The daily audience of the Proza.ru portal is about 100 thousand visitors, who in total view more than half a million pages according to the traffic counter, which is located to the right of this text. Each column contains two numbers: the number of views and the number of visitors.

To the criticism of the theory of relativity

(on the question of the theory of knowledge and the significance of Einstein's brainchild)

Excerpts from the book by S. N. Artekh "CRITIQUE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY"

The final conclusion of the book is the need to return to the classical concepts of space, time and all derivative quantities, to the classical interpretation of all dynamic concepts, the possibility of the classical interpretation of relativistic dynamics and the need for additional experimental study of a number of phenomena in the region of high velocities. If the author has managed to "remove the obsession of SRT", then the local goal of this book has been largely achieved. Some additional points of criticism of the theory of relativity and related theories can be found in articles and books, a far from complete list of which is given at the end of the book (the names speak for themselves).

If you look closely at the nearest well-known history of the development of mankind, then it seems that someone "bet a penny": is it possible to deceive all of humanity (and, first of all, "compete brains" with "qualified specialists"). And this turned out to be possible even in such a relatively accurate field of knowledge as physics. After all, even A. Einstein was surprised that everything he comes into contact with turns into though not gold, as in a fairy tale, but into a newspaper boom. And until the end of his life he doubted the fidelity of his offspring. Another thing is those who are now standingat theory of relativity and are trying by administrative means to secure their position forever. Take, for example, the creation of the "Commission to Combat Pseudoscience". It would seem that the most noble goal is declared - to protect the state from robbery by charlatans. However, there are no similar structures in most other countries and nothing happens to their wallets. Yes, and in our country there has always been a practice of conducting examinations before making financial decisions. And in ideological terms, the scientific community itself has the ability to weed out wrong ideas, and even more so immunity to charlatanism. The situation becomes clearer when the opinion is voiced that everyone who does not agree with the theory of relativity is not a physicist. On any other issue, there may be different opinions, theories, schools, etc. And then suddenly the "navel of the Earth" was found - it is not subject to discussion. But what about the physicists before 1905: are they no longer physicists? But what about those physicists (including very famous and even Nobel laureates) from the 20th century who did not agree with the interpretations of the theory of relativity? Are they all non-physicists too? How can science develop at all without the free discussion of ideas and their gradual understanding? It is well known that no one, not even its creator, understood the theory of relativity in its entire history. So after all, relativists proudly declare that its understanding is not needed (but only mechanical memorization and the implementation of certain procedures, since understanding and visualization are primitive and beneath their dignity). In fact, from ideas another idolfor service (and the priests are already with him).

Unfortunately, the situation with the theory of relativity is difficult to correct with the help of separate publications. Even if most scientists understand the fallacy of the theory of relativity, "blow off this soap bubble" will be far from easy. By the way, it would be interesting to conduct a survey among people with a physical education: do they consider the interpretation of the theory of relativity correct or erroneous? If the poll is anonymous (because until quite recently, expulsion from the Academy of Sciences was "organized" for speaking out against SRT, and the repressive capabilities of the "new pseudoscientific commission" can also be demonstrated), then the author is ready to assume its result. But this may not be enough. It is necessary to change the very culture of scientific relations so that a sufficient number of scientists can openly declare after Aristotle ("Plato's friend"): "TRUTH is more expensive" than a hundred dollar salary (this is a modern remake of history). The final point on the question of the theory of relativity can only be made when a decision is made on the corresponding change in the teaching program at school and universities and on the change in the program of examinations, including postgraduate and candidate.

************************************************************

Excerpts from the book Nyukhtilin V. - The future of the present past

The very existence of the theory of relativity is the most obvious example of the end that has come. Lorenz understood this. Old man Lorentz, who grew up on the traditions of the classical understanding of the meaning and meaning of science, of course, already understood in 1905 what everyone else understood only in 1926, when the psi-wave of Schrödinger met Heisenberg's matrix calculus. Already in 1905, he saw how a certain theory that grew out of his developments, albeit mathematically, but without ether, explains everything that he (albeit also only mathematically), but explains with ether. Right now, those effects that are explained with the help of RT can explain about 20-30 more scientific systems using ether. Everything that the theory of relativity can describe can be described and calculated with the same fidelity by classical electrodynamics, based on the action of the supposed ether, since there, as in RT, there is only solid mathematics. There is only one snag - find the ether in nature and prove by physical experience that it exists. Then TO will be given up as a cross. Ether has not yet been found.

