** **

**TABLE OF CONTENTS:**

__APPENDIX
2:а DOPPLER EFFECT AND SRT.__

__APPENDIX
7: CHECKING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM IN THE CLFP__

__APPENDIX
10: ABOUT THE MEASUREMENT OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT BIDIRECTIONAL METHOD IN THE FRAME OF CLFP__

__APPENDIX
14: FIZEAU'S EXPERIMENT FOR DETECTION THE "PARTIAL DRAG"OF AN ETHER__

__APPENDIX
16: ON THE INVARIANCE OF THE WAVE EQUATION WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFORMATIONS CLFP__

** **

аIn
article once again shown, that the concept proposed by Lorentz and Fitzgerald,
fully resolve the difficulties encountered in the interpretation of the results of
the Michelson-Morley Experiment. Formulaа E=mc² obtained by Max Planck in the frame of
**this** concept. The concept of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald-Planck
is based on the previous experience of physics. The results obtained in the field of nuclear physics,
astronautics, at the accelerators of elementary particles confirm this concept and are based exactly on it.

On the contrary,
Einstein's SRT in his first "postulate" (about a constancy of speed of light relative to
any of the moving system) denies the physical principle of relativity of a motion,
being firmly experimentally proven fact. The view that in
SRT, on the basis of assumptions, directly contrary to the experimental data, by
mathematical transformations obtained something appropriate, is
erroneous. Formulas SRT draw a physical picture, which **impossible** to realize. No experimental evidence SRT and there can not be.
Opinion, that SRT explained the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, or is a consequence of it, is false.
The results of this experience directly **
contradict** SRT. The formula of the Planck E=mc² **is not deducible** in a frame of SRT and has no any relationship for to her and Einstein.
False is also the opinion that the concept of The Lorentz included in the SRT and is its part. Lorenz is not
one of the creator of the SRT, as this is the officially approved. The concept of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald-Planck
and a SRT are absolutely **different** and **mutually exclusive**. The method of "postulates", applied in SRT, is a
**nonsense** for physics, because its subject matter is the only reality.
Every concept in physical science has a right to exist only if it is proved its conformity to the physical
reality.

Proposed delete a SRT from the program of teaching of educational institutions, as false and an absurd theory. Instead, it is proposed to acquaint students with experimentally confirmable results of the work in this area Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Planck, Ives, Akimov and other.

Proposed to return to the study of the properties and nature of an ether- medium filling space surrounding us here already for 100 years excluded from consideration world science by Einstein and his followers, but is an integral part of the surrounding physical reality. Properties of this environment caused electric, magnetic, gravitational fields, the structure of atoms and molecules. A world ether is an integral component of the concept of Lorentz-Fitzgerald-Planck.

** **

The author of this article is not
professional physicist, does not have scientific degrees and ranks, he graduated from
the Taganrog Radio Engineering institute in 1977 with assignment of qualification
"the engineer of electronic technics". This article does not contain any special discoveries. All
basic formulas and their output are taken from the regular physics textbook for high schools and other
publicly available literature. Here only draws attention
on some ideas that have established themselves in modern physics taught in the
schools and institutes of higher education, the falsity of which is visible even on the level of knowledge
of secondary school.
First of all, this refers to the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT),
developed by Albert Einstein. Criticism of a SRT would not be complete without a
proposals **right**
alternative. The author is not going to offer such an alternative, but only
draws attention to the fact that it already exists a very long time. She was offered outstanding
representativers of the world of physical science: Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Planck. Here
it will be called the Concept of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald-Planck (KLFP).

**Once more about the Michelson-Morley
experiment**

** **

In order to get rid of common misconceptions, let us return once more to the review of the Michelson-Morley Experiment. It is widely known that the need for revision of the classic representations about the motion of material bodies appeared after the publication of the results of this experiment. In the interferometer was not offset the interference lines with different its orientation relative to the direction of motion of the Earth, although in the classical ideas, such a shift would take place.аа

According to the classical ideas,
light waves are free elastic vibrations in the environment, fill
all the space surrounding us, the world ether. The spreading speed of the
free elastic vibrations in the environment is constant and is equal to C. Spend once more time **maximum
simplified** review of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Let,
measuring arm of the interferometer Michelson-Morley still relatively
ether and has a length of L=L_{0}. The light beam passes in it the distance:

S=2L_{0}ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(1)

Fig. 1

ааааа

Let,
measuring arm of the interferometer is moving relative to the ether with speed V and directed along the motion. (See. Fig. 2) From the point A in the source position I to the point B' in the II the beam passes distance L+DL_{1}.

(L+DL_{1} ) /C= DL_{1}/ V,а whence

DL_{1}=L×V / (C-V)ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(2)

From the point BТ in the position II to the point AФ in the position III the beam passes distance L-DL_{2}.

(L-DL_{2})/ C= DL_{2}/ Vа ,

ааа DL_{2}=L× V / (C+V)аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(3)

аааааааааааааааааааааааа Fig.2

Total path traversed by the light beam in the measuring arm of the interferometer with respect to the aether is:

S_{1}=2L+DL_{1}-DL_{2}=2L+L×V / (C-V) - L×V / (C+V) = 2L×1 / (1-V^{2} / C^{2}) аor

аааааа wereаааа β=V/ C^{ }ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(4)

Let
measuring arm of the interferometer is moving relative to the ether with the same
speed V, but oppositely directed to the movement. (See.
Fig. 3) From a point A in the source
position I to the point BТ in the position II the light beam passes the distance L-DL_{2}.

