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

Einstein, 1920

Denial of the theory of relativity - denial of the doctrine A. Einstein in theoretical physics, which does not allow the possibility of superluminal movement. A number of critics of the theory of relativity (TR) 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 searching for the movement of the Earth relative to the supposed luminiferous 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 experiment in the very first lines of the publications of the “classics of relativism” - Lorenz, Poincare and Einstein as a basis for further reasoning.

The problem of finding “ether drift” was posed by J.C. Maxwell in 1877: in the 8th volume of the ninth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica in the article “Ether”, he suggested that the Earth in its orbital movement around the Sun passes through a motionless ether, and therefore when measuring the speed of light in different directions, researchers should record a slight difference. Maxwell, however, pointed out possible difficulties in identifying such a small 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 required 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, he joined the research D. Miller.

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

Michelson, 1881:

“These results can be interpreted as the absence of a shift in the interference fringes. The result of the stationary ether hypothesis thus turns out to be incorrect, which follows conclusion that this hypothesis is wrong».

Michelson, 1887:

“From the above it is obvious that it is hopeless to try to solve the question 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 experiment:

Lorenz, 1895:

“Based on Fresnel’s theory, a shift in the interference fringes was expected when the apparatus rotated from one of these two “main positions” to the other. However not the slightest trace of such a displacement was found».

At the International Congress of Physicists in Paris in 1900, Lord Kelvin gave a speech in which he discussed the theory of the ether. He noted that “the only cloud on the clear horizon of the theory is the zero result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley.”

Poincare, 1905:

“But Michelson, who invented an experiment in which terms depending on the square of the aberration became noticeable, in turn failed. This impossibility of demonstrating experimentally the absolute motion of the Earth appears to be a general law of nature.”

Einstein in 1905 considered attempts to search luminiferous medium - ether"failed" and his introduction to the theory of relativity is “superfluous”.

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 ethereal experiment is declared, without a shadow of a doubt, to be zero.

Positive results of the etheric wind

A number of experimenters received a positive result of the ethereal experiment: in particular, this was done on the basis of his many years of experiments by A. Michelson’s colleague D. K. Miller, as well as by A. Michelson himself, whose report on the positive result of measuring the ethereal wind was published only in 1929.

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

“In the last series of experiments, the equipment was moved to the well-protected fundamental room of the Mount Wilson laboratory. The optical path length was increased to 85 feet (26 m); the results showed that the precautions taken to eliminate the influence of temperature and pressure were effective. The results were biased, but no 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 (sidereal) 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 carried out - Kennedy (1926), Illingworth (1927), Stael(1926) and Picara(1928). They showed “zero results”, however, they were produced in an installation closed with a metal box, which, according to Atsyukovsky, screens the air. In addition, the length of the optical path in these experiments was less than 5 meters, which, according to Atsyukovsky’s calculations, did not allow the required accuracy of 0.002-0.004 fringes with 10-15% blurring of the instrument’s interference fringes.

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

In the 1980s reported receiving a positive result from the on-air experience Stefan Marinov on an installation 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, generally confirming Miller’s data.

In 2002, Yu. M. Galaev published results on measuring the speed of the ethereal wind in the optical wavelength range. The measurements were made using a device (interferometer), which uses the patterns of movement 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 range (1998) and optical wavelength range (2001), demonstrating the similarity of the graphs.

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

Einstein in 1921, speaking about Miller's experiments, believed that a positive result of the ethereal experiment would make the theory of relativity “fall together like a house of cards,” and in 1926 - that this result would make STR and GTR in their current form invalid.

The sequence of invention of the theory of relativity

FTL propulsion

Analyzing expressions with the Lorentz multiplier, Einstein “came to the conclusion” that when approaching the speed 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 becomes meaningless»;

Einstein, 1905:

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

Einstein, 1905:

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

Einstein, 1907:

"Relative motion of reference systems with superluminal speed is incompatible with our principles».

Einstein, 1913:

“According to the theory of relativity, there are no means in nature that allow sending signals at superluminal speeds,” “Electrical influences cannot travel at superluminal speeds».

Poincaré had previously obtained the same conclusion (September 1904):

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

Criticism of the ban on faster than light speeds

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

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

V. A. Atsyukovsky, 2000:

“The logic of SRT is amazing. If SRT puts the speed of light as the basis for all reasoning, then, having run all its reasoning through a mathematical mill, it receives, firstly, that all phenomena depend precisely on this speed of light, and secondly, that this particular speed is the limiting one. This is very wise, because if the 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 throughout the world would be related to the speed of his movement. But the boy still probably had nothing to do with it. What does the speed of light have to do with it?!».

V. N. Demin, 2005:

“If instead of the speed of light we substitute the speed of sound into relativistic formulas (which is quite acceptable, and such substitutions reflecting real physical situations have been made), then we get a similar result: the radical expression of the relativistic coefficient can turn to zero. But it never occurs to anyone to assert on this basis that speeds exceeding the speed of sound are unacceptable in nature.”

Experimental evidence of superluminal speeds

V. N. Demin:

"Concerning real superluminal speeds, then they have long been obtained in experiments, which were placed 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 obtained similar results in active media.”

“Science and Life”, N6, 2006:

“In 2000, a number of publications showed experimentally that the speed of light in a vacuum can be exceeded. Thus, 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 higher 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 the light pulse jumped the camera 310 times faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

“Technology for 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 a 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 from the NEC Institute in Princeton have gone even further. A powerful pulse of light was passed through a 6-centimeter “flask” filled with specially prepared cesium gas, the Sunday Times correspondent describes the course of the experiment, citing the leader of the experiment, Dr. Lijun Wanga. And the instruments showed an incredible thing - while the bulk of the light was passing through the cesium cell at its usual speed, some nimble photons managed to reach the opposite wall of the laboratory, located about 18 m away, and register on the sensors located there. Physicists calculated and were convinced: if the “hasty” particles flew 18 m in the same time as normal photons passed through a 6-centimeter “flask”, then they speed 300 times faster than the speed of light! And this violates the inviolability of Einstein’s constant and shakes the very foundations of the theory of relativity.”

Extragalactic radio sources with superluminal motion

Visible movements 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, quasars 3C 279 and 3C 273). Relativists explain 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 is a lot of interesting observational material obtained using modern telescopes and other means. The point is simple. There is a galaxy or quasar that has been well observed for 20 years or more. Let's say that in 1970 there was a plasma ejection there. 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 they are present. How do you find distances to quasars? - There are enough ways, including the magnitude of the red shift. If the distance is known, the linear velocity of the ejection components is calculated simply - from the angular velocity and distance. Most importantly, what kind of speeds are there? Here are the ones: V = 2s, 7s, 21s, 32s..."

Superluminal particle movement in accelerators

A. V. Mamaev examined 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 clumps on the circumference of the accelerator (in this case, there are 96 of them), which, according to TSB, “are grouped 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 beam of electrons moves around 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 1938 (this photograph is currently considered experimental evidence of the existence of the muon), A.V. Mamaev came to the conclusion that this track is formed by a positron, which has a motion speed of approximately 100 times the speed of light in a vacuum, and at the bottom of the photograph is 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 may explain the asymmetry of a number of phenomena on Earth and in the solar system.

Blowing the Earth with the 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 movements, calling it the biblical "six days of creation, presented in another form." Tsiolkovsky himself, in his philosophical works, adhered to the model of an eternally existing and infinite Universe.

