V.A.Atsyukovsky - Shine and povertyEinstein's theory of relativity. Crisis of fundamental science

The history of the anti-relativist struggle in the West
(based on G.O. Mueller Research Project)

Apologists for the theory of relativity constantly operate on the principle "it's not true, but it sounds better." Much of the information used in this section will seem unexpected to the reader (just as it turned out to be completely unexpected for the compiler). You yourself choose between the truth and the usual (but fictional) story. Interpretations of the special theory of relativity (SRT), which at first no one took seriously, began to be analyzed from 1908. Until 1914, all (!) experiments were rejected by the SRT (including experiments on the search for the ethereal wind, which gave a non-zero result, but were not at all obliged to give a speed of 30 m per second). Many theoretical works did not leave stone unturned from this theory from the physical and philosophical points of view and pushed it into the shadows for a long time. Immediately after the announcement of the discovery of a deflection of a light beam in the field of the Sun, allegedly confirming general relativity, the interpretation of the experimental data was refuted (in England: A.Fowler, Sir Joseph Larmor, Sir Oliver J.Lodge, H.F.Newall, Ludwik Silberstein; in the USA: T.J.J. See ; in Germany: Ernst Gehrcke, Philipp Lenard; we also note in parentheses that for the first time the deviation of a light beam when passing near the Sun, which exactly coincides with the "results" of general relativity, was predicted in 1801 in an article by J. Soldner). Despite this, from November 1919, a wide PR campaign began in support of general theory relativity (GR), which, according to the statements of relativists, is the development of SRT (which is actually far from being the case, but nevertheless, the propaganda of interpretations of SRT is also intensifying). Regular publications in newspapers begin, public speaking to non-specialists (schoolchildren, housewives, etc.), even Charlie Chaplin is involved in advertising. In 1920, at the Congress in Leiden (Netherlands), Einstein recognized the need for ether in GTR, that is, he curtsied "both ours and yours" in order to calm some of the opponents. In 1921, A. Einstein made his first tour of the United States, where he was engaged in propaganda, including the theory of relativity.

It is usually advantageous for relativists to portray things as if only fascists opposed the theories of A. Einstein. In fact, during this period, almost no one heard about fascism in Germany (even the failed "beer putsch" is already 1923!). Moreover, in 1922, on its 100th anniversary, the Society "Gesellschaft Duetscher Naturforscher und Ärztë" decided to exclude any criticism of SRT in the official academic environment. As a result, since 1922 in Germany, a ban was introduced in the academic press and in education on criticism of the theory of relativity, which has been in force since then without interruption (!) to this day.

The Nobel Prize for 1921 was awarded to A. Einstein for explaining two patterns of the photoelectric effect based on his formula (although the photoelectric effect itself was discovered earlier by G. Hertz and A.G. Stoletov made a significant contribution to the study of the photoelectric effect, who previously explained another pattern of the photoelectric effect ). At the same time, when Svante Arrhenius announced (in 1922) the award of the prize to A. Einstein, it was said that the prizes were awarded to him despite the doubtfulness of his other theories and the presence of serious objections to them (that is, with a hint that they should not be mentioned in obligatory Nobel lecture). Despite this, A. Einstein, as a Nobel lecture (which took place only in 1923), again propagated his theories.

A powerful critique of Einstein's theories was heard at the International Congress of Philosophy (Naples 1924). An open letter from O. Kraus to A. Einstein and M. Laue in 1925 remained unanswered. He also did not answer the 1931 booklet "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein" (he only laughed it off). But his entourage pretended that all this was persecution on a national basis (despite the fact that there were many Jews among the critics). In general, only 17 publications of the war period (out of more than 300) contained anti-Semitic statements, and the number of critical works that allow anti-Semitic statements at the moment is less than 1 percent (out of more than 4000! works). Yes, there were ideological works, but most of the works were of a purely scientific nature. Relativists, on the other hand, practically did not get involved in scientific discussions and reduced everything to ideology themselves.

Our country, which suffered such huge human losses in the fight against fascism, needs the truth (so as not to repeat previous mistakes), and not fictional stories. Let's start with some historical information. Fascism in Germany gained real strength only after the economic crisis of 1929. In the spring of 1929, A. Einstein was presented with a plot of land on the shores of Templin Lake from Berlin, and he often spent time on a yacht, that is, he was provided with all the conditions for life and work. The fascist party in the parliamentary elections turned out to be the second in the number of seats and on December 1, 1932, Kurt von Schleicher (not from the Nazis!), was appointed Chancellor of Germany, who, however, resigned on January 28, 1933. After that, on January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed A. Hitler Reich Chancellor of Germany. And only after the death of Hindenburg on August 30, 1934, Hitler combined both positions and became the sole dictator of Germany. Even after the occupation of Austria in 1938, the Nazis tried not to quarrel with anyone. To be convinced of this, it is enough to read the magazine "Collection of Caravan Stories" N 02, 2006, pp. 70-87 about how in occupied Austria the possessions of Baron Rothschild were redeemed (!) (for 3 million pounds sterling, of which 100,000 went personally Goebbels for mediation). Another example: the relativist Max von Laue, who always took the side of A. Einstein, and under the fascist regime continued to work safely in Berlin until 1943 (until his 64th birthday), until, due to the increasing bombing of Berlin, the entire institution was evacuated to another city where he did not go and retired.