(L-DL_{ 2} ) / C= DL_{2} / V ,аааааа whence

DL_{2}=L×V / (C+V)аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа
ааа(5)

From the point
BТ in the position II to the point AФ in the position III the light beam passes the distance L+DL_{1}.аа

(L+DL_{1}) / C=DL_{1 }/ V ,ааааа whenceааааааа

DL_{1}= L×V /
(C-V)ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(6)

аа аааааааааааааааааааааа╨шё.3

Total path traversed by the light beam with respect to the aether is:

S_{2}=2L+DL_{1}-DL_{2}=2L+L×V / (C-V) - L×V / (C+V)=2L×1 / (1-V^{2}/C^{2})а аааааааor

а

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(7)

From (4) and (7) we see that S_{1}=S_{2}, that is turn measuring arm of the interferometer
on 180░
in this case, does not shift of interference fringes.

Let now measuring arm of the interferometer is turned on 90░ to the direction of movement (See. Fig.4). Then the path A,BТ,AФ, followed by the light beam in the shoulder will be equal to:

S_{3}=2×(C×t_{1})ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(8)

Time t_{1} find out of the equationаааааааа

L_{0}^{2}+ (Vt_{1})^{2}=(Ct_{1})^{2} ,аааааа whence

ааFig.4

Substituting the obtained value in (8) we obtain:

Comparing
(9) with (4) and (7), we see that the S_{3}=S_{2}=S_{1}, under the conditions:

There is, if the linear dimensions of any of the material body, which is
measuring arm of the interferometer, while driving in the world ether are reduced in
the direction of motion according to the formula (10), then in the experiment of Michelson-Morley
**whill be no** offset
the interference fringes in the rotation of the interferometer, since passed
light beam path will not change. Such an explanation of the results
the experiment of Michelson-Morley experiment independently proposed Lorenz and
Fitzgerald. The formula (10) has the official name of the "Fitzgeralds contraction".

**ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT OF THE LORENTZ - FITZGERALD - PLANCK **

** **

Immediately
note that the condition (10) is the **the only,
necessary and sufficient** in addition to the classical ideas
to explain the results of Michelson - Morley experiment. Time and the law
the addition of velocities in the concept proposed by Lorentz and Fitzgerald, have
classical character, because in the derivation of formula (10) were used classic
knowledge of these physical concepts. It should be emphasized as well that in the
the formula (10) Lorentz and Fitzgerald considered movement of the interferometer
relative to the world ether. Contraction of the longitudinal size according to (10)
is due to the interaction of moving material objects in this environment,
therefore the existence of a world ether is in the concept essential and obligatory element,
as in the classical representations. It should be noted, that Fitzgeralds contraction
is **only** to the size of the
material bodies, but not to the parameters of space, which, as in the
classical representations, is homogeneous and isotropic. From the formula
(10) it follows a number of effects.

In the first place, it implies the impossibility for material bodies move on the world ether with a speed above the speed of propagation of light waves (free elastic oscillations) in the same environment. Since the classic law of addition speeds in the concept of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald persists, the relative speed two material bodies in it could approach to 2C. This is when two material bodies moving towards each other, each with the speed close to the speed of light relative to the ether. Two light waves, moving towards each other, have a relative speed 2C.

Secondly, in spite of the fact that the linear sizes of the motion material bodies are reduced in the direction of motion according to the formula (10), to the one, partycipated in the movement to detect this is difficult, because in equal degree will be reduced length of measuring etalon.

In the third, if in a moving frame of the traversed path will measured whith its own etalon of length, due to the reduction of its size in the direction of moverment actually path will be less than measured. Accordingly, the actual speed of the (distance travelled per unit of time) will be less than the measured at assistance contracted own standard of length of the moving system.

Consider two Cartesian coordinate system K and KТ (Fig. 5), axes of which are parallel to each other and are unidirectional. Let the system K rests relative to the ether, and the system KТ moving relative to it rectilinearly and uniformly with speed V along the axis x.

ааааааааааа Fig. 5

Let arrange in a moving frame a material object, so that the beginning of his match with the beginning of the reference coordinate system K', and end with some coordinate x' in this system. In classical physics, the transition from coordinate system K to coordinates in the system K' and back describes the transformations of Galileo:

x=Vt+xТаааааааааааааааа ааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(11)

xТ=x-Vtааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа (12).

How
the assumption made by Lorentz and Fitzgerald, impact on the transformations
Galileo? If you just imagine some a moving system, not
containing material objects, it does not. Parameters of space and time in
the concept of the Lorentz - Fitzgerald does not vary regarding the classic
submissions. However, if in the system, moving relative to the world ether,
there is any material body, its dimensions will undergo longitudinal
reduction according to (10) that will show the measurement standard of the fixed system.
But in the mobile system at the same time with an object will be reduced and standard
the length. Therefore measured by this standard length of the object will not change, with
what speed would neither moved the material object. We assume that the value of the
x', this is the **exactly** length of a material object, measured in mobile
system K' by own standard of length. Then with
the Fitzgeralds contraction (10) for the motion of material bodies
Galilean transformation (11), (12) in our case come to
the view :

аа

Expression
(13) and (14), directly following from the "Fitzgeralds contraction", for the first time displayed
Lorentz and these should be called "the Lorentz Transformations". They match to
the transformations of Galileo in classical physics, provided that
size x' **this is
length of a material object in the direction of motion relative to the ether,
measured in the moving system by its own standard of the length. ** It is Important
to note that the physical length of the object in both systems, one and the same.
The only difference is in the measured values.