In the last chapter of “Treasured Thoughts” (September 27, 1905), D. I. Mendeleev called “overvaluators” of the ether theory “usurpers of the real voice of science” and “crooks”. In doing so, he referred to his 1902 publication “An Attempt at a Chemical Understanding of the World Ether.” In this work, Mendeleev outlined his ethereal theory on the basis of an ultra-light inert chemical element - “Newtonium”, which he placed in the zero period and zero row 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 related to the issue under consideration into physical reality. ...I am convinced that the problems of enormous speeds of light, the main 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 extensively researched Abraham based on equations Maxwell and classical mechanics."

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

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

Nobel laureate P. Bridgman rejected the general theory of relativity. He argued that the general theory of relativity has no physical meaning and is therefore untrue, since it uses non-operational concepts such as point events, covariant laws (that is, laws valid 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 scale lengths measured in different inertial frames of reference:

“It would be cruel to supply physicists with rubber rulers and exclusively incorrectly running clocks.”

Criticism on the RAS website

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

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

Albert Einstein became famous for his Theory of Relativity. However, the theory itself and Einstein’s authorship have been repeatedly questioned.

Einstein worked at the Patent Office from July 1902 to October 1909, primarily assessing patent 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 the 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 not awarded for the “Theory of Relativity,” which looks very strange, but the photoelectric law was discovered even before Einstein.

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

K. E. Tsiolkovsky also smashed the theory of relativity. In the article “The Bible and the Scientific Trends of the West” (1935), he rejected relativistic cosmology and the relativistic limit on the speed of motion.

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

Permanent war against ether

The theory of relativity is a stage in the war against the ether. The first stage was the won war against vitalism. In the 19th century, as evidenced by Drish The scientist could have already been sent to a psychiatric prison for expressing vitalistic views. In the twentieth century, opponents of etheric knowledge acted more decisively and cruelly. Destruction for opposing or doubting the TO is a whole chapter in the history of the liquidation of scientists.

Correlation of Sciences

Before moving on to criticism of General Relativity, I would like to say a few words about the relationship of sciences from the point of view of the laws of formal and dialectical logic. There is a recognized official or unofficial opinion that physics is a more complex science compared to other sciences. This opinion is deeply erroneous. All sciences, including Classical Political Economy, Classical Philosophy, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, Physics, etc., are equal in their complexity both in research and in understanding certain processes that are the subject of research in each science. Moreover, after the discovery of laws that explain how these phenomena and similar ones behave, the understanding of these processes is simplified to such an extent that even for the average person who has common sense, understanding these phenomena does not present any difficulties.

All sciences are united by the fact that they are all built on a certain qualitative basis, which is a specific subject of research in each science. And since this subject of research is the result of the development of nature, it has a dialectical contradiction, that is, in its definition it breaks up into opposites, which are the foundation on which every science is built.

For example, in algebra, the subject of study is numbers that quantitatively describe any phenomenon in nature. But since a phenomenon can be relatively constant or developing, then numbers are divided into constant and changing. Elementary algebra is built on constant numbers, and higher algebra is built on variable numbers.

In geometry, the subject of research is the description of bodies in various spaces. Space can be relatively permanent or developing. Constant space is the basis on which Euclidean geometry, the geometry of Lobachevsky and Rimmann are built. While evolving space is the basis for Minkowski geometry. (more details in my article “Formal and dilexical logic as the unity of opposites or the Development of Classical Philosophy”).

The subject of physics is the behavior of the physical body. But it also breaks down, as we showed earlier, into the opposite qualities of Mass and Field, which are the basis and on which the main sections of physics “Mechanics and Electrodynamics” are built.

The subject of the study of philosophy is quality in general, which can be constant or variable (developing). Formal Logic is based on the study of constant quality, and Dialectical Logic is built on the study of developing quality. The division of quality into constant and variable was first discovered by me, and this brought public understanding to the connection between formal and dialectical logic. In addition to this I can add that I have developed the Laws of Formal Logic discovered by Aristotle and Leibniz.

In political economy, on the basis of labor, which includes concrete and abstract labor, I created a system of categories for social capital (the future form of capitalist production) and a system of categories for communism, which in the distant future will lead to the negation of social capital.

Our correct understanding of the real world depends on understanding the relationship between the opposing qualities that make up the basis (dialectical contradiction) in any science, because, according to Hegel’s apt remark, the source of all development is dialectical contradiction.

False foundations of SRT and GTR

After such a short introduction about the relationship between sciences, let’s move on to criticism of General Relativity, which in essence is an excellent example of how science can go off the scientific rails and go in the wrong direction, which is the reason why it is not perceived by common sense at all.

The basis of SRT is the fact that the speed of light in nature is constant 300,000 km/sec relative to all inertial reference systems. According to Einstein: “This can also be expressed as follows: for the physical description of the processes of nature, none of the reference bodies K, K1 is singled out among the others.”

The essence of GTR is that this phenomenon of light is valid not only for Galilean systems, but also for reference systems moving with acceleration. Here is what A. Einstein says: “In contrast to this (SRT), by the “general principle of relativity” we mean the statement that all bodies of reference K, K1, etc. are equivalent in relation to the description of nature (Formulation of the general laws of nature), no matter how nor was their state of motion."

First, let’s look at what is Einstein’s logical error in his reasoning about the relationship between the laws of nature in various Galilean reference systems. Indeed, a law that is valid for one reference system must also be valid for another similar reference system. But he interprets this position incorrectly in his reasoning. The speed of light is constant relative to the Earth, which is the Galilean frame of reference K. But if this is true for the earth, then this law of the constancy of the speed of light must be true for any planet (another Galilean frame of reference K1) relative to which this speed is measured. And this condition is fulfilled; if you fly to one of the planets of the solar system and conduct Michelson’s or Fizeau’s experiments there, you will find that the speed of light there is constant and approximately equal to 300,000 km/sec. those. the position remains that the laws of nature are the same for identical reference systems. Moreover, in this case, it is very easy to make the transition from one coordinate system K to K1, where the speed of light remains constant

But Einstein distorts the latter position in his reasoning. He interprets this position as follows, for example, that if we assume that in a short period of time the Earth and Mars move rectilinearly and with uniform speeds relative to each other (i.e., they represent the Galilean reference system), and what if a flash is created between them in space light and measure the speed of light relative to these uniformly moving planets, then it relative to each of them will turn out to be the same 300,000 km/sec. Einstein applies the same interpretation to accelerated reference frames. The concept of Velocity is always defined relative to a specific reference frame. And he makes the speed of light absolute, that is, there is no frame of reference for it. In his reasoning about OT, everything is relative except speed, because if he recognizes its relativity, then his entire theory of relativity will collapse. For a sane person, this alone is enough to say that STR and GTR are built on a false foundation, which is masked by the correct form of expression, but the interpretation of which is incorrect. From this moment on, there is no longer any need to further analyze SRT and GRT in detail, because if the foundation on which these theories are built is false, then the theories themselves do not deserve scientific attention.

Einstein on the relationship between Field and Matter.