And in 1933, A. Einstein was not a refugee. He was a defector (and this "slightly" is not the same thing). Every winter, A. Einstein went to his villa in Passadena (California) and in 1933 simply did not return to Germany. That is why, after some time, he, as a traitor, was declared an enemy of the Reich. He personally, but not his theory, since relativists have always prevailed in the Nazi government! Thus, for example, the Nazi government passed a decree already during the Second World War (Munch 1940) that "SRT is accepted as the basis for physics." Unexpected, isn't it? Although, on the other hand, there is nothing surprising here, because the Nazi elite has always been fascinated by magic and mysticism. These issues were first dealt with by the Thule Society, and then on state level- organization "Ahnenerbe". The mystical possibilities of changing the properties of space and time and the magical control of reality have always interested the leadership of the 3rd Reich and the theory of relativity, which is closer to magic or art than to strict science, turned out to be acceptable for their worldview.

And the Nazi concentration camps began to work as "destruction machines" after the start of the Second World War. And after the end of the war, the reminder of the "Holocaust" became an "argument" against any criticism of TO in modern Germany, just as in the United States accusations of anti-Semitism, which can seriously damage the career of a scientist, became a similar "argument".

Despite all these difficulties, the flow of critical work does not disappear, but only grows (to mention only a few points), although academic science around the world is trying to keep the iron curtain. So, in 1949, the magazine "Methodos" began to appear in Italy, in 1950 in West Germany - the magazine "Philosophia naturalis". In Austria, two journals are beginning to appear that allow criticism of TO: in 1957 - "Wissenschaft ohne Dogma", which since 1958 is called "Wissen im Werden", and in 1959 - "Neue Physik". In 1958, Nobel laureate Hideki Yukawa spoke at the UN conference in Geneva with criticism of TO. Since 1961, a program to develop the ideas of Hugo Dingler ("protophysics") - "Erlangen Program" has been operating in Germany. In 1972, the President of the Royal Astronomical Society, G. Dingle, sharply criticized TO. Since 1978, the journal "Speculations in science and technology" has been published in Australia, and "Hadronic journal" in the USA. In 1979, the famous collection "The Einstein myth and the Ives papers" appeared. In 1982, the International Conference on Space-Time Absoluteness (ICSTA) is held. Since 1987, the Apeiron magazine (Montreal) has been published in Canada, and since 1988 - Physics Essays (Ottawa). Since 1990, the journal "Galilean Electrodynamics" has been published in the USA, and since 1991, "Deutsche Physik" has been published in Austria. Since the late 80s, anti-relativistic conferences have been held all over the world (for example, in St. Petersburg - once every two years, and in the USA the "Natural Philosophy Alliance" organization holds Conferences up to two times a year). These are only published materials, although academic circles are trying to create a wall of silence around them, and it is not at all possible to list all the materials from the Internet. Thus, at the end of the last century and the beginning of this century, there has been an unimaginable surge of work criticizing both theories of relativity and proposing alternative solutions to physical problems.

The history of the anti-relativistic struggle in our country

In Russia, modern historians of science more often prefer a superficial rather political than scientific approach to events within the science of the 20th century, blaming everything on the Soviet state system. At the same time, for some reason, bans on genetics, cybernetics and supposedly on the theory of relativity are mentioned in one bundle (that is, they fulfill the order of the academic elite)! In fact, in the USSR, the number of years of Einstein's unpopularity can be counted on the fingers, and opponents of his theory were subjected to real persecution almost all the time. The theory of relativity became fashionable in the USSR as early as 1920, that is, at the same time when a wide advertising campaign was organized for it around the world (since November 1919). To get support in the USSR, it was enough for A. Einstein to join the Communist Party of Germany in 1919. True, he left there six months later (since the Communist Party in Germany had not gained strength), but this publicity stunt was enough to become a "friend of the country of the Soviets." This status of "friend of the USSR and all progressive mankind" remained with A. Einstein in the future, guaranteeing support for all his theories. Since 1922, A. Einstein became a corresponding member. Russian Academy of Sciences (and since 1926 an honorary member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR). To be convinced of the further official popularization of the theory of relativity, it is enough to look in the Small Soviet Encyclopedia, in volume ten, p.155 (published in 1931), a note about Einstein, “who opposed the anti-Soviet attacks of the bourgeois press and governments, against white terror ...”, and in the eighth volume, pp.741-744, the article "Theory of Relativity". Similar articles, laudatory in content, were in all subsequent editions (as well as in other official collections, for example, SES, Publishing House " Soviet Encyclopedia", 1980, p. 1547). But this meant support at the highest party-state level!