What speed match to the speed V if the path measured by the standard of the length of mobile system? To determine this question let us consider the process of moverment of KТ with respect to K close to the moment of time t=0. From (13) or(14)

Let differentiate both parts of the equality by the time:

from wher

Next
step in the development of the concept of the Lorentz and Fitzgerald made Max Planck. He is the
the author of the following ways derive the formula of linc betwin the mass and energy,
falsely attributed to A. Einstein. In principle, the Max Planck was one of the first popular writers
SRT and concluded formula E=mC^{2} to make it more
similarity of science. But, he was at that time still very poorly understand the fundamentals of a SRT,
therefore habitually used in the derivation classical Newtons time, and this
just corresponds to CLFP. In the literature is mentioned several authors,
independently made the conclusion aforementioned formula previously by other methods. At
the derivation of formula Max Planck proceeded from the principle of Galilean relativity. Galileo
once expressed it in such informal form: "In the cabin of the ship fly
butterfly, from vessel to vessel fall drops, people throw each other fruits ... All of
these various movements that will result in the cabin, occur entirely
equally, whether the ship on rests or moving uniformly". That mechanical
phenomena occur equally in systems, moving relative to each other
rectilinearly and uniformly (inertial), is firmly experimentally
established fact. In CLFP in a system moving relative to the world ether,
for the implementation of the relativity principle of Galileo should literally carry out
the laws of mechanics, in particular, of Newton's second law and the law of conservation of energy,
regardless of the speed of the system. Let, for example, material
object, moving together with system K', has a lot of mass m. Apply to him a force F in the section of the path dS. In the moving system should literally carry out
Newton's second law: F=d(mVТ) / dt .а But actually followed with respect to the aether path will be dS=V×dt . Then the change in the kinetic energy of the body will be:

Substituting to this value VТ from (15), we whill get:

Where after integration both parts of the equation have:

When β=0, E_{k}=0, hence, const= -mC^{2}. If we imagine the total energy of the body in the form of a sum of the kinetic
and a certain "zero-energy": E_{я}=E_{k}+E_{0} ,а theа E_{k}=E_{я}-E_{0 . }аComparing this expression with (17) it is possible to come to the
the conclusion that

and

E_{0}= mC^{2}ааааааааа ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(19)

Formulas
(18), (19) by this way were derived by the outstanding German physicist Max Planck,
as we can see, **strictly within the**
the concept of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald.. So he is just the same can be rightfully considered
as co-author of this concept. Officially formula falsely attributed to A. Einstein. Einstein
repeatedly tried to derive this formula in the framework of the SRT, but never was able to do
it mathematically correct way. Get this formula in the framework of the SRT mathematically
correct way is impossible. Validity of the formula (19) was confirmed in nuclear physics, where the defect
mass between source components and products of nuclear reactions is expressed in
the allocation of energy.

The formulas (18) and (19) are
withdrawn from the account of the slowdown of the motion of material bodies with respect to a world
ether compared with classical performances. But in
the mobile system, where for measuring the traversed path, there is only
own standard of length, the classical laws of mechanics continue to be carried out **literally**, regardless of the speed of
movement. Really, if in (16) instead of the actual distance travelled
with respect to the ether dS = Vdt, we take the value of the passed way,
measured by own standard of the length of mobile system dS = V't, then we get:

there are, we have the classical value of the kinetic energy.

In playful form a picture which draws CLFP, one could imagine about so: On the road going guy on a cart pulled by a horse. To increase the speed of the cart he expend the one horsepower. A man measures the passed way by odometer and time by a stopwatch. And all in it goes perfectly. Calculated speed of the cart increases in strict accordance with the second Newton's law. No speed limit is not felt. Here it is already exceeded the speed of light and continues to grow, aiming to infinity. And all would be it was good, but this guy notices that the milestones along the road there are not so often as it follows from the calculations, and, if we calculate speed by the number of milestones, passed in a unit of time, it turns out that she is not above the speed of light. But without jokes in CLFP literally carryed out the principle of relativity of a motion, informally stated Galilei. If the moving system is closed, isolated from the outside world and is inertial, the mechanical phenomena occur in it in accordance with the classical laws, regardless of the speed of movement relative to the world ether. Inside the moving isolated system moving material body has less actual speed, than in classical mechanics, but in equal degree is reduced the distance. So it reaches one and the same points over equal intervals of time regardless of the speed of the moving inertial system. (To use the terminology of a SRT, it is possible to tell, that in CLFP invariant in inertial systems is the time of processes.) That is mechanical phenomena according to CLFP occur in the isolated inertial systems in full compliance with the laws of classical mechanics. In the APPENDIX 4 shows that, with the Doppler effect in an isolated inertial system the frequency of optical sources located inside the system, perceived it same as in the system, fixed relative to the wor ether. In APPENDIX 15 it is shown, that with the account of the anomalous Doppler effect it is compensated the effects of the second order of smallness in the experiments with bidirectional traffic the light beam. But this does not mean that by thin experiments in the field of optical phenomena motion of the inertial system relative to the ether not can be detected. Attempts to treat Galileo's principle of relativity in the form "by any experiments can not be found" are unlawful. The genius of Galileo Galilei is in what he said no more and no less than what was said. Illumination of the cabin of the ship, the view of passengers and butterflies, the colour of the fruit does not depend on the velocity of its movement, and about a thin optical effects Galileo nothing mentioned.

In modern physics popular idea of corpuscular-wave dualism particles of the microcosm. They have a direct relationship to the world ether. The matter is that in addition to microparticles there is always a environment - a world ether. Every motion of microparticles is accompanied by a wave process in the environment - a de Broglie waves in the ether, the length of which is equal to:

whereаа h Ц Planck's constant;

p Ц The particle momentum, relative to the world ether, measured from the the "mobile" system.

In our case momentum in the mobile system has a classical valueа p = mVТ. Substituting this value into (20) with account of (15) we obtain the wavelength de Broglie, measured in the system, fixed relative to the ether:

Hence, by the way, should be an expression for the relativistic momentum:

а

In these formulas V is the velocity of the particle relative to the world ether, measured in the system, fixed relative to the world ether.