When we are dealing with fields, any theoretical physicist asks the question of how the field and matter relate, because this is a fundamental problem in physics, which to this day has not been resolved. Einstein also dealt with this problem. Here are his thoughts on this matter: " We have two realities: matter and field. There is no doubt that at the present time we cannot imagine the whole of physics built on the concept of matter, as the physicists of the nineteenth century did. Currently we accept both concepts. Can we consider matter and field as two different dissimilar realities?? Let a small particle of matter be given; we could naively imagine that there is a certain surface of a particle, beyond which it no longer exists, but its gravitational field appears. In our picture, the region in which the field laws are valid is sharply separated from the region in which the matter is located. But what is the physical criterion that distinguishes matter and field? Previously, when we did not know the theory of relativity, we would try to answer this question as follows: Matter has mass, while the field does not. The field represents energy, substance represents mass. But we already know that such an answer in the light of new knowledge is insufficient. From the theory of relativity we know that matter represents vast reserves of energy and that energy represents matter. We cannot make a qualitative distinction between matter and field in this way, since the difference between mass and energy is not qualitative. A much larger part of the energy is concentrated in matter, but the field surrounding the particle also represents energy, although in incomparably smaller quantities. Therefore, we could say: matter is where the energy concentration is high, the field is where the energy concentration is low. But if this is so, then the difference between matter and field is more quantitative than qualitative. It makes no sense to consider matter and field as two qualities, completely different from each other. We cannot imagine a definite surface that clearly separates the field and matter..." and further "We cannot build physics on the basis of only one concept - matter. But the division into matter and field, after recognizing the equivalence of mass and energy, is something artificial and unclearly defined. Can't we abandon the concept of matter and build pure field physics?" ("Physics and Reality" pp. 315-316) A. Einstein)

From these arguments of Einstein it is easy to notice that he recognized “two realities: matter and field”, that he tried to find qualitative opposites in this relationship, but all his attempts to explain this relationship ended in failure: “We cannot make a qualitative difference between matter in this way and the field." Moreover, his reasoning led him to a logical contradiction: " Can't we abandon the concept of matter and build pure field physics?" Abandon the real concept of matter, which he recognized at the beginning of his thoughts.

From the standpoint of my theory, this contradiction is very easily eliminated. From our reasoning it follows that if the main opposing qualities of a body are its Mass and its Field, then the energy of the body is the common characteristic that expresses their unity and therefore a mutual transfer of energy is possible here. If a body appears in the form of mass (state of weight), then the energy of the body appears in the form of mass, and if the body appears in the form of a field (state of weightlessness), then the energy of the body appears in the form of a field, and thus the energy of the body can be expressed in the form of a Field without any rejection of the concept of matter as reality. i.e. "to build pure field physics."

What is also interesting to note in these arguments is that Einstein brought into relationship the following physical categories: matter and field, matter and mass, field and energy, matter and energy, mass and energy. But he never brought the relationship between mass and field, except for one place where it was not clearly expressed: “Matter has mass, while the field does not have it.” From my article it is obvious that the relationship is not “matter and field”, but mass and field. They are the opposite qualities of a substance. Ignorance of this relationship, that matter can act in opposite qualities as mass and as field depending on the environment in which it is located, led Einstein to another mistake: the introduction into physics of unreal concepts such as gravitational mass and inertial mass.

And here is what he wrote about the relationship between charge and field: “The same difficulties arise for a charge and its field. It seems impossible to give a clear qualitative criterion for distinguishing between matter and field or charge and field.”

If for Einstein the solution to this problem seemed impossible, then from the new perspective on the relationship between mass and field, its solution does not present any difficulties. We say that mass can be in different states: in a normal state it creates only a gravitational field, in a polarized state it creates an additional magnetic field, and when it has a charge, it creates an additional electric field. Thus, these explanations are in full agreement with the new general theory of the relationship between mass and field.

How Einstein resolved the contradiction between Galileo's Law of free fall of bodies and

Newton's second law

Einstein is one of those physicists who drew attention to the existing contradiction between the free fall of bodies in a gravitational field, discovered by Galileo, and Newton’s 2nd law. This contradiction lies in the fact that when bodies fall in free fall, the latter receive the same acceleration regardless of their mass, while Newton's 2nd law states that the acceleration of a body is inversely proportional to its mass. And since his General Theory of Relativity deals directly with the gravitational field and mass, which, according to Galileo, does not play any role in the free fall of bodies in a gravitational field, Einstein decided to correct the laws of nature and eliminate this contradiction by introducing the concepts: gravitational mass and inertial mass , although the original concept of mass did not need this. But Einstein proceeded from completely different considerations: if these new concepts were not introduced, then his general relativity would die, but he needed it to live in order to reveal to people the nature of the gravitational field, give new ideas about space and time, etc... Einstein's "genius" was not that he adjusted his explanations to the answer, but that he made his own changes to the laws of nature if they did not correspond to his Theory of Relativity. On the other hand, we must give him credit for being able to grasp problems at the intersection of qualitative transitions, mass and field, and not all people have this rare quality.

I discussed why Galileo's law of free fall is opposite to Newton's 2nd law in the article "".

Transfer of energy into mass

This statement arose from formula (1)

Chapter first
CRITICISM OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY AND ELEMENTS OF KINEMATICS OF THE THEORY OF MOTION

1.1. The need to modernize the theory of relativity

Until now, there has been classical mechanics, created by the genius of Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Lagrange, Huygens and others, with its dynamics and kinematics, as well as relativistic mechanics, created at the beginning of the 20th century by the works of Einstein and his contemporaries (Lorentz, Poincaré, Minkowski, etc.) its idea of ​​four-dimensional space-time in which the movement of bodies occurs.
Relativistic mechanics, used mainly to calculate the movement of elementary particles with velocities comparable to the speed of light, dealt only with sublight velocities, since the special theory of relativity (STR), proposed by A. Einstein in 1905, postulated that in nature there is no speeds of movement greater than the speed of light in vacuum C = 2.99792458 o 108 m/s (Einstein’s second postulate).
In the 60s, the idea of ​​tachyons was born - hypothetical particles moving at superluminal speeds. But to describe the movement of these particles, the developers of the tachyon theory used the same relativistic mechanics, although in this case it was not always able to give the required and understandable results.
SRT dealt primarily with rectilinear and uniform motions, and when trying to solve problems related to curvilinear or rotational motion, it gave in and referred to the general theory of relativity (GTR), the mathematical apparatus of which turned out to be too complex and inaccessible to most engineers. And the list of problems successfully solved by general relativity remains very limited.
As a result, the theory of relativity, which was called by many in the mid-20th century the most beautiful and greatest theory of all time, has still not brought people the grandiose results expected from it. Although, of course, the creation of a kinescope (cathode ray tube), television, particle accelerators and nuclear energy, which was impossible without the theory of relativity, are undoubtedly important achievements, but something more was expected. Contrary to expectations, the theory of relativity, having “stalled” back in the early 20s, has not actually moved forward since then. Its supporters explained this by the completeness and perfection of the theory and created a cult of Einstein’s personality. It was considered unworthy of a real scientist to criticize his theory *( The magazine “Young Guard” in No. 8 of 1995 on page 70 wrote: “In 1964, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences issued an open decree prohibiting all scientific councils and journals, scientific departments from accepting, considering, discussing and publishing works criticizing the theory Einstein").
But critics of the theory of relativity have long noticed a number of internal contradictions and shortcomings in it. They are discussed, for example, in the books of V. A. Atsyukovsky, the Brusin brothers, and the famous French scientist L. Brillouin. In the preface to the 1972 Russian edition of L. Brillouin’s book, Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR A. Z. Petrov, shortly before his death, wrote: “As for general relativity, then, contrary to a fairly widespread opinion, the mighty structure of this theory rests on such a shaky experimental foundation, that it could be called a colossus with feet of clay... If, for example, the historical development of quantum mechanics proves its gradual improvement, “maturation,” an ever-increasing increase in its accuracy due to the accumulation of experimental material and its inclusion in the theory, then GTR to "he still flaunts in the short pants of a 'prodigy', to whom everything is permitted and even exemption from experimental testing. For a true physicist, such a situation is intolerable."
But regarding SRT, Petrov speaks only commendably there, although SRT is also full of paradoxes, and therefore internal contradictions. The most famous of them is the “clock paradox”, or “twin paradox”, about which thousands of pages have been written.
But in 1972, already seven years ago, cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, which in 1979 made it possible to measure the absolute speed of the Earth’s movement in outer space and thereby shake the faith of many in the inviolability of Einstein’s postulates, proclaiming that there is no absolute (selected) in nature. reference systems of coordinates and absolute speeds of movement, that they are only relative. Many critics and detractors of Einstein have appeared (most of whom are insufficiently competent and insufficiently self-critical people), calling themselves “non-relativists” and seeking by any means to discredit and “cancel” the theory of relativity. But none of them was able to offer in its place something simpler, more general, less contradictory and, finally, more understandable.
In this situation, it was necessary, on the one hand, to defend from unfounded attacks those aspects of the theory of relativity that are confirmed by experiments and do not contradict either logic or mathematics, and on the other hand, to identify and discard everything erroneous that existed in the theory of relativity and made it incomprehensible and contradictory and hindered its development.
Some relativity theorists also understood the need for change. For example, the famous Russian specialist in the theory of relativity E.L. Feinberg expressed concern that the traditional kinematic approach to SRT makes it a formal science that deals with mathematical manipulations with physical symbols. He pointed out that in order to improve the understanding of the subject, it would be necessary to proceed from the dynamic characteristics of movement, and complained that no one had yet done this.
In the books, an attempt was made to use this approach to construct a theory of motion to replace SRT. But before moving on to presenting the main provisions of the theory of motion, let us look at some errors and omissions of the theory of relativity.