Popular magazines of those years are also full of similar praises. For example, you can look at Lunacharsky's article "Near the Great" in the journal "30 Days" (N 1, 1930, pp. 39-42) about how Lunacharsky was visiting Einstein in Berlin. And who at that time could argue with the People's Commissar of Education himself in his assessments of the personality of A. Einstein and his theory? And what even more "serious" support is needed for the theory?

It is advantageous for "authorities" from science to present the matter as if all the disputes around the theory of relativity were conducted only at the beginning of the century and not to mention the real discussions of the 20th century. They were conducted both in the physical direction and in the philosophical direction. For example, K.N. Shaposhnikov and N. Kasterin (chairman of the Physical Society named after P.N. Lebedev since 1925) proved that Bucherer’s experiment, carried out in 1909, contradicts the conclusions of the theory of relativity (see Shaposhnikov K.N., to Kasterin's article "Sur la nonconcordance du principe de relativite d" Einstein "Izvestia Ivanovo-Voznesen. Polytechnic Institute, 1919, issue 1; these works can also be found in the books of I.I. Smulsky). Report by A.K. Timiryazev about the experiments of D.K. , which, of course, caused dissatisfaction of other speakers (not related to the theory of relativity), but obvious dissatisfaction with the subject of discussion (that is, even the very possibility of doubt in the theory of relativity) was expressed by A.F. Ioffe, I.E. Tamm, Ya.I. Frenkel, G.S. Landsberg, and L.I. Mandelstam defiantly left the organizing committee and did not participate in the meetings (that is, it was not science that was important to them, but only their own power). Unfortunately, this was the time when the discussions that were held around SRT and GRT could not be limited to science only - they were conducted in difficult conditions, when science in the USSR was highly politicized. So, for example, A. Einstein, who “sympathizes with the Communist Party of Germany”, was opposed to his opponent, also Nobel laureate F. Lenard, who is "close to the Nazi circles." The words in quotation marks act as an argument from one of the speakers at the 1925 discussion that took place in the USSR (the book with the reports of the participants in the discussion was not publicly available until 1989 - special permission was required to read it in the special depository of the Public Library, and according to the discussions of the 30s and the 40s the books were not published at all). In 1930, Glavnauki closed the Physical Society (leaving only the Association of Physicists, led by the relativist academician A.F. Ioffe). In the same year, the leadership of the NIIF was changed (as a result, N.P. Kasterin left). Permits for meetings of the Physical Society were no longer issued, and since 1933 the property of the Physical Society was transferred to the Physical Institute. Since 1938, the Academy of Sciences has not financed any work that somehow contradicted the theory of relativity.

Here are some excerpts from V. B. Cherepennikov's article "Science needs protection from the USSR Academy of Sciences", characterizing the historical (ideological) situation of those years:
"Let's go back to the 20-30s and follow the course of the ideological struggle. The activities of Academician V.F. Mitkevich, professors A.K. Timiryazev and A.A. Maksimov on the ideological front of the 20-30s are characterized by academic science," on the theoretical front of those years”, since their “concept ... was a kind of perception in the materialist philosophy of a number of ideas of positivism ... was a kind of revision of dialectical materialism.” (TSB)

The main opponent and exposer of the "scientific reactionaries" was Academician A.F. Ioffe. In his accusatory article "On the situation on the philosophical front of Soviet physics" Acad. A.F. Ioffe wrote: “... I am sure that for anyone who, with Lenin's criterion, will honestly try to understand the philosophical positions of modern physicists and philosophers, it is obvious that A.K. Timiryazev, A.A. Maksimov, acad. VF Mitkevich, considering themselves materialists, are actually scientific reactionaries. On the other hand, I. E. Tamm, Ya. Soviet physics and all the leading scientists of the West - anti-fascists and friends Soviet Union- in idealism, in anti-Soviet political attitudes.