But it's not on the air. It's about Lorenz. If today someone in such numbers can solve the problem of an equivalent replacement of TO for calculations, then Lorentz, who created the classical electronic theory, could do it too. Why didn't Lorenz offer his own version as a rival to TO? Because Lorentz realized that when the physical world is successfully modeled by completely opposite basic physical foundations, from absolutely mutually exclusive positions, then this is nothing but the end of physics. Because in real fundamental science there is only one truth and it is supported by experiment. Therefore, Lorentz, until the end of his life, generally refused the mere mention of his possible participation in the existing glory of RT and always emphasized that this theory belongs to Einstein. Once, when asked how to relate to the fact that the "Lorentz transformation" forms the basis of TO calculations, and the theory belongs only to Einstein, he annoyedly waved his hand - "my transformation? I give it to this theory”…

The wise Lorentz could not but see all these physical freaks that this theory breeds. Poincaré is understandable. He was more of a mathematician than a physicist. It was a mathematical special forces that appeared where regular physical units could no longer conduct an offensive or fell into a stalemate. Poincare helped, in particular, Hertz in the discovery of electromagnetic waves, suggesting why in his experiments the speed of the wave is not equal to the speed of light. Poincaré and Becquerel, when discovering radioactivity, counted everything that others could not count, and he constantly corrected Lorentz's calculations, and Lorentz also constantly and publicly thanked him for his patience and tact. Poincaré saw all these four-dimensionality and other quirks of the theory only as a convenient calculation method, and simply constantly warned physicists that the transfer of these calculation methods to nature, nevertheless, requires direct experimental confirmation. When Lorentz cooled down to the theory, he cooled off towards it and Poincaré. Lorentz cooled down on his own, because, undoubtedly, he understood that the sleep of the physical mind would give birth to mathematical madness. And I stopped participating.

And he did the right thing, because the time will come when no one will associate his great name for science with, for example, the statement that our world is four-dimensional, the space in it is curved and there is no void. No one will associate with the name of Lorentz that gravitational effects are explained not by Newton's force of attraction, but by the fact that in this curved space the planets roll by inertia downhill along the circular funnels of curved space.

And when, finally, this question is asked for real - why can inertia be nullified (that is, stop its action), but the force of attraction cannot be nullified, and does this not mean that TO is completely inconsistent with what exists in nature - Lorentz will not have to answer. And when, finally, this question is truly asked - why the planets under the influence of the force of inertia do not slide down, finally, into these funnels of curved space and do not stop - it will not be Lorentz who will have to answer either. Lorenz did not want to answer for this (and for everything else), and therefore began to disown. He saw what it all leads to, even with ether, even without ether. Because - physics is already powerless.

***

Simply put, we need to figure out why SRT and GR are needed at all (by what logical necessity for the development of scientific knowledge), what they give for human practice, and what real processes in the real world are predicted or explained with the help of RT. Where do we start? Naturally - from the very simple! From human practice!

There shouldn't be any controversy here. Any theory is evaluated by how it entered into practice. There are simply no other criteria. This criterion is the most important. Especially for such a theory, which is called a "revolution in physics." Let's take a look around and see how Einstein's TO revolutionized the world. Have you looked around? It seems that anyone who has found at least something should be crowned with laurels of no less importance than those with which Einstein himself was crowned. Here cars drive, planes fly, rockets go into space. Einstein? No, thermodynamics. Does anyone know the names of the people who made this revolution in physics? The lights are on, the TV is on, the radio is playing, the computer is buzzing, cell phones are ringing. All of this has nothing to do with it. New information technologies, prospects for quantum information transfer. Einstein? Quite the contrary, something that Einstein struggled with all his life, because quanta cancel some of the conclusions of RT. True, the main hopes for a breakthrough in the speed of information transmission and the volume of its memory are associated with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect. So they say - on the basis of this effect, etc. But here it should be recalled that Einstein, who all his life dreamed of canceling quantum mechanics, deduced with his friends (Podolsky and Rosen), this effect with the sole purpose of proving that quantum mechanics is stupid, because such an effect follows from it, and such an effect can never be, because it can never be. Like, think at least with your head, where do your quanta lead? It turned out - they thought.

Where else to look? Well, of course, the only one there, as all encyclopedias say! Moreover, even encyclopedias never talk about anything else! In particle accelerators! It turns out that Einstein's conclusion that mass and energy are one and the same is confirmed there. True, it is not visible there how and through what forces the mass increases precisely in this experiment, but the calculated values ​​correspond! Isn't it a revolution? Not a revolution at all, because only the numerical values ​​of the obtained parameters are confirmed, and the accelerators themselves work in a completely different branch of physics, which has nothing to do with TO. These values ​​simply converge in numbers with those offered by RT to explain such effects. So they fit together! And how can they not converge if these particle accelerators work on the Lorentz transformations, which are taken by Einstein as a mathematical basis in the theory of relativity? Lorentz rules here and there with his groups and multipliers. With the same composition of elements and principles involved in the calculation, how can different calculated results be obtained? And in general, if the theory of relativity had never been in nature at all, accelerators would still work and do their job, not feeling the presence or absence of TO in any way.