For visibility denote:

Then the expression (21) can be rewritten in the form:

Expression
(23) is equivalent to the formula "Fitzgerald's contraction". Therefore, "Fitzgerald's contraction"
directly linked to the reduction of de Broglie wave length. Nature
de Broglie waves from the refusal to recognize the existence of ether not
explained in modern physics. Although it is obvious that this is the wave process,
inevitably accompanying the motion of microparticles in their environment - world
ether. Nevertheless, it is known that the length of the de Broglie waves determines the dimensions of the
electronic orbits of atoms (remember that Niels Bohr identified dimensions of the orbits of
the electron in a hydrogen atom from the conditions of a whole number of laying on them
de Broglie waves), and, therefore, the size of atoms and molecules, which are
all the material objects of the surrounding world. Reducing the length of the de Broglie wave in the direction
of motion according to (23) causes a reduction in the length of **any** material bodies, consisting of atoms
and molecules, along the direction of motion according to (10), not depending on the hardness
sample and its chemical composition.

"Fitzgerald's contraction" was the hypothesis that explain the results of Michelson-Morley Experiment. From the "Fitzgerald's contraction" should be obtaned an expression for the the relativistic momentum, the substitution of which in the formula for the length of the wave of de Broglie shows that "Fitzgerald's contraction" directly related to the additional relativistic reduction of de Broglie wave length. But, the source here is, all the same, additional relativistic shrinkage of de Broglie wave length, the mechanism of which still remained unclear. Step in the understanding of the phenomenon, in my opinion, is presented in the book of J. Pierce "Almost oll about waves" The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England 1974. In my opinion, an outstanding american scientist in the field of electronics and acoustics John Robinson Pierce (1910-2002).) (see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R_Pierce) is the author of this review. It turned out, an additional reduction the size of the wave process in the direction of motion is a common feature of wave processes regardless of the nature of a homogeneous isotropic medium. It Is known, the propagation of waves in a homogeneous isotropic medium is described by a wave equation, whose form for media of a different nature is the same and the only differs by velocity of free oscillations in a particular environment. There Are such an equation for electromagnetic waves. Some sincerely believe it is purely coincidental. In fact, the equations are identical because physics of processes, mainly, the same. Electromagnetic waves, it is also waves in the environment. Medium is a world ether. In the generalized form for free space without charges and currents wave equation can be written as:

where: C Ц the speed of light (free oscillations) in vacuum (world ether);

аааааааа t Ц time (the absolute Newtonian);

аааааааа
Φ(x,y,z,t) Ц one of the projections of the vectors of the electric **E** or magnetic **H** field, for example E_{y}(x,y,z.t). This can be so projection E_{x}, E_{z}, H_{x}, H_{y}, H_{z} .

It is known the same way that the solution of the wave equation can be any function type:

f(x,y,z,t)=f(t - k_{x}xа - k_{y}y - k_{z}z + α)

уфх:а
k_{x}, k_{y}, k_{z} must satisfy the condition:

So when k_{y} = k_{z} =0, k_{x}=1/C the decision may be the wave process of arbitrary shape
spreading along the axis of the x with the speed of light C. This may be as a periodic function, as well as single pulse
(soliton).

Nature de Broglie wavelength - disturbances accompanying the motion of microparticles in the world ether is not clear. De Broglie introduced the concept of the existence of such a wave by analogy with the light quantum - an electromagnetic wave. In any case, the medium for the propagation of the light quanta and de Broglie waves one and the same. Speed propagation of free oscillations in this environment (world ether) is equal to the speed of light. And this, it seems, enough to write the wave equation and for the de Broglie wavelength. J. R. Pierce does this through the following reasoning. For severity and correctness of their't vouch for. But, direction of thought, of course, correct. The solution of a wave equation is sought in the form of:

Φ=f(x-ut,y,z),

here Φ Ц a certain disturbance accompany the movement of the micro particles in the ether along the axis of the x with speed u. The nature and the form it is not known. The substitution of this kind of decision in the wave equation shows that the function must satisfy condition:

Here the second derivative by time

moved to the left-hand part of equality and replaced by the equivalent value of the second derivative by coordinate x. Make change of variable:

.

Then:

.

Substituting this value into (25) we get:

Equation (27) has the same type, as equation (24), if it does not depend on time. Wave equation, not time-dependent, is the equation which describes the form of perturbations (in this the case of de Broglie waves) in the reference frame moving along with microparticle, that is, in our case, it is in the system KТ. That is, form of perturbation (the de Broglie wavelength), specified in the system, moving along with microparticle, in the system, fixed relative to the world ether, is condensed according to the expression (26) along the direction of motion, equivalent "Fitzgerald's contraction". This decline follows from the properties of wave processes and does not depend on the type of a homogeneous isotropic medium and the form of the perturbation. J. R. Pierce writes that such a reduction can be found in environment around a moving aircraft or submarine. The difference is only in the fact, that reduction of the de Broglie waves leads also to a reduction of the measuring etalon in the moving system, so finding it harder.

**THE HYPOTHESIS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE WORLD ETHER **

** **

а Let us try to express and develop a hypothesis about
the nature of a world ether, as physicists, under the control of the
preachers SRT, do this is obviously not going to. Let's start with a simple.
There is an environment - a world ether. There are also a positive
and negatively charged particles. Name charged particles repel
from each other, opposite charged are attracted. For me personally not
subject to doubt, that the electrostatic forces are the result of differences
pressure arising in a media - world ether. But how one and the same
media may on the likely charged particles act repeling, and on
opposite charged - attracting? I did not have enough imagination to imagine
any other mechanism of such action, except as to believe that repulsion
the same charges and the attraction of opposite is the result of a
the oscillatory process, committed both negatively and positively charged
particles in antiphase. Let's imagine, that positively and negatively
charged particles have in there structure the spherical nucleus, which make
oscillatory motion, that increasing and reducing its volume. Kernel,
positively and negatively charged particles are the same, oscillate with the same
frequency and amplitude, but, in antiphase. When the kernel expands, it creates
around himself a pressure which is higher than the average pressure of the world ether, when the kernel
shrinks, around a charged particle creates pressure below average. The difference
of the pressure in the environment creates the forces pushing the same charges, and
attracting the opposite. But in order for this scheme to work, the kernel of all
charged particles in the whole Universe should make oscillatory motion **absolutely** synchronously. That is, in this scheme
the concept of absolute simultaneity of classical physics has a physical but not
the philosophical foundation. The number of oscillations described periodic
process can be associated with the passage of time. This is not the Time itself, but, in any
case, the periodic process, lying in the basis of all physical phenomena,
close to the notion of "absolute Time of Newton. "The physical world, thus,
exist in a repetitive cycle of time, and the axis of the
time from the present to the past and the future is a sequence of
such cycles.