To be convinced of the validity of the accusations made by Acad. A.F. Ioffe in relation to Acad. VF Mitkevich and his associates in involvement in the "scientific reaction" from the text of the article itself is impossible. Lack of scientific evidence and abundance in the lexicon of acad. A.F. Ioffe as arguments of words and turns of speech of a non-debatable nature, such as: “unworthy slander”, “amazing illiteracy”, “monstrous to its absurdity”, “physical ignorance”, “cheeky illiteracy”, “understudied physics” philosopher”, “scientific backwardness” and so on testify to the inability of the opponent to refute the arguments of his opponents by scientific methods, that is, they frankly betray the weakness of his position ... Acad. A.F. Ioffe is developing a peculiar way ... of protection, widely used by his ideological heirs at the present time: “If a really positive and negative electron, when combined, can create a light quantum and vice versa, then we have the following alternative,” writes Academician . A.F. Ioffe, - we could assume that the charge is considered matter, but then the matter should be algebraic, not arithmetic, matter can be positive and negative, plus and minus can cancel each other ... If we proceed from the fact that matter there can be only that which is preserved, moreover, it is preserved arithmetically... then we can consider energy as matter, the only quantity now that does not disappear and is not created anywhere... If energy itself is physical matter, then the idea of ​​matter as the carrier of this energy and energy as one of the properties of this carrier disappears, energy itself then becomes matter ... "... There is no doubt that the confusion introduced by Acad. A.F. Ioffe, is deliberate.

It was in this way that the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of January 25, 1931 “On the journal “Under the Banner of Marxism”” was provoked, which imposed a taboo on criticism of the philosophical inconsistency of the quantum-relativistic subconsciousness and forbade consideration of the problems of physical interactions on a mechanical - materialistic basis.

Academician VF Mitkevich insists on holding a discussion on the philosophical problems of physics about the nature of physical interactions. On this occasion, he writes: “As is known, there are two points of view on the issue under consideration in science, mutually excluding one another: the point of view of action at a distance and the Faraday-Maxwellian point of view, according to which all interactions in nature occur only with direct participation of the processes taking place in the intermediate medium ... I formulated a question concerning the nature of the interaction of any two physical centers. This question, somewhat diversifying its construction, I systematically asked since 1930 to my ideological opponents (A.F. Ioffe, S.I. Vavilov, Ya.I. Frenkel, I.E. Tamm, V.A. the opponents of the group headed by Academician A.F. Ioffe and S.I. Vavilov object only to erroneous methods of interpreting physical processes, to those methods that ... hinder the development of ideas that can correspond to the actual nature of phenomena, and therefore hinder further progress physical science".

For the second time, a decree prohibiting criticism of the theory of relativity was adopted in the most difficult period of our history - during the years of the Great Patriotic War, that is, it was actually allowed high level. In 1942, at the jubilee session dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the revolution, the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR adopted a special resolution on the theory of relativity: "The real scientific and philosophical content of the theory of relativity ... represents a step forward in revealing the dialectical laws of nature." What more evidence of "high" support for the theory of relativity is needed? Relativists take credit exclusively for creating atomic bomb. However, let's look at the facts. At first, the atomic project was led by the "chief academician", relativist A.F. Ioffe. Naturally, his team consisted mainly of like-minded people. However, his work was considered unsatisfactory. The entire previous team was dispersed, the leadership was changed and the principle of work was changed: now only a few people could know the whole picture (and the former relativists were not included in the number of these people, which can be verified, for example, according to the list of "atomic scientists" who received apartments in new post-war skyscrapers ), and the rest were involved only for consultations and work on private areas of the project (at the last stage, when the number of people working on the nuclear project increased by orders of magnitude). The work in the United States was organized similarly, and the "chief relativist" A. Einstein was also not among the project leaders (but only among the consultants, which were hundreds! Out of the 60,000-strong corps of workers; A. Einstein is often referred to simply as one of 12 -ty Nobel Prize winners who worked in the United States on atomic weapons). Nevertheless, none of the former team suffered for this, they say I.V. Kurchatov interceded. He simply showed elementary nobility, because for many, a failure in the war years could cost their lives. However, neither Stalin nor Hitler is anymore, and it's time for relativists to stop hiding behind other people's backs and take responsibility for their "deeds" themselves. In fact, the intercession of I.V. Kurchatov would clearly not be enough, and it was not required, since the relativists had higher patrons (we will not get involved in politics, pointing to I.V. Stalin or L.P. Beria, since this underlying reason had nothing to do with the theory of relativity). For example, when L.D. Landau was taken on April 28, 1938 for elementary leaflets (and this was in the most difficult period in the history of the country), he immediately “told” a group of his like-minded people that they purposefully harmed research and young specialists. Despite this, about a year later, L.D. Landau was released (!), but, for example, Yu.B. only when he could no longer conduct serious research (although there is also a legend about L.D. Landau that he was “organized” in a car accident after philosophical articles criticizing TO began to appear under his patronage).