1.2. Main errors and omissions of the service station

In the theory of relativity, the idea of ​​four-dimensional space-time and the interval as the distance between points in it plays a huge role. In pre-Einstein times, it was believed that the space of the Universe was three-dimensional and described by Euclidean geometry with Cartesian coordinate axes x, y, z. But when describing the movement of a body, for example, when drawing a graph of a train, distances are plotted along one coordinate axis on a sheet of paper, and along the other is time t. The axis of time - the fourth axis of coordinates - has been implicitly present in descriptions of the movement of bodies since pre-Galilean times, but people did not realize it.
The first to realize this was G. Minkowski, who helped Einstein create the mathematical apparatus of the theory of relativity. He unified space and time into a single four-dimensional space-time in 1908.
Since we do not see movement in time from the past to the future, but only understand (imagine) that it exists, Minkowski called the fourth (time) axis of coordinates imaginary.
If three-dimensional space can still be depicted on a sheet of paper using isometry, then four-dimensional space is no longer possible. But SRT initially considered only rectilinear and uniform motions of bodies along one coordinate axis. Therefore, Minkowski, following the compilers of train schedules, began to plot distances on one coordinate axis of the plane of a sheet of paper l in three-dimensional space, and on another axis perpendicular to it - imaginary “distances” in time iСt Here the symbol means an imaginary unit, and C is multiplied by the speed of light in a vacuum so that “distances in time” have the same dimension (meters) as distances in space.
The result is a complex plane ( l,iСt), the real and imaginary coordinate axes of which intersect at point 0, taken as the origin of the coordinates. Every point on such a plane in mathematics is described by a complex number

(1.1)

By the beginning of the 20th century, the theory of complex numbers was already quite well developed by mathematicians. Therefore, further the developers of the service station only needed to strictly follow it. But they did not do this, but began to invent their own mixture of the theory of complex numbers with vector algebra.
IN last length of vector, or segment ∆ l, is related to the lengths of its projections (∆ x, ∆ y, ∆ z) on Cartesian coordinate axes by the Pythagorean theorem:

(1.2)

Minkowski began to calculate the distance ∆ l between points of four-dimensional space-time according to the same rule:

And since he rewrote this expression in the form:

(1.4)

The minus sign that appeared here contradicted the Pythagorean theorem, which required a plus. Then the creators of STR formulated the “pseudo-Pythagorean theorem”: the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the difference of the squares of the legs. And although a triangle cannot be drawn with such properties even with the help of non-Euclidean Riemann geometry, which Einstein liked to make references to, they explained that this is a feature of four-dimensional space-time. Einstein called this ephemeral space “quasi-Euclidean.”
Why was such a bold “modernization” of geometry required? The fact is that in classical mechanics, Galilean transformations, when moving from one inertial coordinate reference system to another, left the distances in three-dimensional space unchanged. The developers of SRT wanted, by analogy with this, the Lorentz transformations they used, which replaced the Galilean transformations in STS, to leave unchanged (invariant) not only the speed of light C (for which they were found by X. Lorentz), but also the distance between points! four-dimensional space-time. However, the value ∆ K is calculated and; formula (1.3) remained invariant under Lorentz transformations only when; in formula (1.4) there was a minus sign between its terms. Moreover, when the value itself was taken with a minus sign. In the end, the developers of the service station wrote down:

(1.5)

The value ∆ S defined in this way was called an interval, understanding it as the distance between points of space-time.
It would seem that everything seemed to be correct, although it required breaking the existing ideas of Euclidean geometry, accepting the “pseudo-Pythagorean theorem” without proof and abandoning even attempts to visually imagine what was happening in “pseudo-Euclidean” space. But this separation of physics from clarity was soon declared not a shortcoming, but an achievement of the theory.
Due to its invariance, which facilitates calculations, the concept of an interval as the distance between points of a “four-dimensional continuum” began to be widely used in SRT, and then in general relativity, where everything is based on the concept of an interval. But let’s see how true his definition is.
A point in four-dimensional Minkowski space-time, called the “Minkowski world,” described by a complex number (1.1), is called a “world point” in SRT. As it moves in space-time, it draws a “world line” on the plane of a sheet of paper.
The complex length of an infinitesimal segment of this line, or the differential of a complex number, in the theory of complex numbers is determined by the expression:

Let's raise this differential to the second power:

We got a new complex number. In it, the expression in square brackets, which is its real part, is the same quantity that we saw in formula (1.4). Therefore, we can conclude that the expression that in SO is called the square of the differential of the interval dS and is understood as the square of the infinitesimal distance between points of space-time, is in fact only the real part of the square of the infinitesimal segment of the complex length of the world line taken with the opposite sign .
But its imaginary part escaped the attention of the SRT developers. And only in GTR the imaginary part of expression (1.7) was taken into account, although the developers of GTR never realized that the interval is by no means the distance between points of space-time. But we will not delve into general relativity, but return to the complex plane of the Minkowski world, the point on which is described by the complex number (1.1).
In the theory of complex numbers, the distance between points of the complex plane is calculated as the modulus (absolute value) of the difference of the complex numbers describing these points. This module is determined from the Pythagorean theorem:

(1.8)

We see that Minkowski’s mistake was that he in vain left the symbol i in expression (1.3), and then raised it to the second power and completely in vain put a minus sign in the resulting expression (1.4).
What then actually is the so-called interval ∆ S, determined from expression (1.5), if it is not the distance between points in space-time?
To answer this question, it turns out that we must first carefully understand how to determine the speed of movement in space-time. In classical mechanics, the average speed V of a body’s movement in space is defined as the ratio of the length of the path traveled by the body to the time ∆ t during which this path was traveled. And the instantaneous speed V is determined as the derivative of l with respect to dt (11. If, by analogy with this, we determine the speed of movement of a point in the space-time of the “Minkowski world”, then we must take the derivative with respect to dt of the complex number K describing this point:

