Physics as a science appeared only due to the fact that its creators,
Galileo, Newton, Hooke, Huygens, Euler, Laplace, Faraday, Maxwell and many
other researchers adhered to some original philosophical principles and
rules for doing science. Those principles and rules, in turn, rested on
stringent logical laws and on a faith in cognition and mechanics (wherein
any natural phenomena can be explained by motions of matter).
Now, having been afflicted by all the illnesses of philosophical
thought during the last three centuries, we see that this earlier path of
development has shown itself to be uniquely true.
What are the philosophical principles, on which physics is created? At
first, it is the independence of existence of nature from our
consciousness; matter is self-sufficient and its laws of motion depend
neither on God, nor on the observer. Secondly, researches into nature
should be based:
on direct contemplation and observations;
on precise, irrefutable facts;
on experiments;
on a faith in the cognizance of nature;
on a faith that nothing is present in space except moving matter.
All laws of nature, all natural phenomena, all facts, connected with the
motion of matter, are causal, and these reasons ought to be possible to
find.
Based on such a (materialistic) philosophy, every one of the famous
researchers (except for the relativists, who deviated from these
principles) created or supplemented the rules for doing science. Three of
the foremost of these (not counting the Ancient Greek and the middle ages
scientists) were Kant, Huygens and Newton.
So, from Newton [1] we read:
We should not take other reasons in nature over these, which ones
are true and are sufficient for the explanation of phenomena.
Identical phenomena will precede from identical reasons.
I do not invent hypotheses.
And so on.
The most relevant expressions in this occasion are adduced in works
[2], [3].
Newton grounded his postulates about the invariance of space, time, and
mass by direct contemplation of nature instead of by the invention of
hypotheses.
"Any physical theory circumscribing these phenomena is connected to a
definition of space and time, as all natural phenomena happen in time and
in space. And depending on which definition is at its base, science can
progress on a correct materialistic path, objectively reflecting reality,
or it will descend to idealism and will lose the sense of science and will
turn into a means of stupefying mankind" [4]. The problem of time, space
and mass is basically epistemological and therefore so is the
philosophical basis of physics.
Space
Space is the arena in which matter moves. The metrics of space should
be Euclidean in order not to distort the laws for the motion of matter.
Space should not have any physical properties, except an infinite volume,
which can not in any way influence the laws of motion of matter. In other
words, "space is irrelative of anything external" (Newton).
Thus, space can not be endowed with any properties, with the exception
of its three-dimensional extention. It can not be called absolute or
relative, identical or fixed etc. It cannot be considered as finite, at
least, not until any fact of observation or indisputable proof
contradicting this premise comes to be found. Such facts, observations and
proofs are not present. Space is an objective reality revealed to us by
sensation.
Time
Time is the second basic essence. It, as well as space, reveals itself
through the motion of matter. Time in and of itself, without relation to
anything external, flows uniformly and differentially and is named as
duration. It can not influence the state or the laws of motion of matter
at all. It only passionlessly and uniformly measures the duration of
processes and phenomena. On the other hand, there can not be a process,
phenomenon or status of matter influencing the uniform course of time. Any
other properties, with the exception of duration and uniformity can not be
referred to it. Time is an objective reality revealed to us by
sensation.
Matter
Matter is a substance or a body having a spatial expansion (volume),
impermeability, viscosity, elasticity, hardness, form and spectral
responsiveness.
Quantity of matter – mass is determined by its resistance to
acceleration. In the common case:
m = F / a.
And above the surface of the Earth – by weight and the acceleration of
gravity:
m = P / g.
Newton's definition that "mass is a measure of the quantity of matter
(quantity of mass is proportional to its density and its volume)" is
incomplete, as it does not define more precisely this proportionality to
acceleration.
Matter is the objective reality given to us by sensation.
As a result of the accumulation and extension of knowledge about
matter, from astronomical and microscopic observations, with the help of
the methods of analogy, induction and deduction, and also of logical
analysis, it is possible to assert that matter is divisible without limit
– in the microcosmos and is accumulated – in the macrocosmos. Now, neither
the finiteness, nor infinity of gradation of matter outside and into
infintesimal depths can be proved.