Nevertheless, the confrontation between academic and university science is quite typical for that time, since in essence the academy was fighting over who would get the right to administratively decide what is true in science and what is false. But the forces and opportunities were unequal. Slanders were constantly raining down on the University. The relativists from the academy accused the scientists of the university that they had much less scientific papers (ie they emphasized the quantity). But after all, the Academy of Sciences dealt only with science, while at the University, besides scientific activity there were also industrial and economic activities and teaching activities. Moreover, the overwhelming advantage in terms of publishing houses also belonged to the academy. Relativists from the Academy did not allow University scientists into their ranks. In fact, by way of blackmail, it was about the need to bow to the academicians. And this "method" had nothing to do with scientific results. After another slander in 1946, a commission headed by the relativist S.I. Vavilov (!) arrived at the University and in May replaced the non-party dean A.S. resigned in April 1947. VN Kessenikh was appointed to his place. The planned All-Union Conference of Physicists in 1949 and the discussion on the problems of physics and philosophy were canceled, that is, the relativists had a "very furry paw" "at the top". In 1950, the work of A.F. Ioffe as director of the LPTI was recognized as unsatisfactory and he was removed from this position (but Moscow University had nothing to do with Leningrad and clearly had nothing to do with it, just like the theory of relativity). Already after the death of I.V. Faculty of Physics, Moscow State University" (in which a number of positive aspects in university activities are deliberately hidden). As a result of this regular slander, V.M. 1956 in the USSR, all discussions were declared "Stalinist propaganda" and completely closed.

For the third time, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences adopted a resolution prohibiting criticism of the theory of relativity in science, education and academic publications as early as 1964. After that, there were only a few daredevils who declared their disagreement with the interpretations of the TO. But another method was already used against them (no, not a fire), first tested in Zurich in 1917 on F. Adler (who wrote a critical work against TO), then also in Zurich (probably had their own psychiatrists!) In 1930 on his son A. Einstein Eduarde (who stated that the author of SRT is Mileva Marich): those who disagreed with the official ideas of the theory of relativity were subjected to compulsory psychiatric examination. For example, A. Bronstein in his book "Conversations on Space and Hypotheses" reports: "... in 1966 alone, the Department of General and Applied Physics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR helped doctors identify 24 paranoids." This is how the new inquisitorial machine operated "without a fire". But there were also "punctures". So, in St. Petersburg there lives one scientist (we will not name him yet), who was also "surrendered" for examination, but apparently they did not agree on the time with the "necessary" psychiatrist. As a result of the examination, the doctor wrote the following conclusion: "Healthy. You can judge." The doctor, probably, could not even imagine that this was not about a criminal, but about a scientist who simply did not agree with the interpretations of the theory of relativity. This "document" is kept by this scientist and will apparently be of great interest to posterity when the whole truth is revealed (and "everything secret will sooner or later become clear").

Let's continue quoting excerpts from V.B. Cherepennikov's brochure "Science needs protection from the USSR Academy of Sciences":

"For decades, numerous articles containing indisputable evidence of the anti-scientific nature of these theories, as well as works that successfully solve the problems of physical interactions, are rejected as "not up to date and not of scientific interest" without any scientific justification. And this discrimination against works materialistic content is not even hidden: "To this day, there are articles with attempts to refute the validity of the theory of relativity. Nowadays, such articles are not even considered as clearly anti-scientific. "(P. L. Kapitsa)

Despite the official ban, the fight against the unscrupulousness of the ruling academic elite does not stop at the present time. For several years, the journal "Inventor and Rationalizer" periodically publishes articles by O. Gorozhanin, testifying to the inconsistency of the theory of relativity. Turning to academic institutions, the editors ask: “Bring the Citizen to clean water. Please, there are no restrictions, except for the only one: so that this smearing of an ignoramus on the wall is visible, understandable to the rest of the ignoramuses ... "For three years they fought: everyone promised, promised readers to give an answer ... And threats from physicists are already rumbling: they say, arrange discussion - get a feuilleton, and even with such a signature that ... " Dear editors, do not be upset, these are the true methods of scientific polemics of the Ioffenites. They just don't know the others!

In 1988, V.I. Sekerin’s brochure “Essay on the Theory of Relativity” was published, which contains experimental and experimental evidence refuting relativism. Readers responded to the meaningless anonymous libel about the publication of V.I. in support of V.I. Sekerin.

Finally, in Vilnius, a brochure by Professor A. A. Denisov "Myths of the Theory of Relativity" was published, in which the author also comes to the conclusion that the theory of relativity is untenable. It is not difficult to imagine the reaction of the academic elite to this publication. After all, the pamphlet was sold in fifty thousand copies (!), Spreading the truth about the theory of relativity, as about the "new dress" of the Naked King. And now, at the Annual General Meeting of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, their indignant voices are heard: “We must protect the academy from attacks. Take the newspaper Science in Siberia. In it, probably out of ignorance, articles against the theory of relativity are published ... Another example. An interview with Professor A. A. Denisov appeared in Literaturnaya Gazeta, who, according to my information, is almost the chairman of the Ethics Commission in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. This interview is a miracle of illiteracy and ugliness. It demonstrates that the professor does not understand the theory of relativity at all... This is fraught with the fact that a new stream of vilification of science is provoked. But even so the situation is difficult, all you hear is that the scientists are to blame for everything. Our task is to affirm the high authority of science.” (A.D. Aleksandrov) “Indeed, Professor Denisov, who is an enemy of the theory of relativity, has been elected chairman of the Commission on Ethics. I informed the leadership of the Supreme Council that it is unacceptable to elect a person who is in some sense an enemy of science, takes such pseudoscientific positions as the chairman of the Commission on Ethics ... " (V.L. Ginzburg)