Next it is necessary to note the following: expansion phase charged microparticles, in the framework of a single elementary cycle is replaced by phase of compression. At the same time electrostatic field of a charged particle in principle is distributed in the space to infinity. Another charged particle should respond to phase of expansion and compression on the distance up to infinity. This Is requires almost infinite velocity of propagation of electrostatic field. This seems impossible. But, nothing impossible there is in it. According To The the hypothesis of Paul Dirac physical vacuum, that there is an ether, consists of electron-positron pairs. The electrons and positrons are the same charged particles, making the same phase of expansion and compression. Only, because of the fact that they are in opposition, and in the rest the same, the total volume of such pair remains unchanged and pressure changes do not occur. Distribution of the electrostatic field to infinity (everywhere, where there is ether) within a single elementary cycle occurs because in the creation of pressure fields and for the expansion phase and for the compression phase of a charged particles all of electron-positron pairs ether are included at the same time. I'll explain this by such an example: the Great Trans-Siberian railway was built in a surprisingly short period of time. Why? Because the building of railway it was started simultaneously at multiple points along the route of railway. If would railway built consistently one site from the beginning to the end, the building stretching to the many big time. And in the case of ether electrostatic field is transmitted cells of the ether and for the compression phase and the phase of expansion for one elementary cycle to infinity, because they are all join in formation field of pressures at the same time. But it is for the field of fixed charge. Change of the electrostatic field can be transferred only sequentially. They are transmitted with finite speed - the speed of light. Because of this leads to the forces of inertia, induction, as well as compression of all electrostatic fields in the direction of motion according to the formula Fitzgerald's contraction on comparison with a condition of a field of microparticles, fixed relative to the ether.

Electrons and positrons, of which consists an ether, refer to the "light" microparticles. But, all still the ether is extremely dense media, perhaps, the most dense available in nature. A genius inventor and scientist Nikola Tesla considered the usual matter as bubbles floating in the ether. But, then why not there is gravitational collapse, if around us there is a huge close-packed weight? In the experiments at the accelerators of particles fermions are always born in pairs: a particle - antiparticle. There is no reason to believe that our the world, consisting of fermions, was born through a different mechanism. But, where there is anti-particles, match to the particles of our world? Where the antimatter? All particles of our world test to each other weak by the standards of the microworld the gravitational attraction. From reasons of symmetry of the world and the antiworld particles antimatter should also feel to each other gravitational attraction. But, if the particle (for example, electrically neutral molecules and atoms) and antiparticles would feel to each other gravitational attraction, they would long ago already are getting attracted to each other, and would have been a grand annihilation explosion. Our world exist because that matter and antimatter experience in relation each other's gravitational repulsion (antigravity), and the clash of them are not threatened. Such an idea first proposed american astrophysics Burbidge and Hoyle in the 60's years of the last century. Ether, probably, consists of an electron-positron pairs. He is half of the matter, half of antimatter. So in gravitational respect (to himself) it is neutral.

The views expressed in this hypothesis is at the stage of ideas. The purpose was to show that model of electrical and other phenomena in the concept of the ether can be offered.

** **

** THE EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
IS THE GREATEST SCAM IN THE HISTORY OF PHYSICS**

Thanks to
factors, extremely far from the subject and methods of study the phenomena used in
physical science (the type of decision of the French Academy of sciences has not
accepted for consideration and publication the works critical to SRT, on the equal rights with
the projects of "perpetuum mobile "), CLFP was rejected, and practically
forgotten. Instead of it to all school and university textbooks of physics was included
widely advertised by mass media false and absurd
"The special theory of relativity" (SRT) by Einstein, that constituted
the greatest **fraud** in the history of physics.

Below
provides conversion of Einstein (-1) - (-6) for some system KТ, moving rectilinearly and uniformly wis respect to
another systemа K,
considered to be fixed, with the speed of V along the axis of the x. To distinguish the official formula SRT
of them derivatives formula and formulas CLFP shall mark them a sign (-). Some
the authors completely false called Einstein's equations (-1) - (-6) equations
Einstein's and Lorentz or even just the equations of the Lorentz. Einstein's Equations (-1)
- (-6) differ fundamentally from those of Lorentz equations (13), (14) and on the mind, and already
the fact that in them it is a question not about the size of material bodies, but on the **the parameters of space and time**. That is,
included in the equations of Einstein's values have another physical meaning, than in
the equations of the Lorentz, although equation (-2) look like (14). "System
coordinates", considered in a SRT, in itself is the subject of an imaginary.
In SRT is not saying that in it necessarily should be present
material object. According to Einstein it turns out that if we imagined the movement
system K' whis respect to system K in some region of space, even if it **does not** contain any material objects,
the parameters of time and space in this area need to change. Such
miracles while no one is watching, but we will continue our consideration of a SRT,
by putting in a moving system material object, just as we did
when considering CLFP, in the hope that together with the parameters of space is
equally change and its parameters. So, let axis of both systems
in parallel.