(1.9)

The real part here turned out to be nothing more than the speed V of the movement of a point in space, determined by classical mechanics. This should make us happy, since it corresponds to the principle of complementarity. However, the imaginary time part of the resulting expression (1.9) turned out to be a constant C. From this one could draw the erroneous conclusion that any body always moves in time with a constant speed C, which does not depend on anything. But that would be contradictory! the theory of relativity itself, which revealed to people that the passage of time on a moving body depends on the speed of its movement in space. (It is easy to understand that the passage of time and the speed of movement in time are interrelated quantities).
G. Minkowski found a way out (unfortunately, as we will now show, not the best) from this difficult situation - he began to determine the speed of movement of a point in space-time as the derivative of K with respect to its own time, counted by a clock moving with the moving body! (measured by his own clock).
After all, Einstein already in his first publication in 1905 on SRT showed that moving clocks should run slower than stationary ones, and that when a body moves t in accordance with his formula

(1.10)

Therefore, when differentiating a complex number (1.1), the imaginary part of the resulting expression was no longer a constant. The speed defined in this way; Minkowski called the movement of a point in the space-time of his “world” “four speeds”:

(1.11)

He noted that the advantage of this definition is that differentiation is carried out with respect to the value d, which is invariant under Lorentz transformations, which simplified the calculations.
Physicists to this day use this definition of four-speed, writing it, however, in a slightly different form:

(1.12)

which makes four speeds a dimensionless quantity (here j=1, 2, 3, 4;
But let us pay attention to the fact that the imaginary (time) part of the four-speed in expression (1.11) at V > O is greater than the speed of light C and tends to infinity when V С. And the real part of the four-speed
increasing with increasing speed V, it becomes greater than the speed of light C, when V exceeds this value. This somehow does not fit well with Einstein’s postulate, which declares that in nature there are no speeds of movement of bodies greater than the speed of light in a vacuum C. The developers of the SRT were unable to find way out of this delicate situation, and then the four-speed (1.11) was transformed into a dimensionless quantity (1.12) in order to somehow veil the indicated contradiction.
But it arises only from the fact that the magnitude l and taken from different reference systems: l- from a stationary one, associated with the observer relative to whom the movement occurs, - from a moving one, associated with a moving body. It is incorrect to determine the speed of a body in this way!

1.3. New definition of speed of movement in time and the basic equation of the theory of motion

The book is the first to give a new definition of the imaginary speed of motion of a body in time, which makes it possible to free the theory of relativity from the above-mentioned shortcomings that have held back its development for more than 80 years. By analogy with the above classical definition of the speed V of the movement of a body in space, the speed of the imaginary movement of a body in time is expressed in seconds of the “path” in time covered by the body during the time t, counted by the watch of the observer relative to which the given body is moving. The result is a dimensionless quantity

It is clear that the instantaneous value of the speed of movement in time is determined by the differentials:

body at rest in space = t, therefore, with increasing speed V of the body’s movement, the value becomes less than t, as follows from Einstein’s formula (1.10) and from numerous results of experiments on measuring the “lifetime” of accelerated elementary particles, conducted in different countries since the 40s. Therefore, the dimensionless speed of a body’s movement in time decreases with increasing speed V of its movement in space, becoming less than unity at
By the way, the speed of movement of a body in space can also be converted into dimensionless if we divide V by C. Dimensionless speed of movement of a body in space

(physicists call this quantity the “relativistic factor”) also cannot exceed one, since Y cannot exceed the speed of light.
Analysis of numerous experiments on measuring the “lifetime” of elementary particles unstable to decay, accelerated to a variety of speeds V, carried out since the 40s, shows that in all cases the equation is observed

(1.16)

This is the basic equation of the theory of motion proposed in place of STR. Here it is presented as empirical, but it can also be arrived at logically, “based on the fact that each of the interrelated quantities ß and y cannot exceed one. But it is even simpler to obtain equation (1.16) by a simple algebraic transformation of Einstein’s formula (1.10).
From it it is clear that This radical, which appears in most formulas and equations of SRT, was called the “Lorentz factor” for many years, without realizing that it is also the dimensionless speed of motion of a body in time.
In the book, the quantities that are solutions to equation (1.16) are considered as the real and imaginary parts of the complex velocity of the body

Its modulus, according to (1.16), is always equal to unity (or |C|, if we multiply both sides of equation (1.17) term by C to turn dimensionless velocities into those having the dimension m/s). This means that the absolute value of the complex speed of movement of any body is always equal to the speed of light in a vacuum C.

1.4. What is an interval and a new definition of the coordinate axes of four-dimensional space-time, returning it to Euclidean geometry

Let's return to the question of what an interval is. Having accepted the new definition of the “path in time” t, we must replace the axis on the complex plane of the “Minkowski world” OlCt axis OlC. Every point on such a new complex plane will now be described by a complex number

It can also be obtained in another way: by multiplying both sides of expression (1.17) by C and integrating them over dt.
Unusual and unusual, at first glance, is our new complex plane, one coordinate ( l) on which is determined by the measurements of one observer, and the other (Cr) - by another, moving relative to the first. But this is a complex plane of distances. Its axis Ol- this is the axis of distances in space that a body travels during time t, counted by the clock of a stationary observer, while its other axis OiC- this is the axis of “distances” C in time, which the same body travels during the same time t, counted by the clock of the same observer relative to which this body is moving.
Let us now determine the square of the distance between points 0 and Z of our complex plane ( l,iC) as the square of the modulus of a complex number

(1.19)

If we substitute the values ​​here l = ßCt And - yt, then taking into account equation (1.16) we obtain:

This means that the distance from the origin of the coordinate axes to the Z point of our four-dimensional “world” is equal to Ct. The result obtained reflects the fact already noted above that all bodies in our complex space-time move with the same absolute value complex speed J, having modulus |C|.
But if we substitute the resulting value instead of in (1.19), we will have:

The left side of this equation is nothing more than the well-known and formerly so mysterious expression (1.5) for the square of the interval. This means that interval 5 is the “distance” St that a body travels in time during time t, expressed thanks to the coefficient C in the same units of length (meters) as the distance I traveled by this body in space during the same time t. counted by the observer relative to whom the given body is moving.
However, we don’t need to prove the formula dS = Cd; it has long been known in SRT.
Taking this into account, we write the final expression for the squared distance ∆ between points of our complex space-time:

(1.22)

As you can see, this distance is determined by the Pythagorean theorem. We also see that this is actually the same expression as Einstein’s (1.5) for the square of the interval. Only now it is written in normal form: the square of the hypotenuse C∆ t is equal to the sum of the squares of the legs
Euclidean geometry has triumphed! And neither the “pseudo-Pythagorean theorem” nor the “quasi-Euclidean space” are needed, which, as we now understand, were forced tricks of the developers of SRT on their unconscious path to equation (1.22), given by Nature itself.