I believe that the excitement of academicians in connection with the election of Professor Denisov is understandable. If to the "highly scientific" arguments: "out of ignorance", "the miracle of illiteracy and disgrace", "the enemy of science", "pseudo-scientific positions" - borrowed from the ideological mentor Acad. A.F. Ioffe, due to the lack of other evidence, to add what Professor Denisov said in an interview with Literaturnaya Gazeta dated February 28, 1990 (“Pluralism and Myths”) that opponents demanded dismissal, deprivation of a doctoral degree, recall on the grounds that Professor Denisov cannot be a deputy, because he understands the theory of relativity in a wrong way, then one has to admit that the pluralism of opinions in our science really remains at an unattainable height. The inability of the Academy of Sciences to refute publications..., as well as the strict ban on dissent, betrays the futility of their position."

So the history of the 20th century is not as simple as it was presented to us and as it is presented now: the public has a one-sided idea about it. For example, in Leningrad in the 70s, collections of the series “Problems of the Study of the Universe” began to be published. Their circulation was about 2 thousand copies, and some volumes reached Siberia. Separate articles discussing problems that were considered already finally and irrevocably resolved were published in collections with the note "published in discussion order." Not everyone liked it. It is no coincidence that the entire circulation of the collection N 9 (1982), already ready for release, was sentenced by Academician A.M. Prokhorov to be immediately sent directly from the printing house to waste paper. The intercession of Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences M.S. Zverev did not help either. The documents were published in the article by A.G. Shlyonov “Science as business” (N 16 of the same series, pp. 342-346, 1993), which mentions the courage of people who saved the collection (Chairman of the Editorial and Publishing Commission A.A. Efimov ).

Since 1989, the USSR and then Russia have hosted the International Conferences “Problems of Space and Time”, “Space, Time, Gravity”, etc. Works with articles of critical content are published in Russian and English (although not all of them of high quality, but this should not be surprising, because “crazy ideas”, which, according to N. Bohr, modern physics needs so much, can occur not only to the followers of SRT and GR, but also to opponents of these theories).

How does the Russian Academy of Sciences react to the ever-increasing criticism of the theory of relativity? In essence, the issues are silent, because hundreds of scientists participate in conferences (and these are only those who are financed, and even more who want), but the media are involved (it's funny, though, when the artist G. Khazanov declares the truth of the theory of relativity on his anniversary, i.e. "for" the theory can be listened to and non-specialists?). "Support groups" are also involved, which the compiler had to face. So, some time after the publication of my book, two people came to the Editorial Office and said that "from Ginzburg" and the publication of such books should not be allowed. I doubt that Vitaly Lazarevich really needed this, especially since I was not hiding from anyone, and in January 2004 I myself sent the book to V.L. Ginzburg, E.P. Kruglyakov and a number of other academicians (many of whom reacted to this fact calmly). Apparently, there are people who want to "appear holier than the Pope" ("to be holier" - it doesn't work, they just want to curry favor with those in power). The "anonymous group" is also trying to talk about the topic on the Internet without speaking out on science. I also received a letter that "my data (as the signatory of the Appeal) was sent to the director of the institute and they hope that I will be fired soon." These are the "scientific arguments of highly scientific colleagues", and they never had others. However, everything ends sooner or later, and so will the "dark times" in science.

1

The criticism of SRT in space research, during the operation of radar velocity meters (radar), using the longitudinal and transverse Doppler effect is analyzed. It is shown that the "Twin Paradox" in SRT is apparent. Teaching the theory of relativity in schools and universities of the country is flawed, meaningless and practical. The reason for the redshift and background cosmic radiation may be the interaction of photons with gravitons - quanta of gravitational radiation from stars. Directions for further research and development of the theory of gravity are recommended. Possession of the scientific method of cognition is an important principle of every scientist-researcher.

Criticism of SRT and GR

gravity theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

с′ = λ*ν′ , (2)

с + υ = λ (ν + Δν). (3)

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

с + 2υ = λ (ν + 2Δν), (5)

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

or finally:

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

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

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

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

If the source and receiver are close:

here ν > ν0.