y=yТааааааааааааааааааааааааааа ааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(-5)аааааааа

z=zТаааааааааааааааааааааааааааа ааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(-6)

This is
**official formulas SRT **. They can be
found in [1] under the numbers (63.15) and (63.16). In them it would be more rightly to make
some changes and additions. The matter is that appearing in them values t and tТ **does not have any relationship **
to the notion of "time", used in classical physics, life and Lorentz transformations
(13), (14). Einstein called these the "space-time". It is as
would take time, but with the spatial components, that is, current in different
directions with different tempos. In formulas (-1 ... -4) instead of the t and tТ it would be more correct to put the t_{x} ш t_{x}Т. In addition, it would be necessary to add t_{y}=t_{y}Т and t_{z}=t_{z}Т. This is evident, because in formulas (-3) and (-4) t and
t' depends only on the coordinate x. The value of V in the case under consideration is
the projection of the velocity vector on the coordinate x, that is, in fact, this is V_{xа }а. At the same time V_{y}=V_{z}=0. Substituting these values into (-3) and (-4), we obtain t_{y}=t_{y}Т , t_{z}=t_{z}Т.а Such phenomenon, as the time with spatial
components while is not detected in the nature. Clocks turning in the space with respect to the
the coordinates of x would have to change the speed, if they measured
Einstein's "space-time". Not invented the standard and the unit of measurement
"space-time". In this point discussion of SRT, as an absurd concept, can
be finished. But for people with different level of knowledge, thinking, intellect
is different and the level of credibility of the arguments. So try to show that
time with spatial components is by far not the only
absurd in a SRT.

Pay
attention to the fact that the Lorentz transformation (13), (14), (as well as conversion
Galileo (11), (12)) , although written in the form of two equations, but in fact it is **one** the equation. Equations are equivalent,
since converted into each other permutation of members on different sides of the
equality by the rules of equivalent transformation of mathematics. From
mathematical physics as well known, that to describe the straight-line and
uniform motion (in particular system K' in system K) necessary and sufficient is **one** linear equation, which takes place in
transformations of Galilei and Lorentz. Moreover, it is known that each linear
(in time) equation can be mutually definitely put in correspondence with a certain
inertial system, and any difference in the equations leads to differences in
described them moving inertial frames of reference. In a SRT linear equation (-1)
and (-2) are different, so they are not one and the same, but two **different** systems KТ and KФ, moving relative to the system K. The analysis shows that the system K' and K" move relative to the K at the same speed V (front ends of material objects in these systems), but still
this is different systems, because they have different requirements for the length of the
material objects in them. In the system described by equation (-1) to perform
asked requirements the object must prolonged, and in the system described by the
equation (-2) - to be reduced on the length whis respect in the state of rest. To
make this more clear let us rewrite the equation (-1) and (-2) in the form (28) and (29)
respectively.

Both equation (28) and (29) break one and the same physical segment x in two parts, but in different proportions. Left terms in the equations (28) and (29) physically represent the path traversed by the beginning of the coordinate systems K', K" or (in our case) back end of material objects in these systems, and the right - length of a material object, recalculated in the length scale stationary system. The difference between the lengths of an object in two moving different systems described by equations (-1) and (-2) is:

аΔ→∞ when V→C (or β→1).

At a relative speed
movement that seeks to the speed of light, the difference between the lengths of objects in
systems KТ and KФ seeks to **
infinity**. See Fig. 6

Fig.6

For even greater clarity consider a numerical example. Let C=300 tkm/1 (Thousand kilometers per unit of Einstein's "space-time". For measurement

Einstein's "space-time"
forgot to invent the unit of measurement, as well as
the measuring instrument.); V=150 tkm/1; β=0.5; t=1; x'=100 kilometers. From (-3) find t'=0.7. Then (28) will take the form of 236.6=121.2+115.4,
there is, the length of the object should from a 100 tkm increase to 115.4 tkm. And (29) gives another
partitioning 236.6=150+86.6. That is, to comply with conditions, specified by this
equation an object with a 100 tkm should be reduced to 86.6 thousand kilometers. But the real
material object can be either stretched or compressed, do the both
for the same object at the same time **is impossible**.
Then equation (-1) and (-2) at the material object x'≠0, contain contradictory mutually
exclusive conditions are not implemented in the real world of physical objects.
Therefore, the theory based on the equations (-1), (-2)
is deliberately false. One may argue that in CLFP also incorporate two
different length of the physical object. But there is a **the same** physical length, measured by
two standards of different scale. This is nothing unusual. We deal with similar
constantly in everyday life, measuring the length by different rulers, made
with low accuracy. In a SRT, to meet the conditions of equations (-1) and
(-2), length of one and the same object, measured by the same standard, should
have the **different **values, and the difference
at V→C tends to infinity. For real
material objects it is not physically feasible. We can look at the situation,
painting by SRT, on the other view, that the equation (-1) and (-2) describe the two different
system K' and K", moving on K at the same speed V. In them there are the same objects, but for
meet the Einstein's equations in one of the systems object must stretched,
and in another compressed. This is contrary to a fundamental principle, thanks to
which physics in general, there are, as a science: the notion that in
the same conditions, the same physical processes occur in the same way. The Equation
(-1) and (-2) are contrary to this fundamental principle.