1.5. Basic diagram of motion theory

The basic equation (1.16) of the theory of motion is nothing more than the canonical equation of a plane central curve of the second order

Its solutions are pairwise values ​​of quantities ß And at, satisfying this equation. The set of all possible solutions forms on the complex plane ( ß ,iу) graph of equation (1.16).
If ß And at are real numbers, then the graph of equation (1.16) is a circle with a radius equal to one (see Fig. 1.1). This circle is described around the origin of the coordinate axes on the complex plane by the end of the radius vector of the complex velocity

The mutually perpendicular coordinate axes of this plane are the real axis Oß dimensionless speed of movement of a material point in space (abscissa axis) and imaginary axis Oiy dimensionless speed of movement of the same point in time (ordinate axis). The length of the radius - vector J, taken as one, is equal to the modulus of the complex number J, which characterizes the movement of this material point in the complex space - time of our four-dimensional world. The entire theory of motion, outlined above, and in more detail in, follows from the graph of this circle.

Rice. 1.1. Basic diagram of motion theory (9).

But so far we have considered only real values ​​of quantities ß And at But there are also imaginary numbers, which in mathematics have no less rights than real ones. Let us assume that the dimensionless speed ß The movement of an object in space is expressed by a positive or negative imaginary number. Then equation (1.16) will remain valid if the speed of movement of the same object in time

the absolute value will be greater than one. Moreover, the magnitude at will remain real numbers, taking positive and negative values.
Basic equation (1.16) for and for ß -imaginary turns into a hyperbola equation:

(1.24)

The upper and lower branches of this hyperbola (see Fig. 1.1) touch the unit circle at the points of intersection with the ordinate axis.
Note that absolute values ​​satisfying equation (1.24) have no restrictions from above. That is, they lie within

Let us also note that for imaginary ß complex speed becomes a purely imaginary quantity.
As we can see, the movement speeds ß in their absolute value here they can be called beyond what is allowed by the theory of relativity, that is, they become greater than unity, and the speeds at in general it is always greater than one if ß - imaginary number. Therefore, the areas in Fig. 1.1, described by the upper and lower branches of the hyperbola (1.24), are called in the book the “vertical beyond world”, in contrast to the pre-limit world described by a unit circle characterizing the translational motion of ordinary bodies at sublight speeds.
Let us now assume that the imaginary number is the magnitude of the dimensionless speed at movement of an object in time. Then the main equation (1.16) will remain valid if the value of the dimensionless speed of movement of this object in space

(1.26)

the absolute value will be greater than one. Moreover, (3 will remain a real number (positive or negative). The main equation (1.16) with |ß |>= 1 and, for imaginary ones, turns into the equation of a hyperbola conjugate to the previous one:

(1.27)

The right and left branches of this hyperbola (see Fig. 1.1) touch the unit circle at the points of intersection with the x-axis.
And again the absolute values ​​of dimensionless velocities ß And at have no upper restrictions:

And the complex speed of movement J= ß +iy becomes a purely real quantity (since its imaginary part iy=i(|iy|)=-|y| becomes a real number).
Areas in Fig. 1.1, described by the right and left branches of the hyperbola (1.27), are called in the book the “horizontal transcendental world”. There must be a rather strange phenomenon in this world. Namely, as a result of the fact that the imaginary part of the complex speed J becomes a real number, the movement in time here becomes real, and not imaginary! This means that an object making such a movement cannot be detected at any point in time, since it continuously moves through the “layers of time”, as if crossing them. If at a given moment (according to our watches) he is present in our world with us for some moment, the duration of which is determined, apparently, by the uncertainty relation of quantum mechanics, then in the next moment he is already in our yesterday or tomorrow day, while we remain in today and are slowly moving into tomorrow together with the real objects of our world at sublight speeds that surround us. As a result, this object, which can be called virtual, is already inaccessible and elusive for us today. The book shows that the right and left half-branches of the main diagram of the theory of motion describe the movement of hypothetical superluminal particles - tachyons, the theory of which physicists began to develop back in the 60s. But experimenters, despite numerous attempts, have not yet been able to register tachyons, apparently due to the above-mentioned feature of their movement in time, which makes tachyons almost unobservable.
Understanding this feature, given by the theory of motion, can now allow experimenters to take a different look at the problems of registering tachyons. Moreover, the theory of motion, which gives a new powerful impetus to the development of the theory of tachyons, indicates that virtual particles in quantum field theory are tachyons and elusive gravitons - these are also tachyons, and therefore gravity propagates at speeds many orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. Moreover, the book shows that pervasive neutrinos are apparently also tachyons! And neutrinos have already been detected experimentally. Does this mean that tachyons can still be registered?
The theory of motion shows that the virtual world of superluminal particles should be as rich (if not richer) as our world of subluminal particles. c may be richer, if only because tachyons have the ability to move during< ни как вперед, так и назад (а мы - только вперед). В развивается гипотеза укр< инского физика из г. Бердянска М. Т. Попова о том, что именно тахионы нес] информацию из будущего, которую каким-то образом воспринимают ясновидцы гадалки.
In conclusion of this chapter, we note the following. If the movement of objects in the “horizontal beyond world” is described by a purely real speed, and the movement of objects in the “vertical beyond world” is described by a purely imaginary J, then readers may think that objects in the “vertical beyond world” are even more difficult to detect than in the “horizontal one”. But the fourth chapter will show that it is the other way around. Moreover, readers will see that they deal with the objects of the “vertical transcendental world” literally at every step and are familiar with them. But is everything good enough?

Conclusions to the chapter

1. In the mathematical apparatus of STR, having neglected the principles of the theory of complex numbers, a number of errors were made. The most important of them is the misunderstanding of the interval as a distance - the “path” traversed by a body in its own time during the movement of this body in space, expressed in units of length.
2. The speed of movement of a body in time should be determined similarly to the speed of its movement in space as a derivative of the path in time t, measured by the observer relative to which the body is moving.
3. A point in space-time should be described not by a complex number, as G. Minkowski did, but by a complex number. This means that the fourth axis of space-time coordinates is the axis, and not the axis.
4. Dimensionless velocity of a body in time y and the dimensionless speed of its movement in space (where C is the speed of light in vacuum) are connected by the basic equation of the theory of motion.
5. In addition to real solutions (paired numbers), the graph of which is the unit circle, the basic equation of the theory of motion has two more families of imaginary solutions, the graphs of which are hyperbolas. For imaginary y the basic equation describes the movement of particles with superluminal speeds (tachyons), and at imaginary ß - rotational motion of a body that, as a result of rotation, has a speed of movement in time y more than one.

I don't criticize the theory of relativity, I'm looking for the truth

And I explain why the theory is fiercely criticized.

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

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

Currently in Russia, criticizing the theory of relativity is devoid of elementary meaning, since this means putting the work in the “basket” for many years, due to the fact that at the state level a decision has been made to ban publications that are in one way or another involved in the criticism of this theories. Here is a message about this ban.

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

“In 1964, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences issued a closed resolution prohibiting all scientific councils, as well as journals and scientific departments, from accepting, considering, discussing and publishing works criticizing Einstein’s theory.”

Introduction.

Without calling for consideration of the consequences of such a step by the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences, I have the honor to compare the current situation with the following picture. A young teacher at school or a professor at a university, addressing listeners while considering the fundamentals of the theory of relativity, proposes a thought experiment with two inertial reference systems, one of which moves relative to the second.

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

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

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

LOGICAL ASPECT.

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

At the same time, the physical state of matter is understood as the state of a particular material particle, for example a water molecule, which can be in a solid, liquid or gaseous state.