The divisibility of matter into infintesimal depths is demonstrated by
all developments of physics. Huygens showed that the existence of a
light-transferring ether should exist [5]. Atoms and fundamental particles
were unknown at that time. Now, when it became known, that fundamental
particles have a finite life time and, conversely, that they can arise
from "vacuum," it became obvious, that they (the fundamental particles)
are formed from a more diffuse substance. And this more diffuse substance
is composed of particles, which under certain conditions and energies
interact among themselves to form composite spatial bodies – i.e., the
fundamental particles. The interactions of these particles which are
discerned from their general observable properties, permit us to name
their composition as the "light-transferring ether" or an "electromagnetic
liquid."
In turn, the existence of the interactions between ether particles
indicates that there is more diffuse matter (we shall call it ether #2),
which should to be the carrier of this interaction. And the particles of
ether #1 should have a composite constitution or structure.
We can watch the accumulation of this matter, outside in the
macrocosmos, only out to the structure of the universe that is near to us.
We can consider solar and other planetary systems, constellations,
galaxies and compact clusters of galaxies as separate bodies. The cellular
structure of the universe displays that all visible galaxies are joined in
a certain crystalline framework, which can appear as a superbody
(superboulder, superplanet, etc.), of which one consists as the
superuniverse. And so on.
Field
A field is power or other (barometric, velocity related, temperature,
etc.) spatial characteristic expressed either by a physical law or by a
set of numerical data.
There can not be a field without the presence of matter. The field
expresses the state (i.e., the motion) of matter in space. "There is
nothing but moving matter in the world. And matter can not move other than
in space and in time" [6].
Energy is a characteristic property of matter. Matter can not be
transformed into energy. The observable release of energy from nuclear
decay or from the annihilation of fundamental particles is no more than
the release of the energy of the component parts of the nuclei and other
particles, having inside these formations more energy, than the energy of
motion of the same particles in a free state in the environment.
There are no fundamental particles with so-called "null rest-mass". All
of them are photons – sections of oscillations of ether of batched
(quantized) energy, associated with the structure of an atom, a nucleus or
a fundamental particle [7].
Interactions
Carriers of energy and, therefore, of interactions can only be matter.
Different mechanisms of transferring energy [8] means different kinds of
interactions. There are special mechanisms of interactions at each level
of the organization of matter.
So, the internal structure of fundamental particles [9] implies
interactions between units within their composition (they can be particles
of ether). Further there are nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational
interactions. The electromagnetic interaction concerns charge, as the
attraction and repulsion forces depend on the signs of the charges. For
the nuclear and gravitational interactions there are no charge forces.
The existence of a "space lattice" in the observable universe indicates
a charge interaction between galaxies. On the basis of an hypothesis in
work [8] the charge interaction is connected with its transference by
waves of matter. It is possible to suspect, that the mechanism of
transference of interaction between galaxies is also waves of ether, the
length of which should be comparable to the dimensions of galaxies.
Interaction of inertia
There is an inertial interaction, which is necessary to delineate
especially, because it is distinct from all other interactions. It is
present in the laws of motion of matter and all other known interactions
and it is responsible for the existence of classical (Galilean)
relativity. Furthermore, it is only due to inertia that the orbital
motions of bodies in central force fields are possible. Therefore, without
inertia there would be no fundamental particles, atoms, planetary systems,
or galaxies...
The necessity of force for the occurrence of the acceleration of a body
(positive or negative), by virtue of the irrelativity (absoluteness) of
space, we must call the interaction of the body with other matter. But
what is the other matter?
Citing the example of a rotating bucket of water, Newton draws a
conclusion about the true motion of water with reference to its center of
rotation and about the relative movement of the water in relation to the
bucket. However, when speaking about the true motion (the rotation) of the
water, Newton never mentions the concept of space and he does not make any
suppositions (inventions) concerning the interaction of the water either
with space, or with other bodies. This is also true, in general, when he
speaks about inertia.
He simply points out the fact of absolute (sufficient) identification
of acceleration. When there is acceleration – there is force. When there
is no acceleration – there is no force. And, on the contrary, when there
is a force – there is acceleration. When there is no force – there is no
acceleration. Newton's diplomatic silence about the uncertain parentage of
the force of inertia, in connection with acceleration, has been used
against him by relativists. Here is how it happened.