Officially (in administrative way) in a SRT approved only formula for reducing the length of the object. In [1] the official formula SRT for the length of the object can be found under number 64.1:

There under the number 64.2 is the official formula SRT to slow down "space-time":

But
according to this **approved**
formulas is not comply the main "postulate" SRT of the constancy of the speed of light in
all inertial systems of reference. Really, if we will choose in a fixed
system a certain platform, such length L_{3} thet a beam of light at a speed C overcomes this distance for a period of
"space-time" Δt_{3}. That is

а

Now we will accelerate the platform up to speed V and check the speed with which the same thing happens in the mobile system according to the official formula of SRT. With the account of (-7), (-8) and (31)

Here is,
the speed of movement of the ray of light in the moving system, according to the **approved** (canonical) formulas
SRT, more then C. In other words, in officially approved formulas SRT is not comply
the principle of the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial systems of reference.
To the speed of light remained, the relativistic member must
be equally fitted relatively labeled values in the formula
conversion length and in the transformation of the space-time: in both
formulas in the numerator, or in both formulas in the denominator. Then when calculating the
speed, they will be reduced. When relativistic members in these formulas
are located in different ways, as it takes place in oficial formulas of SRT, when calculating the speed they
do not shorten, and be multiplied, and the speed of light is not saved. If you are taking
the hypothesis on the reduction of length of moving objects in the direction of the movement for the
the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light space-time should not
slow down but must accelerate in the moving system.

The Presence
in SRT official formula deceleration of "space-time" (-8) assumes the **different** course of physical processes in
systems, moving with different relative speeds, that is ** rejected Galileo's principle of relativity**
which is considered to be firmly established experimental fact. To the words
preachers SRT proclaim the same course of physical processes in
inertial systems. But what kind of the same course of the processes can go
speech, if according to (-8) at speeds close to the speed of light, any
physical processes in the system is impossible at all due to the stop of "space-time"?

The main
"postulate" about the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial systems SRT rejects
firmly confirmed in practice the classical law of addition of velocities, and
at the same time such a "trifle "as the laws of addition of elementary arithmetic.
For SRT two of the photon,
moving to meet each other, each with the velocity C, have a relative
speed also equal C. That is, C+C=C, or after a reduction in C: **1+1=1**. This is a mockery to the rules of
arithmetic. Even more absurd SRT visible in the statement, that the two photons,
moving in the same direction, just have a relative speed of C
relative to each other. That is C-C=C or 1-1=1. The presence of such an absurdity in the education and
reference literature can only be explained by **huge
pressure of the administrative factor** by the followers of A.
Einstein, who took the leading positions in the world of physical science.

Fig. 7

In
SRT rejected **the principle of relativity
movement**. Talking about the speed of the motion has meaning only with
update: relative to what? In classical physics and CLFP the speed of light, is
the spreading speed of the free oscillations in the environment, that is, it is the speed
relative to the world ether. In SRT the speed of light is the speed by itself:
nor concerning what and for all at once. Is used in physics
the concept of "speed" of such a nature does not possess.

Denial existence of a world ether in SRT turns light waves, electrical and the magnetic field of physical objects in the objects of the religious-mystical. Wave of nothing in nothing, nothing, which has the force effect on the surrounding objects, not can serve as a subject of study by physics.

Approval of
the fact, that SRT explained the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, is **false**. In fact, these results
explained **only **CLFP, and to SRT, they just
contradict. This is evident from the simple considerations. According to the official formula
SRT (-7) it recognizes the longitudinal reduction of the material objects, such
as Fitzgerald's contraction in CLFP. On the other hand, according to (-5) and (-6) in
the direction perpendicular to the motion, SRT dimensions of material bodies not
change. Therefore, measuring arm of the interferometer on the longitudinal orientation and
across the motion will have different dimensions. But, the speed of light according to the
the postulate a SRT in all directions one and the same. The light beam with **the same** according to SRT speed C whill be overcome different lengths of arms of the interferometer
for miscellaneous "space-time", it means that there should be offset
the interference pattern, which is not observed in practice.а а

Wrong
is an opinion of the mathematical integrity of SRT. As was shown above, in
it rejected even the rules of addition of elementary arithmetic (!). In different
textbooks are several ways to derive the Einstein equations. In the early edition of
[1] **on the basis of the classical law of addition
speeds** recorded two linear equations. Then the right and left
part of them in pairs multiplys (the same method was applied in the
textbook 2006). But this is not quite correct a mathematical operation. She
provides equivalence of source data, only in regard to the roots, but not in
character of dependence, because from of the linear equation is obtaned
the second order or the square. The application of such operations in mathematics
is acceptable, if you are looking for **the roots** of
equations. If you use the dependence, it is not. In SRT
the roots of the equations is not searched, and is used exactly the dependence obtained mathematicaly
incorrect way. In a more recent publication [1] with the purpose of camouflage
fraud is used more difficult and complicated way to derive the equations of Einstein's transformation.
But when writing the equations (63.13) is used pre-construction
in the square of both parts of equation (63.4) and (63.5). This is again not quite
correct mathematicaly operation. With the building in the square of both parts of the
equation inevitably there is an additional root, not the appropriate to the
original equation. The execution of this operation is allowed only if mathematics
provided analysis and ** delete **
additional root. In a SRT it is not done.

In one of the textbooks (for Moscow State university) "postulate" Einstein about a constancy of speed of light in inertial systems is replaced by other "postulate": on the preservation in inertial frames of "four-dimensional interval." A one-dimensional interval according to (-7) they have not preserved, and the "four-dimensional" why it should be retained (!). This is another attempt of the speculators from the physics to camouflage frauds. As a matter of fact, it is the same "postulate" of the constancy of the the speed of light, but the more complicated. The human brain is designed nature for handling objects, with not more than three spatial dimensions. Preachers SRT believe that if they will operate on four-dimensional space that the human brain is not capable to visualize their scams do not be so noticeable. However, if we consider simple cases with the elimination of extra dimensions, all floats to the surface. These examples here will not be considered. You can find them in the literature and have a good laugh.