From the point of view of the laws of formal logic, the specified water molecule cannot be, for example, in solid and gaseous states at the same time in principle, since Δt is required for this water molecule to absorb a certain amount of energy, and therefore its transition from the crystalline state can occur first to liquid and then into a gaseous state.

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

Specialists were informed about the revealed contradiction between the laws of formal logic and the basis of the theory of relativity. Although this discovery was not published, it did not go unnoticed and quite possibly, after heated closed debates, a decision was made to narrow the range of applicability of the theory of relativity, and therefore the theory of relativity began to be called an illogical theory, i.e. a theory to which the laws of formal logic do not apply.

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

PHYSICAL ASPECT.

The meaning of the physical aspect is as follows.

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

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

A large army of physicists, who each time studied the process of combining volumetric coordinates of inertial reference systems at the moment of time t = 0, failed to understand the mechanism of this process, as a result of which they continue to give preference to Lorentz transformations. And only a few from this army, openly indignant and calling the theory a “haven for rogues,” nevertheless continue to use the mathematical formulations of this transformation, pedantically focusing attention on some secondary problem and thus, once again, “confirm the inviolability” of the theory of relativity .

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

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

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

Further, revealing the great secret of the reason for the impossibility of applying transformations in the theory of relativity, at the same time, with all necessity, the question is raised to the scientific community about the advisability of using mathematical Lorentz transformations as a basis for understanding the physical picture of the world. Although, it is reported that there are comments from the author of the transformations, Mr. H. Lorentz, about the unsuitability of mathematical transformations for their application when considering physical phenomena.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should be noted that proposals to eliminate errors directly or indirectly made when performing experimental work, allegedly unable to detect Δt, were repeatedly proposed to scientists, but each time these proposals were rejected with vague formulations.

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

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

In accordance with the Lorentz transformations, this moment of time corresponds to the “combination of volumetric coordinates” of two inertial reference systems at the moment of time t = 0.

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

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

This point is well demonstrated by the example of “combining” black and white paints in one vessel, which after mixing will acquire a uniform gray color, thereby meaning that there is no more white paint in the vessel with the “Sun”, nor more black paint in the vessel with “Jupiter”. will never.

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

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

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

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

V.A.Atsyukovsky

The brilliance and poverty of Einstein's Theory of Relativity

“And the king is naked! »

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

Despite the numerous victorious cries about the achievements of science and technology in our age of scientific and technological revolution, we have to sadly admit that in fact we live in a world about which we know almost nothing.

Scientists of the past centuries have studied a wide variety of natural phenomena and, on this basis, obtained generalizing dependencies that have received the status of “laws.” Many systems and technologies have been created on their basis, and humanity has begun to feel much more comfortable than in the cave age. On the same basis, the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe structure of the surrounding nature is developed. But this knowledge is very meager, and there is no reason to believe that the Universe is subject to the theories created by “great” scientists.

– What is electricity? The professor asked.

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

– What a loss for humanity! - the professor exclaimed. Nobody in the whole world knows what electricity is. One person knew, and he forgot! When you remember, tell us, we want to know too!

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

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

Failure to understand the essence of physical processes leads to the fact that huge research costs are thrown away. Where is the long-promised “thermonoxide”, designed to forever provide humanity with free energy? Tokamaks were created, there were triumphant claims about the creation of a “stable1” plasma that lasted “as much as” 0.01 seconds. There were conferences, dissertation defenses and awards. The only thing missing is the “thermonylus” itself, and now no one can say whether it will ever exist. The same applies to magnetic hydrodynamics, high-temperature superconductivity, and much more. Lack of understanding of the essence of the matter that scientists undertake takes cruel revenge. And we have to agree that some research programs have already been closed around the world as unpromising. An example of this is the Research Programs at High Energy Accelerators.

All this testifies to the deep crisis that has gripped physics, and with it all of natural science.

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

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

Something similar is happening now. Nobody knows anymore how many of these “elementary particles” have our scientists collected? substances - either 200 or 2000, depending on. How to count. All of them, after mutual collision, can be transformed into other “elementary particles”, and no one knows what to do with this. And the current task is now considered to be the detection of the magnetic moment of neutrinos. This magnetic moment is probably very small, but whether it exists or not is the question! To do this, however, you need to allocate a lot of funds, but this is such an important task! Almost as important as the task of detecting gravitational waves, which, as it turned out, does not exist in nature... was recently considered to be...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legends have been created around the Theory of Relativity and its author, Albert Einstein. They say that the Theory of Relativity is truly understood by only a few people in the whole world... Indulgent lecturers introduce a wide audience to the mysteries Theories - Einstein's train, twin paradox, black holes, gravitational waves, Big Bang... They remember with respect that the author of the Theory of Relativity loved to play the violin and that he, a modest man, used ordinary soap for shaving...

Those who doubt the validity of any particulars of the Theory are usually explained that the Theory is too complex for them and that it is best for them to keep their doubts to themselves. Criticism of the Theory is equated to attempts to create a perpetual motion machine and is not even considered by serious scientists. And yet, the voices of doubters do not stop. Among the doubters are many applied scientists who are accustomed to dealing with visual processes. Practical problems arise before applied scientists, and before solving them, applied scientists must imagine the mechanism of the phenomena: how else can they begin to search for solutions? But their voices are drowned out in the general tone of praise from the followers of the Theory.

So what is Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

The theory of relativity consists of two parts - Special theory of relativity - SRT, considering relativistic phenomena, i.e. phenomena manifested by the movement of bodies at speeds close to the speed of light, and General theory of relativity - GTR, extending the provisions of STR to gravitational phenomena. Both are based on postulates– provisions accepted without evidence, on faith. In geometry, such provisions are called axioms.

The SRT is based on five postulates: and not two, as the supporters of the Theory claim, and in the foundation of General Relativity five more were added to these five.

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

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

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

The fourth postulate is the invariance (constancy) of an interval consisting of four components - three spatial coordinates and time multiplied by the speed of light. Why at the speed of light? And no why. Postulate!

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

These are the postulates.

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

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

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

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

The tenth postulate reports that space, it turns out, “is unthinkable without the ether, since the General Theory of Relativity endows space with physical properties.” Einstein guessed this in 1920 and confirmed his insight in this matter in 1924. It is clear that if general relativity had not endowed space with physical properties, then there would have been no ether in nature. But once it has endowed it, it has the right to exist, despite the fact that there is no ether in the SRT and it has not earned the right to exist in it (see postulate No. 1).

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

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

The logic of SRT is amazing. If SRT puts the speed of light as the basis for all reasoning, then, having run all its reasoning through a mathematical mill, it receives, firstly, that all phenomena depend precisely on this speed of light, and secondly, that this particular speed is the limiting one. This is very wise, because if the 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 throughout the world would be related to the speed of his movement. But the boy still probably had nothing to do with it. What does the speed of light have to do with it?!

And in basis of the logic of general relativity It is assumed that masses with gravity bend space because they introduce gravitational potential. This potential bends space. And curved space causes masses to attract each other. Baron Münghausen, who once pulled himself and his horse out of the swamp by the hair, was probably the teacher of the great physicist.

And already absolutely wonderful how things are going Theories of relativity with experimental confirmations, which had to be dealt with in detail, about which those who wish can read the author’s book “Logical and experimental foundations of the theory of relativity (M.: publishing house MPI, 1990) or its second edition “Critical analysis of the foundations of the theory of relativity (Zhukovsky, publishing house "Petit", 1996). Having carefully studied all the available primary sources, the author found out to his amazement that there is and never has been any experimental evidence of either STO, neither GTO. They either take credit for something that does not belong to them, or are engaged in direct manipulation of facts. To illustrate the first statement, we can cite the same Lorentz transformations mentioned above. One can also refer to the principle of equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses. For classical physics, from its very birth, always considered them equivalent. Theory of relativity brilliantly proved the same thing, but took the result for herself.