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

here v< ν0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ct)2 = (υt)2 + (ct')2. (13)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sin φ = 1. (17)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) unity and struggle of opposites;

b) the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones;

c) negation of negation (development with renewal).

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

conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliographic link

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

To the criticism of the theory of relativity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the reason? It may be that, as they say everywhere, "created new physics"? Everywhere in all popular science encyclopedias there is always a photograph of Einstein and the caption under it "Father of modern physics." Maybe this physics is so new that it's just that practice hasn't grown up to it yet? Maybe it's just not time yet? Newton, after all, when he created his integral and differential calculus! And they are constantly used - when did they begin to practice? Far from immediately. Maybe we just have to wait here? In the meantime, (before practice), we have, but there is already a new physics! And new physics means new laws, new language, new terminology, and isn't that wonderful in itself? After all, the goal of physics is the establishment of laws that reduce individual natural phenomena to general rules. When these general rules are discovered, then physics determines the causes that these rules provide. As such reasons, various forces are most often identified. So - what new laws did the theory of relativity give? What new natural phenomena did this physics explain? What new powers did she discover and teach them how to use? What prospects await underdeveloped practice when it grows up to these new laws and new powers? However, we have not yet named these revolutionary laws and forces. And we won't call. There is none of them. We will not name what is not. And let's not look in the theory of relativity for something that is not in it. That is, new physics. Although, as they say on the forums - whoever finds it, send it to your email.

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

11. Criticism of the theory of relativity by etherists

The theory of relativity is a mirror image of the ethereal theory, therefore the criticism of the theory of relativity by the supporters of the ethereal theory is superficial, not serious. Etherists oppose the incorporeal essence of the theory of relativity (there are waves, but there is no medium, the carrier of waves), therefore some of them call it idealistic, but they are not against all its absurdities. For example, on the pages of the magazine "Inventor and Rationalizer" O. Gorozhanin, very witty and reasonably showed the logical contradictions in the theory of relativity. And at the end of the article he writes: "...everything turns out to be in its place, if the original meaning is returned to the Lorentz transformations: v is not the speed with respect to an arbitrarily moving inertial system, but the absolute speed in a motionless and not entrained ether" (No. 8, 1988 , p. 22).

"Excellent" conclusion! As if he does not know about the contradictions between ethereal theories and experiments and observations, or are these contradictions not a decree for him?!

A similar meaning and conclusions are contained in the work of A. A. Denisov “Myths of the Theory of Relativity”, Vilnius, 1989, with the only difference that it is less clear and witty in presentation than O. Gorozhanin. In an interview with Literaturnaya Gazeta (02.28.90), deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR A. Denisov complains about troubles with publications like his: “For example, Academician A. Logunov had the same difficulties when he wanted to publish a book, where he also subjected criticism of a recognized theory.

The difficulties of the vice-president of the Academy of Sciences, the rector of Moscow State University, a member of the Central Committee of the CPSU A. Logunov are specific. The university publishing house, which is under its jurisdiction and where it publishes its works, the journals "Science and Life" with polemical articles by A. Logunov and V. Ginzburg, "Reports of the Academy of Sciences", which are obliged to publish the works of academicians, as well as the UNESCO stands and the departments of Moscow State University , from which the academician spoke, outlining his views, is clearly not enough. It is also required that what is published and expressed is perceived appropriately. But after all, Academician A. Logunov has a theory, although “new”, but again relativistic, there is little novelty in it, and the vices are the same as in the “old” one.

Acquaintance with the materials of such discussions, speeches and interviews gives the impression that many authors deliberately or rather unwittingly play the role of decoy ducks. The theory of relativity, after all, is far from the daily needs of workers. And, having read in an authoritative scientific journal“Usphi fizicheskikh nauk” (vol. 160, issue 4) a review of “Myths” by A. Denisov, where, together with reasonable indications of the author’s incompetence, it is said that the theory of relativity “... forms the foundation of modern physics and is of great philosophical and practical importance. It underlies modern elementary particle physics, atomic and nuclear spectroscopy, nuclear energy and other areas of physics and technology; all modern particle accelerators are calculated using SRT formulas. Due to their fundamental importance, the foundations of SRT are included in the programs of not only higher physics, but even high school”, - after reading this, many will find out or remember the existence of a recognized theory and, unaware of the irresponsibility and dishonesty of reviewers, will accept what is written “at face value”.

Criticism by opposing the ethereal theory to the theory of relativity is a balm for the soul of relativists. The roots of both are the same, the difference is as follows. Etherists believe that bodies, for example, an interferometer, and temporal processes, including those in instruments that record time - hours, moving in the ether and interacting with it, reduce their size in the direction of movement and change the time course according to Lorentz transformations, therefore, the speed light is constant.

Relativists, on the contrary, believe that the speed of light is a constant value, therefore spatial and temporal quantities change according to Lorentz transformations.