Insinuation #1. We read [10]: "...the statement that
acceleration does not require indications on a measuring body, the
acceleration has absolute character. But if the translation of a body from
one place to another, in the case where the accelerated motion has an
absolute sense, it means that these places are parts of absolute
space".
Having declared the non-relation of space to anything external, Newton
could not suspect that his descendants could so dexterously impute to him
the declaration of absolute space through the acceleration of bodies
(including rotary motion).
Yes, the concept of nature, where all combinations of phenomena are
explained solely by the motions and interactions of bodies (through their
contact) was the ideal of Newton's science. But he did not begin to search
"other bodies" for the interactions of inertia, as well as he did not
begin to search for them in the transfer of gravitational interaction at a
distance. How it is possible to blame him for that?
Insinuation #2. We read ([10], page 169): "...absolute time
is a time that is not dependent on the velocity of the system in which it
is measured (in accordance with Newton – N.N.).
In Newtonian mechanics the instantaneous propagation of
interactions serves as the warranty of independence of time from motion,
the warranty of the existence of a unified time for the whole universe
(My emphasis – N.N.). If the basis of Newtonian absolute space consists in
the force of inertia (We have devised this ourselves and we elaborate
also! – N.N.), the origin of forces not connected to mutually interacting
bodies, then the basis of Newtonian absolute time is an instantaneous
remote action. Instantaneous propagation of interactions is a more general
and fundamental idea of classical physics, than remote action in an
ordinary spatial sense, i.e. the resistance of a medium transmitting the
interaction of bodies".
It is possible to find all things in this quotation.
And there is a double standard, when, accusing Newton of "rejecting a
medium transmitting interaction", relativists "forget" that they
themselves did not simply skip it, but got rid of it in general.
The connection of the concept of time with instantaneous propagation of
interactions is an obvious mystification.
It is a forgery when it is pretended that the creators of classical
mechanics considered the velocity of interactions as infinitely fast
(instantaneous). Earlier Laplace had made attempts to define the speed of
the gravitational interaction.
Thus it is necessary to remind the reader, that the introduced lines
were written already for a long time after the arising of electrodynamics
(Gauss, Weber, Clausius...) and graviodynamics (Gerber) [11]. In these
works the laws of interactions were generalized on the velocity of
interaction, which is related to the properties of the transmitting
medium.
Truly, "when they want to kill a dog, they say that it is mad!"
In childhood we asked each other riddles. One of them was "What is the
fastest thing in the world?" The answer was – "Thought". Thought really
has instantaneous "speed." We imagine two bodies, separated by millions
kilometers, and then we model the process of their interaction in our
minds. We model the temporary process of action transfer, the motion of
bodies, the delay of potential, etc. An intermediate observer is not
necessary for this purpose. The signals from interacting bodies to the
observer are also unnecessary.
Natural phenomena should be considered at an imaginary instantaneity
of events irrespective of distance. Only so the independence of natural
phenomena from our consciousness, from the observer, from God will be
observed. And so they (the phenomena) were considered in classical
mechanics.
Relativists have made a gross error in that they have introduced the
observer and the time of arrival of a signal to him from the point of the
event. Furthermore, they have accepted light as a signal, having imputed
to it monstrous unreal properties. Its velocity does not add with the
velocity of the receiver. And light is not the oscillation of a medium
(the ether), but it is a particle having wave properties (how it is
composed, nobody can explain) and, therefore, its properties do not depend
on the properties of this medium, i.e. they do not change over distance
(and with time).
However the irony at the moment is that, that all measuring of
distances and segments are done by relativists mentally by adding the
effects of the procedures of their measurements to the considered
phenomena. Certainly, that is invalid.
But we shall return to a problem about inertia again.
E. Mach, the idealist, positivist and fideist, also omitted mention of
a medium, when he considered inertia as the interaction of a body with
other bodies of the universe. It is exactly the same invention of
hypothesis about which Newton spoke.
At first, all known laws of interaction between bodies have the
appearance of inverse squares. Having interconnected all bodies, Mach
obtains inertia, which acts instantly and is not bound by an inverse
square relation even in the immediate proximity to the body of interaction
– for example, the Earth.
Secondly, to what interactions did Mach refer? Are there nuclear,
electromagnetic, gravitational or unknown interactions which take place
between galaxies? You see "having united" the whole universe, he
integrates all interactions also, including those, that he does not even
consider or imagine.
