S. N. Arteha CRITICISM OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE RELATIVITY THEORY The present book is devoted to systematic criticism of the fundamen- tals of the relativity theory (RT). The main attention is given to the new logical contradictions of RT, since presence of such contradictions brings ”to zero” the value of any theory. Many disputable and contradictory points of this theory and its corollaries are considered in detail in the book. The lack of logical and physical grounding for fundamental con- cepts in the special and general relativity theory, such as time, space, the relativity of simultaneity etc., is demonstrated. A critical analysis of experiments that resulted in the generation and establishment of relativ- ity theory is presented in the book. The detailed criticism of dynamical SRT concepts is also given in the book. The inconsistency and ground- lessness in a seemingly ”working” section of the relativity theory – the relativistic dynamics – is shown. The given book can be of interest to students, post-graduates, teach- ers, scientists and all mans, that independently meditate on fundamental physical problems. Contents Preface 5 1 Kinematics of special relativity theory 11 1.1 Introduction.......................... 11 1.2 Relativistictime . .. .. .. .. .. .. 14 1.3 Relativity of simultaneity . 33 1.4 TheLorentztransformations . 38 1.5 Paradoxes of lengths shortening . 41 1.6 The relativistic law for velocity addition . 51 1.7 Additional criticism of relativistic kinematics . 60 1.8 ConclusionstoChapter1 . 70 2 The basis of the general relativity theory 73 2.1 Introduction.......................... 73 2.2 Criticism of the basis of the general relativity theory . 74 2.3 Criticism of the relativistic cosmology . 99 2.4 ConclusionstoChapter2 . .104 3 Experimental foundations of the relativity theory 106 3.1 Introduction. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .106 3.2 Criticism of the relativistic interpretation of series of ex- periments ...........................108 3.3 ConclusionstoChapter3 . .134 4 Dynamics of the special relativity theory 135 4.1 Introduction. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .135 3 4 CONTENTS 4.2 Notions of relativistic dynamics . 137 4.3 Criticism of the conventional interpretation of relativistic dynamics ...........................152 4.4 ConclusionstoChapter4 . .183 Appendixes A On possible frequency parametrization 185 B Possible mechanism of the frequency dependence 194 C Remarks on some hypotheses 200 Afterword 206 Bibliography 212 Preface This book is dedicated to my kind honest wise parents Though the technology achievements have been quite impressive in the elapsed century, the achievements of science should be recognized to be much more modest (contrary to ”circumscientific” advertising). All these achievements can be attributed, most likely, to efforts of the experimenters, engineers and inventors, rather than to ”breakthroughs” in the theoretical physics. The ”value” of ”post factum arguments” is well-known. Besides, it is desirable to evaluate substantially the ”losses” from similar ”breakthroughs” of the theorists. The major ”loss” of the past century is the loss of unity and interdependence in physics as a whole, i.e. the unity in the scientific ideology and in the approach to various areas of physics. The modern physics obviously represents by itself a ”raglish blanket”, which is tried to be used for covering bound- less ”heaps” in separate investigations and unbound facts. Contrary to the artificially maintained judgement, that the modern physics rests upon some well-verified fundamental theories, too frequently the ad hoc hypotheses appear (for a certain particular phenomenon), as well as science-like adjustments of calculations to the ”required result”, sim- ilarly to students’ peeping at an a priori known answer to the task. The predictive force of fundamental theories in applications occurs to be close to zero (contrary to allegations of ”showman from science”). This relates, first of all, to the special relativity theory (SRT): all prac- tically verifiable ”its” results were obtained either prior to developing 5 6 PREFACE this theory or without using its ideas, and only afterwards, by the ef- forts of ”SRT accumulators”, these results have been ”attributed” to achievements of this theory. It may seem that the relativity theory (RT) has been firmly inte- grated into the modern physics, so that there is no need to ”dig” in its basement, but it would be better to finish building ”the upper stages of a structure”. One can only ”stuff the bumps” when criticizing RT (recall the resolution of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sci- ences, that equated the RT criticism to the invention of the Perpetuum Mobile). The solid scientific journals are ready to consider