The effects of changing the size of bodies, time intervals and masses, both for etherists and relativists, are undiscovered, mystical. It's just that the etherists, figuratively speaking, have a locomotive ahead of the carriages, while the relativists, on the contrary, have the carriages ahead of the locomotive. But the way and the destination station are the same.

However, when viewed from the outside, the position of the etherists is more vulnerable. There are many models of the ether and they are so contradictory that they are not taken seriously by anyone except their authors. But relativists have no models at all, there is nothing to discuss, they only have a set of terms and equations that are incomprehensible to the “uninitiated”. Whoever does not understand them is stupid, the enemy of science, now this is instilled from school. It is unpleasant to be stupid in public, everyone is intimidated and silent, from the MNEs to the academicians. Many years of selection have bred a new breed of physicists who "understand" the theory of relativity (in fact, take it on faith). Those who do not understand are not physicists, they are “techies”, “lyricists” and so on, their opinion does not count. As a result, the etherists are again "in a puddle", and the relativists are "on horseback".

From The Adventures of Mr. Tompkins the author Gamov Georgy

From the book Revolution in Physics author de Broglie Louis

5. Criticism of Bohr's theory What has been said in this chapter is quite enough to understand the full significance of Bohr's atomic theory. Her birth marked a new important stage in the development of modern physics. From the very beginning, the theory made it possible to understand the nature of atomic spectra and

From the book Physics and Philosophy author Heisenberg Werner Karl

From the book Theory of Relativity - a hoax of the twentieth century author Sekerin Vladimir Ilyich

5. The first postulate of the theory of relativity It is generally accepted that the first postulate of the theory of relativity is a development of the principle of relativity of Galileo. However, this is not so. The summary of Galileo's principle of relativity is as follows: no experiments inside

From the book Five Unsolved Problems of Science author Wiggins Arthur

6. Consequences of the theory of relativity 6.1. Lifetime Let us consider the change in the lifetime of elementary particles, for example, cosmic?-mesons, arising as a result of the interaction of cosmic rays with the Earth's atmosphere.<…>Artificial mesons move relatively

From the book History of Physics Course author Stepanovich Kudryavtsev Pavel

From the book 50 years of Soviet physics author Leshkovtsev Vladimir Alekseevich

9. The invention of the theory of relativity Under the conditions described above, the invention of the theory of relativity was, to some extent, a natural act, but its appearance only exacerbated the existing crisis. Here the word "invention" for the theory of relativity is not a reservation, but

From the book Systems of the World (from the ancients to Newton) author Gurev Grigory Abramovich

13.2. Publication of the "Essay on the Theory of Relativity" As soon as they were allowed to publish works at the expense of the authors, the first scientific publication Novosibirsk book publishing house in 1988, after a long break, according to its editor-in-chief A. I. Plitchenko,

From the book What Light Tells author Suvorov Sergey Georgievich

Grand Unified Theories (GUT) and Theories of Everything (TBC) The names are misleading because they suggest more than they can give. In fact, they only point to the unification of known interactions within the framework of one, comprehensive theory. TVO

From the book The New Mind of the King [On computers, thinking and the laws of physics] author Penrose Roger

From the author's book

Criticism of Newtonian mechanics and Euclid's geometry Electrodynamics of moving media in the theory of electrons led to many radical conclusions, primarily to the collapse of the idea of ​​immutable solid particles. There are no solid bodies and immutable particles in nature, the shape and size of bodies

From the author's book

Further development of the theory of relativity Returning to the theory of relativity, it should be said that the creator of this theory continued to improve and develop it. In 1907, Einstein published a long article "On the principle of relativity and its consequences." Here

From the author's book

DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY In 1916, the great physicist Albert Einstein created the general theory of relativity. Today we call this theory the theory of space, time and gravity. It touches the most intimate foundations of the universe. In it, for the first time in mathematical

From the author's book

X. ANCIENT CRITIQUE OF HELIO-CENTRISM Although the heliocentric system of the world did not ancient world, the greatest authorities of ancient science, who stood on the geocentric point of view, did not hush up the teachings about the motion of the Earth, not daring to completely ignore

From the author's book

Criticism of Energetism by Lenin. Light is one of the forms of matter Lenin saw energyism as a source of philosophical confusion and criticized it. In his work “Materialism and Empiriocriticism” (1908), he showed that the substitution of the philosophical concept of matter for the physical concept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding SRT, or rather the Michelson-Morley experiment, my daughter somehow sent a fragment of my article to social media concerning energy issues. In the fragment, in particular, there was a phrase that this experience does not prove anything about the validity of the SRT provisions. There was a comment on the social network about this, which I quote here:

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

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

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

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

“One can agree that the now canonized interpretation of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment can be questioned by any schoolchild. yourself in GR and SRT occupation and bread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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