However, we can read from J. Narlikar [12]: "In the past many
physicists attempted to formulate a Mach principle quantitatively.
Personally, Einstein, in developing his general theory of relativity,
hoped to include a Mach principle. But his attempts appear to have been
unsuccessful, and he even began to doubt the truth of Mach's principle in
general. One of the last attempts to include Mach's principle in the
theory of gravitation was undertaken by Shama, Dicke, Linden-Bell,
Bartotty, Hoyle and the author of the present book. The chain of our
reasoning starts with the formula connecting the mass of a typical
particle to the existence of all remaining particles in the universe.
Therefore, our initial formula gives a direct quantitative expression for
Mach's principle..."
When we read this passage, we remember A.P. Chekhov's joke:
"approaching the station, my hat has flown from me". As "the
chain of our reasoning (Shama, Dicke, Linden-Bell, Bartotty, Hoyle and
author of the present book) began from the formula, connecting the mass of
a typical particle to the existence of all remaining particles in the
universe". It is that the hat went, not the head, and the formula
arose earlier of a thought. Yes, it is eventually possible to hide even
the most delirious idea in mathematics, caring neither about common sense,
nor about physical sense in general. The appeal of Dr. O. Oesterly [13]
that physics should be created on a causal physical basis, instead of on
mathematics, is especially important.
Newton, in considering the example of a rotating bucket with water,
came to the conclusion that the definition of absolute (true) and relative
motions with the help of a choice of origin coordinates is possible.
Having declared the non-relativity of space, he could not, and did not
connect the concepts of absolute accelerated motion and space.
And, if he applied the concept of explaining all combinations of
phenomena only by the motion and interaction of bodies, he by all means
would have come to the concept of a world medium (the ether) all the same.
Ether is more than substance. Bodies interact with ether (in the case of
inertia) and through it (in the case of gravitation). And subsequent
generations of researchers would have had no chance to distort his
doctrine.
However, it is necessary to note that for the first time in global
practice a work has appeared, in which an attempt to explain the mechanism
of inertia by the interaction of a moving body with the medium through
which it moves is made [14].
Relativity of Galileo. Absolute and relative movements
After we have settled with invariants and with the interaction of
inertia, we can start the consideration of one of the complicated
philosophical problems that are connected with the abnormal deviations in
the development of physics in the 20th century.
From the law of inertia the conclusion follows: that for zero
acceleration there corresponds zero force (and vice-versa). In
accordance with Newton's third law, an action is always accompanied by a
counteraction, equal and opposite to it. This results in the formulation
of a relativity: "the relative movements of bodies, enclosed in any space,
are identical, whether this space is in a rest or moves uniformly and
rectilinearly without rotation" (Newton).
From the position of initial principles this definition, given by
Newton, is not correct. Space is absolute and its motion is undefined.
Therefore, Newton meant something else: i.e., a system of bodies
(including molecules of air) having received the same acceleration and
moving along uniformly and rectilinearly without rotation. Now, inside
this system the laws of mechanics and dynamics are indistinguishable from
the same laws of the system before it was accelerated.
The definition of relativity given by Galileo we should consider as
more correct [15]. "In a cabin of a ship moving uniformly and without
tossing, you will not detect (judging by any surrounding interior
phenomena, or from anything co-moving with you), whether the ship moves or
is at rest".
This definition, given by Galileo, was revolutionary at that time, as
it contradicted the dominant doctrine of Ptolemy, explaining geocentrism
using the idea that "the Earth is immobile, otherwise clouds and birds
would lag behind its motion".
From the point of view of empiricism and observations of nature, the
law of inertia and relativity, which arises from it, do not cause doubts.
But, if we look more widely and generalize these phenomena for causes,
mechanisms and for a finiteness of the velocity of interactions, it is
possible to come to a conclusion about their incompleteness and
insufficiency.
In the frameworks of empiricism there was an idealization of both
inertia and relativity, as it is implied, that the form of these laws is
saved for any velocity of bodies relative to the ether. It is impossible
to impute blame to Galileo, Newton, Euler, Laplace or to other researchers
who worked prior to the appearance of the works of Gauss, Weber and Gerber
on the phenomenon of retarded potential. [16].