both the hypotheses, which can not be verified in the nearest billion of years, and those hypotheses, which can never be verified. However, anything but every scientific journal undertakes to consider the principal issues of RT. It would seem the situation has to be just opposite. Because RT is being teached not only in high schools, but also in a primary school, at arising even slightest doubts all issues should be seriously and thoroughly discussed by the scientific community (in order ”not to spoil young hearts”). However, there exists (not numerous but very active and of high rank) part of scientific elite that behaves a strangely encoded manner. These scientists can seriously and condescendingly discuss ”yellow ele- phants with pink tails” (superheavy particles inside the Moon that re- mained obligatory after Big Bang, or analogous fantasies), but an at- tempt to discuss the relativity theory leads to such active centralized acts, as if their underclothes would be taken off and some ”birth-mark” would be discovered. Possibly, they received the ”urgent order to in- veigh” without reading. But any criticism, even most odious, can have some core of sense, which is able to improve their own theory. RT claims to be not simply a theory (for example, as one of compu- tational methods as applied to the theory of electromagnetism), but the first principle, even the ”super-supreme” principle capable of canceling any other verified principles and concepts: of space, time, conservation laws, etc. Therefore, RT should be ready for more careful logical and experimental verifications. As it will be shown in this book, RT does not withstand logical verification. PREFACE 7 Figuratively speaking, SRT is an example of what is called an ”im- possible construction” (like the ”impossible cube” from the book cover, etc.), where each element is non-contradictive locally, but the complete construction is a contradiction. SRT does not contain local mathemat- ical errors, but as soon as we say that letter t means the real time, then we immediately extend the construction, and contradictions will be revealed. A similar situation takes place with spatial characteristics, etc. We have been learned for a long time to think, that we are able to live with paradoxes, though the primary ”paradoxes” have been reduced by relativists rather truthfully to some conventional ”strangenesses”. In fact, however, every sane man understands that, if a real logical contra- diction is present in the theory, then it is necessary to choose between the logic, on which all science is founded, and this particular theory. The choice can obviously not be made in favor of this particular theory. Just for this reason the given book begins with logical contradictions of RT, and the basic attention is given to logical problems here. Any physical theory describing a real phenomenon can be experimen- tally verified according to the ”yes - no” principle. RT is also supported by the approach: ”what is experimentally unverifiable – it does not ex- ist”. Since RT must transfer to the classical physics at low velocities (for example, for the kinematics), and the classical result is unique (it does not depend on the observation system), the relativists often try to prove the absence of RT contradictions by reducing the paradoxes to a unique result, which coincides with classical one. Thereby, this is a recognition of the experimental indetectability of kinematic RT effects and, hence, of their actual absence (that is, of the primary Lorentz’s viewpoint on the auxiliary character of the relativistic quantities intro- duced). Various theorists try to ”explain” many disputable RT points in a completely different manner: everybody is allowed to think-over the nonexistent details of the ”dress of a bare king” by himself. This fact is an indirect sign of the theory ambiguity as well. The relativists try to magnify the significance of their theory by co-ordinating with it as many theories as possible, including those in absolutely non-relativistic areas. The artificial character of such a globalistic ”web” of interdependencies 8 PREFACE is obvious. The relativity theory (as a field of activity) is defended, except the relativists, also by mathematicians, who forget that physics possesses its own laws. First, the confirmability of some final conclusions does not prove truth of the theory (as well as the validity of the Fermat theorem in no way implies the correctness of all ”proofs” presented for 350 years; or, the existence of crystal spheres does not follow from the visible planet and stars motion). Second, even in mathematics there exist the condi- tions, which can hardly be expressed in formulas and, thus, complicate searching for solutions (as, for example, the condition: to find the solu- tions in natural numbers). In physics this fact is