Where else have we had a revolution? In nuclear physics? So that's what science is - "nuclear physics", it knows nothing about TO and does not turn to it as unnecessary. In space? There, Newton, Kepler and Doppler run everything, THEN is not applied anywhere. All industrial equipment works on static electrical engineering or on applied radiophysics, none of the maintenance is used there. Fiber optics is also all made according to classical calculations. And in general, all of the above sciences appeared before the birth of the theory of relativity. Bohr calculated the permissible orbits of electrons by combining the laws of Newton's mechanics and his own (Bohr's) quantization rule. He also offended TO by not contacting her. Where else to look? In the military! Here, of course, everything is always ahead of the very first, and here they cannot but apply! Apply? Used once. When SDI was created (a system of space snipers that shoot enemy missiles far on approach to protected targets). There, Newton was abandoned, and they began to calculate according to general relativity. The mistake came out - 17-20 meters of deviation from the aiming point. For a laser, this is like 17-20 kilometers for us. They quickly came to their senses and returned to Newton. They started hitting right away.

Ships ply the sea, navigation systems work, research into new forms of energy, electronics, nanotechnologies. Everyone does without TO. Wherever you look, wherever you look, in any kind of practical activity we will never see even traces of the participation of the theory of relativity anywhere.

In general, it is good that we were told that a revolution had taken place. Otherwise, we would never have known about it.

The revolution brought about by the obscure inventor of the toilet has brought incommensurably more significant and positive changes to human civilization than the advent of TO. Interesting - the toilet is patented by someone? Under whose photo should one write "Father of Modern Life"?

What is the reason? Maybe because, as they say everywhere, “a new physics has been created”? Everywhere in all popular science encyclopedias there is always a photograph of Einstein and the caption under it "Father of modern physics." Maybe this physics is so new that it's just that practice hasn't grown up to it yet? Maybe it's just not time yet? Newton, after all, when he created his integral and differential calculus! And they are constantly used - when did they begin to practice? Far from immediately. Maybe we just have to wait here? In the meantime, (before practice), we have, but there is already a new physics! And the new physics means new laws, new language, new terminology, and isn't that wonderful in itself? After all, the goal of physics is the establishment of laws that reduce individual natural phenomena to general rules. When these general rules are discovered, then physics determines the causes that these rules provide. As such reasons, various forces are most often identified. So - what new laws did the theory of relativity give? What new natural phenomena did this physics explain? What new powers did she discover and teach them how to use? What prospects await underdeveloped practice when it grows up to these new laws and new powers? However, we have not yet named these revolutionary laws and forces. And we won't call. They are not here. We will not name what is not. And let's not look in the theory of relativity for something that is not in it. That is, new physics. Although, as they say on the forums - whoever finds it, send it to your email.

Well, okay, with these laws! Perhaps this theory is simply a harbinger of the knowledge of some future new laws and future new natural forces? Maybe it's just that a person has not yet grown to the level when he can use the new concepts of TO in creating new laws? Maybe a person simply cannot yet move from the new concepts given in TO to new laws? New concepts must be expressed in a new language. Let's look at these new concepts. A lot of them. But they are all mathematical! And, unfortunately, mathematics is not physics. Physics is clearly limited in its versions by the possibilities of the physical world, when nature tells it - "it is impossible here, and here it is no longer possible, and it is impossible to go there." When an abstract, multivariant and omnipotent mathematics appears, it no longer limits itself to its own composition. She is her own king, her own subject, and her own high priest. She, therefore, all concepts are new. But they will never lead to new physical laws. And from the directly physical concepts that we see in the "new physics" - the same complete set of old concepts and terms of classical physics! How did the "new physics" manage without new physical concepts, forces and quantities? Other new branches of knowledge have never sinned with this. Giving something new, they always gave both new concepts and new values. How can the new be given in the old terms and in the old words? How did the "new physics" - the theory of relativity - manage to do this? If anyone has an explanation for this, then do not even send an email. This cannot even be explained mathematically. If there is anything new in RT, it is the ideas that have grown on the ups and downs of the interaction of the elements of mathematical logic with its own mathematical apparatus.