But, as soon as the work of Gerber appeared, researchers were obliged
to revise all classical mechanics, having entered into it the dynamics of
interactions as the result of the finiteness of the velocity of
propagation and the retardation of potential. This has not taken place for
the subjective reasons listed in [17].
Naturally, the delay of potential should exert an influence on the law
of inertia of bodies (where ether is concerned), approaching the velocity
of the interaction itself, and, therefore, to result in a non-observance
of Galilean relativity. This problem has not been investigated
sufficiently. But, on the other hand, Galileo and Newton (and their
followers) have not fully used the relativity, discovered by Galileo.
Newton, having come to a conclusion about the absolute motion of water
in a rotating bucket (more correctly – to absolute acceleration), did not
begin to consider the motions inside inertial systems.
As a matter of fact Galilean relativity allows us to distinguish
absolute and relative motions. This is possible only within the framework
of definite interaction in a system consisting of two bodies. If strange
interactions do not interfere in an isolated (or quasi-isolated) system of
two bodies interacting between themselves, (or there are interactions,
which can be neglected), it is possible to consider their motions as
absolute with respect to their center of gravity. It is possible to
consider such systems as the Sun – planet, the Earth – moon etc. And,
moreover, if a barycenter of interacting bodies practically coincides with
the center of one of bodies, it is possible to consider motion of the
second body as being absolute relative to the first. So, it is possible to
accept the center of the Sun as a tentative absolute reference system for
the solar System and the motion of the planets can be considered as
absolute. Then: the Earth rotates around the Sun, but not the Sun around
the Earth (recall G. Bruno), the stone drops to the Earth, but not the
Earth to the stone etc.
For absolute motions it is necessary to consider the motion of bodies
in an inertial system, for example, Galileo's ship cabin, as if the
reference system is fixed with respect to it.
It is necessary to consider all remaining motions, which do not fall
under the definition of absolute, as being relative or composite.
The institution of observers
Classical physics always uses one observer. The thought of the person
has infinitely high "speed" and considers any phenomenon in its totality,
as being simultaneous at its opposite ends. Distortion of this postulate
by relativists, stating it as though Newton and his followers used an
indefinitely high velocity of interaction, is a forgery.
Using this forgery, relativists have introduced the institution of
observers, which evaluates any phenomenon with the help of signals. The
signals should come to the observer from the opposite ends of a phenomenon
with a certain constant velocity, which one does not add to the velocity
of the observer. Use of this procedure for arrivals of signals at the
observer results in apparent distortions of the length of a moving body,
its mass and the rate of its local time referred to a reference frame
moving with the observer. Depending on the location of the observer and
his velocity relative to an observable body, it is possible to obtain an
indefinitely great number of results from observations.
Light is adopted as a signal the velocity of which is adopted as an
absolute invariant. However, direct experiments to verify that the
velocity of light does not add with the velocity of the receiver are not
conducted. For example, Sekerin offers to conduct such an experiment [18].
He maintains that it is possible to consider stellar aberration as proof
that the velocity of light obeys a classical formula of addition of
velocities with the velocity of the Earth.
The institution of observers is fideism (machism) in a refined
form.
About the absence of general relativity
Galilean relativity has generated a problem for researchers: whether
electromagnetic phenomena are subjected to this principle or not. It could
be tested on the surface of the Earth, which in the given case plays the
role of "cabin in the ship." Since the Earth is performing this role, it
is necessary, that the medium, being the carrier of electromagnetic
phenomena should completely be entrained by the earth, as it happens with
air in the cabin.
Michelson, then Michelson and Morley, then Miller and other
experimenters have taken check of an entrainment (or not entraining) of
ether by the Earth [19].
But, at first, Michelson and following him all other experimenters,
except Miller, have made a logical error. They took the speed of motion of
the Earth in space concerning the Sun only, which is about 30 km / s.
While the solar System itself moves around the center of the Galaxy with a
speed ~400 km /s. It was easily possible to define a direction of motion
of the solar system on a sidereal firmament by the direction of the Milky
Way.
Secondly, having believed Lorentz that the Earth should not entrain
ether, Michelson did not take into consideration Arago's experiments with
lenses, on the refracting of light, and, in connection with them,
Fresnel's theory about a partial entrainment of ether.