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

You can also remember how the results are processed measuring the angles of deflection of light rays from the stars during a solar eclipse: from all possible, the extrapolation method is selected that will best give the result expected by Einstein. Because if you extrapolate in the usual way, the result will be much closer to Newtonian. And such “trifles” as warping of gelatin on the plates, which was warned about by the Kodak company, which supplied these plates, like air flows in the shadow cone of the Moon during a solar eclipse, which the author discovered when he looked at the photographs with fresh eyes, like the solar atmosphere, about which did not know before, but which, nevertheless, exists, all this was never taken into account at all. Why, if the coincidences are already good, especially if you take into account what is beneficial and not accept what is not profitable.

Today there is no more reactionary and deceitful theory in the world than Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It is sterile and unable to give anything to applied scientists who need to solve urgent problems. Her followers are not shy about anything, including the use of administrative measures against their opponents. But the time allotted by the history of this “Theory” has expired. The dam of relativism erected n The path of development of natural science by interested parties is cracking under the pressure of facts and new applied problems, and it will inevitably collapse. Einstein's theory of relativity is doomed and will be thrown into the trash heap in the near future.

Application:

A Brief History of the Search for the Ethereal Wind

1877 . J .K.Maxwell in the 8th volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica publishes the article “Ether”, in which he states the problem: the Earth, in its orbital movement around the Sun, passes through a stationary ether, and therefore an ether wind (ether drift) should be observed on its surface, which should be measured.

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

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

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

A. Michelson.Relative motion of the Earth in the luminiferous ether. 1881 In Russian in collection. Ethereal wind. Ed. Doctor of Technical Sciences V.A.Atsyukovsky. M.: Energoatomizdat, 1993. pp. 6-7. Per. from English L.S. Knyazeva.

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

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

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

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

1905 . A. Einstein publishes his famous article “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies”, in which he writes that with the introduction of two premises - the first, “that for all coordinate systems for which the equations of mechanics are valid, the same electrodynamic laws are valid”, and the second, that light in in emptiness it always propagates at a certain speed that does not depend on the state of the emitting body.Then “The introduction of the “luminiferous ether” will turn out to be unnecessary, since the proposed theory does not introduce “absolutely at rest space” endowed with special properties, and also no velocity vector is assigned to any point in space in which electromagnetic processes occur.”

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

1910 . A. EinsteinIn the article “The Principle of Relativity and Its Consequences,” referring to Fizeau’s experiment on the entrainment of light by a moving liquid (water), carried out in 1851, he writes:

“So, part of the light is carried away by the moving fluid. This experiment rejects the hypothesis of complete entrainment of the ether. Therefore, two possibilities remain.

1. The ether is completely motionless, i.e. it takes absolutely no part in the movement of matter.

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

The development of the second hypothesis requires the introduction of any assumptions regarding the connection between the ether and moving matter. Its first possibility is very simple, and its development on the basis of Maxwell’s theory does not require any additional hypothesis that could complicate the foundations of the theory.”

“It follows from this that it is impossible to create a satisfactory theory without abandoning the existence of a certain medium filling all space.”

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

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

1914 . M. Sagnac publishes the results of experiments on measuring the speed of rotation of a platform, on which light from a light source located on it with the help of mirrors runs around the platform around the periphery clockwise and counterclockwise. A displacement of the interference fringes was detected, the magnitude of which is proportional to the rotation speed of the platform. A similar experiment was carried out by F. Garres (Jena, 1912). Currently, the Sagnac effect is used in laser angular velocity sensors (angular velocity sensors), produced by industry in many thousands of copies.

S.I.Vavilov in the book “Experimental Foundations of the Theory of Relativity” he writes:

“If the Sagnac phenomenon had been discovered before the null results of second-order experiments had become clear, it, of course, would have been considered as a brilliant experimental proof of the presence of the ether. But in the situation created in theoretical physics after Michelson's experiment, Sagnac's experiment explained little. Sagnac's small interferograph detects an "optical vortex", therefore it does not drag the ether along with it. This is the only possible interpretation of this experience based on the concept of ether.”

S.I. Vavilov.Experimental foundations of the theory of relativity" (1928). Collection op. M.: ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1956. pp. 52-57.

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

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

A. Einstein.The Theory of Relativity (1915). Collection scientific works M.: Nauka, 1965, P. 424.

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

A. Einstein.Ether and the Theory of Relativity (1920). There, p. 689.

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

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

1925 . A. Michelson and G. Gehl in the article “The Effect of the Earth’s Rotation on the Speed ​​of Light,” they published the results of experiments on measuring the speed of light in iron pipes with a diameter of 305 mm, located on the ground on Mount Wilson along the perimeter of a rectangle 620x340 m, from which air was pumped out. The results clearly recorded the rotation of the Earth, which could only be explained by the presence of ether in the pipes, which was motionless relative to the world space.

A. Michelson and G. Gehl. The influence of the Earth's rotation on the speed of light. In Russian in Sat. Ethereal wind. Ed. Doctor of Technical Sciences V.A.Atsyukovsky. M.: Energoatomizdat, 1993. pp. 22-61. Per. from English L.S. Knyazeva.

1925 . D.K.Miller at the Washington Academy of Sciences read the report “Ethereal Wind”, in which he outlined the positive results of work on detecting the ethereal wind on Mount Wilson at an altitude of 6000 feet (1860 m)

D.K.MillerEthereal wind. Report read at the Washington Academy of Sciences. Per. from English S.I. Vavilova. There, p. 62-67.

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

D.K.Miller.Significance of the 1925 experiments on the discovery of the ethereal wind at Mount Wilson. Per. from English V.M.vakhnina. Right there. pp. 71-94.

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

R.J. .To Kennedy. Improving the experiment Michelson-Morley. Per. from English V.A.Atsyukovsky. There, p. 95-104.

K.K.Illingworth . Repeating the experiment Michelson-Morley using Kennedy's improvement. Per. from English L.S. Knyazeva. There, p. 105-111.

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

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

1927 . June 20 at 10 pm on the Helvetia balloon A. Piccard And E Stael attempted to raise the interferometer to a height of 2600 m. A small interferometer was used, 96 revolutions were made. The result is uncertain.

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

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

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

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

A.A. Maikelion , F. G. Peace , F. Pearson. Repeating the experiment Michelson-Morley. Per. from English V.A.Atsyukovsky. Same there from 177-178.

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

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

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

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

J .P.Cedarholm , G.F.Bland , B.L.Havens , C.H.Townes . A new experimental test of the special theory of relativity. Per. from English V.A.Atsyukovsky. There, p. 259-262.

J .P.Cedarholm , C. H. Towns. A new experimental test of the special theory of relativity. Per. from English V.A.Atsyukovsky. There, p. 262-267.

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

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

2000 g . 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 at a base of 13 km. The gradient of the etheric wind speed and the rotation of the earth were used. Data were recorded automatically during 1998 and then statistically processed. It turned out that there was an ethereal wind at the surface of the Earth in the Kharkov region of about 1500 m/s, basically corresponding to Miller’s data in 1925. The difference could be explained by the different altitude of the experiment site and the presence of different local objects.

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