Arago observed stellar aberration, which indicates that the velocity of
light from stars is summed with the velocity of the Earth' motion using a
classical addition formula for velocities in space. He found out, that the
orientation angle of lenses in relation to the direction of the Earth's
motion does not influence their refracting properties.
Fresnel [20] interpreted the outcomes of the experiments of Arago as a
partial entraining of ether by the Earth. Stellar aberration is simply
explained by such a supposition. Fresnel made the hypothesis that "our
terrestrial globe entrains some fraction of this medium to explain the
absence of the effect of the motion of the Earth on the refraction of a
prism. This refers to the part of ether, which is formed by itself with
excess density in comparison with the ambient (or background) ether". Then
the velocity of light (waves in ether) should be increased only with
respect to the velocity of the barycenter of the two ethers and not
strictly on the velocity of the Earth. Fresnel's hypothesis explained not
only the facts of the existence of stellar aberration and the absence of
the effect of the motion of the Earth on optical phenomena on its surface,
but also all spectra of optical phenomena. It could mean only one thing:
Fresnel's theory has an exact actual and logical basis.
Michelson's experiments could be considered only as a refinement of
Arago's experiments: with respect to the hypothesis that ether is
entrained at the surface of the Earth. Having found out, that the
barycenter of the ethers, entrained and not entrained, moves with velocity
about 3 km/s, it was possible to assert, that entrainment is practically
complete (now almost precisely: ~99.3%).
From the experiments of Arago and Michelson the conclusion followed:
yes, in the specific case of the Earth, it is possible to consider that
there is a general principle of relativity, because at its surface the
ether is practically completely entrained. But will this conclusion be
correct for any inertial systems, as relativists consider them? Certainly
it will not, because the value of entrainment of ether solely depends on
the mass of the body. And, if now we consider the motion of the ship, a
general principle does not exist any more in its cabin. This is proved by
the interference experiments of Pogani and Sagnac on a rotating platform
and also by Fizeau's experiment on an attempt to detect entrained ether by
moving water. An entrainment of ether by a rotating platform and water in
a background "of a dense atmosphere" of ether at the surface of the Earth
(including the cabin of the ship) is so insignificant, that it can be
neglected.
It means that it is impossible to use Galilean relativity for
electromagnetic interactions, hence general relativity does not
exist.
It is possible to assert that Hertz' reasoning [21] was the same, as he
extended Maxwell's equations on the motion of electromagnetic phenomena
concerning ether with velocity u.
Relativistic transformations
The Galilean transformations for inertial systems proceed from Euclid's
geometry (and an orthogonal coordinate system). In consequence, the
requirement of a postulate about the non-relativity of space to something
external by means of the geometry of the operating forces is implemented,
as the direction of acceleration precisely corresponds to the direction of
the force, and the counteraction is precisely opposite to the
operation.
In opposition to Hertz, relativists (Lorentz, etc.) searched for a
certain transformation of coordinates, by which Maxwell's equations would
remain invariant in a transition to another inertial system moving with
respect to the first. This was possible for them due to the "Lorentz'
factor," which followed from Fresnel's coefficient of light entrainment
(dragging) by ether as a limiting case of full entrainment [22].
Thus, the relativistic transformations already follow from full
entrainment of ether by bodies as result of an application by them of the
"Lorentz factor," whether relativists want it or not. But, as experiments
have shown, only massive bodies can fully entrain ether. Planets and stars
are such bodies. Therefore, the use of such transformations for any
inertial systems is not legitimate. If we consider the motion of an
electromagnetic system with reference to the Earth' surface (considering
ether as immovable with respect to the Earth's surface), its laws should
be described by Hertz' equations, instead of Maxwell's.
However the main consequences of the introduction of general relativity
were that the introduction of the new transformations were without
casualty, without any basis. The initial principles of physics were
dismissed. Namely, space and time became not irrespective to motion of
matter and to each other. As a result, another reason was entered "over
those, which one are true and are sufficient for the explanation of
phenomena", a new conception – "space-time." The new conception was
introduced artificially by using an arbitrary method: by multiplying the
speed of light by the duration of time that the light is in motion from an
observable phenomenon to the observer.
"Invariance" of the length of a segment under relativistic
transformations and its "contact" with a retarded potential
The analysis of extending the principle relativity for an
electromagnetic system for any inertial systems displays that each time a
transition is made to a new inertial system, it is as though a full
entrainment of ether by it is implied. It was made with the help of a
final case of Fresnel's coefficient "of the Lorentz' factor". But, as
relativists have refused to consider ether in general, it was necessary to
invent a new essence – curvature of space-time and, thus, to declare a
connection between space, time and mass (any observations, facts and
experiments for this purpose did not exist and can not be).
It was made with the help of the introduction of the observer and
procedure of measurement of a segment in another coordinate system moving
relative to the first (connected with the observer) with the help of a
light signal, to which one relativists have imputed a fanciful unreal
property. This property is that the velocity of light does not add with
the velocity of the receiver. However this property would turn out to be
real only in the case where we recognize ether and by considering the
entrainment of it by [ ] the coordinate system (of the receiver) as being
complete. Actually, when the velocity of light relative to the immovable
ether is constant and the ether is immovable relative to the receiver, the
velocity of light will be the same in relation to the receiver
independently from the velocity of the light before it became entrained by
the ether. But, on the other hand, where can we now put that segment of
the light path, where there is no entrainment of the ether? You see, the
velocity of light and that of the receiver are added based on a classical
addition formula of velocities (stellar aberration) for this path
segment!
All this nonsense about the curvature of space-time would have been
immediately rejected by the researchers of the planet, if it had not made
"contact" with reality through an incorrect interpretation of Kaufman's
experiments.
As it is shown in reference [17], the reason for the abnormal deviation
of fast electrons in a transversal magnetic field is the reduction of the
force of their interaction with a magnetic field dependent on velocity
related to the retarded potential, not with the increase of their mass.
When electrons attain a velocity equal to the velocity of electrodynamic
interactions it should result in a full absence of their interaction with
a magnetic field. Therefore the electrons will move rectilinearly without
deviation.
But this argument appeared insufficient for the rejection of
relativistic views, as in this case it is necessary to explain "abnormal"
increasing of energy of electrons, which one appears to be much more than
mV2/2. This fact has appeared decisive for the
recognition of relativistic views.
And this fact always resulted in a defeat of the critics of relativism,
as none of them could put forward explanations for the abnormal increasing
of energy of electrons (as well as other particles) as a function of
velocity. The author of this article presented a reason for the abnormal
increasing of energy depending on velocity [17]. It was revealed that the
researchers could find this reason at once after experiments of Germer and
Davisson on the confirmation of the views of de Broglie [23]. From these
experiments followed: that the greater the velocity of particles, nuclei,
atoms and molecules, the greater the frequency of their de Broglie's
waves. It was necessary only to relate this frequency to energy through
the formula E = Hν, and all would be "OK". However nobody
has made this step (or did not change his mind).
The full inconsistency of relativistic physics becomes obvious after
the finding of the true reasons for the abnormal deviations of a
trajectory of an electron in a transverse magnetic field and abnormal (in
relation to classical dynamics) energy of accelerated particles in
accelerators. It is true not only in philosophical sense (though it should
be the main argument), but also actually, i.e. it is proved
experimentally.
The literature:
Newton, I., Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
1687.
Basilevsky, S.A., About pseudo-science. In: The reports of
all-Union conference FENID-91, vol. 1, page 157...165, Gomel, 1991.
Samjatin, A.G., About the experimental basis of the
relativity theory which has been set up in the article of corresponding
member of ASc USSR E.A. Aleksandrov. In: The reports of all-Union
conference FENID-91, vol. 1, page 7...24, Gomel, 1991.
Huygens, C., The treatise about light. Leiden, 1703.
Engels, F., Anti-During. In The collected works of Marx and
Engels, vol. 21, M., Gospolitisdat, 1962.
Fresnel, O., The letter to Arago: "About the effect of
motion of the Earth on some optical phenomena". 1818. In vol.: O.
Fresnel. Selected transactions after optician (about optician). M.,
1955, page 516.
Hertz, H., About the basic equations of an electrodynamics
of moving bodies. 1890.
Larmor, J., Aether and matter. University press, Cambridge,
1900.
Germer, L. and Davisson, C.J., Experiments on an electron
diffraction verifying views of de Broglie. In: B.K. Sementshenko. The
selected chapters of theoretical physics. M., Prosveshtenie, 1966, page
145... 151.