Conclusion the Plank's formula (18), (19), corresponding CLFP, one-to-one taken from a early edition of the textbook [1] (1970). But within a SRT such a conclusion is not obtained. In CLFP source to derive the formula is the assumption, that in the mobile system classical laws of mechanics are performtd literally. And further process is considered in the system, fixed relative to the world ether, with the relevant conversion speed. On CLFP:

ааааааааа

Among formulas SRT you can find the formula for dx', suitable for this occasion. But in a SRT besides changing of the object length in system K' changes and "space-time" or "own time" in the "moving" system. On SRT

ааааааааааааа

At
this, in all available in the SRT equitable options for dxТ and dtТ (up to 8 options) the formula (15) does not obtain. At
the Planck's formula on the stage (16) there was a reduction dt, and further
the only differentials on speed. But this is true only in
the CLFP, where the time in all systems is one and the same. Within SRT reduction
does not happen because in the numerator we have dt, and in the denominator dt', and dt'≠dt. In addition, in CLFP, as in classical physics,
time is **the independent**
variable. It does not depend on spatial coordinates, which is used
by the differentiation. A SRT an Einstein's "space-time" **is a function of the coordinate x.** On the rules of
differentiation when calculating the derivative d/dt' in this case it is necessary
additionally to take the derivative of "space-time" by the coordinate x: dt'/dx.
Derivation of Planck's formula, made in the framework CLFP, quite obviously it is impossible
repeat within a SRT.

Formulas (18), (19) were derived Max Planck, proceeding from the principle of relativity Galileo, which in a SRT is denied.

Itself the concept of "postulate", applied in a SRT is a nonsense for physics. Any adoption listed in physics, requires evidence on meeting to physical reality.

Absurd
and obviously false position SRT can be transfered more. We'll still
one. According to the **the**
formula SRT (-8) any mutual move objects causes delay
"space-time". But the relative motion of the objects in the Universe
there is already a lot of billions of years. For this time Einstein's "space-time"
would have to stop and settle down.

SRT
is a complete collection of absurdities. But this concept in the modern
physics administrative way legalized as the only correct.
Due to this and in all the physics established the principle, according to which the
review in it are accepted only similar "crazy" concept.
The object of the study of modern physics were not real phenomena, and not even
imaginely, but only such, which can not be
imagine, but, allegedly, they are precisely described mathematically. All would have been good
if the mathematical transformations were carried out correctly. However, the author himself of
such an approach Einstein, applied in a SRT incorrect mathematical
conversion at the level of knowledge **middle school**.
On the Earth is billions of people have secondary education, but none of them for 100 years
existence of a SRT so it has not noticed. It is easy to imagine, what can
do the followers of A. Einstein using more sophisticated mathematics,
available much more narrow circle of people. In recent years, for example, they
came to the allegations of the existence of "dark energy" that is complete
semantic synonymous with "evil forces".

In CLFP described effects have the physical nature of the interaction of a moving material bodys with the environment. The presence of common environment for all motion material bodies provides all the physical aspects, such as the movement, and his relativity, observed in practice. In SRT the effects have not physical, but religious-mystical nature. The starting point in a SRT is the law, written by A. Einstein for nature: the law of the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial systems. Only in this the law forgot to register performers. In SRT each micro particle of the Universe should be fitted with a device, seting the Einstein's "space-time" for this microparticles. And this device must constantly adjust according from the velocity of the particle relative to other to meet the Einstein's equations. Moreover, one device here clearly not manage. In each microparticle should be so much devices to set the Einstein's "space-time" how many there are other particles in the Universe. No more and no less, because the relative speed with them are all different. If any particle broke up, in all the other particles of the Universe in the same moment must be to add-on such a device for each new accounting unit. Who but the Lord God our Jesus Christ, the almighty and alknowty, is capable of fulfilling such a job? Who but the Lord God is able to know the speed with which moves this microparticle on any other in the Universe, to adjust relevant to this movement the value of "space-time" in the device, his master? And we still do not mix tiny instruments related to different microparticles! Whether not too much followers of Einstein owercharged Lord ridiculous introductory tasks?

Our academics like to show their "struggle against pseudoscience". SRT is a classic example of the terry pseudoscience in all its glory. However, their she is quite satisfied with.

**ON THE EXPERIMENTAL "CONFIRMATION" AND THE REFUTATION OF SRT**

Above it was stated that the experimental bases CLFP are the Michelson-Morley experiment and the relativity principle of Galileo, which not SRT correspond to. The formula (19), confirmed in nuclear physics, as well indicates justice CLFP. This formula falsely attributed to SRT. Me accidentally it became known, that the calculations in the space for accounting relativistic effects fix the starting point missiles relative to the "fixed stars". That is, seek to take account of rocket movement relative to the world ether, that corresponds to CLFP, and according to the officially proclaimed "the postulates of the" SRT identify the system associated with the "fixed stars" no need, all the other her have equal rights. That is, in practical astronautics calculations are according to Lorentz, and not according to Einstein. The more it is time to stop fooling especially children and youth A. Einstein's SRT.

The most
widely publicized experimental "proof" of SRT is the increase in
life time of unstable particles at their accelerated in sinchrofasotron to
speeds close to the speed of light. This is interpreted as evidence of
formula (-8). But the formula (-8) SRT applies only to the **the longitudinal ** component of the Einstein's "space-time".
But cross components should be equal to the values in a fixed system.
In other words, an experiment in sinchrofasotron confirmed SRT only in the one case,
if it was possible to prove that the elementary particle in the longitudinal
direction broke up with delay (-8), and in the cross, without any delay,
as if the particle is at the state of rest. If to consider (and charlatans of physics
do so), that in the formula (-8) it is about the usual physical time, and not on
Einstein's "space-time", the proof of its validity would be
the disappearance of a particle in the past. The slowing of time corresponds to a delay in
the time axis. It would be fine by particles in sinchrofasotron to send greetings
our forefathers. But this is not observed and would be contrary to the conservation laws, firmly
installed for the micro-world. With all possible speeds of moving particle in a
sinchrofasotron, they not disappear, remaining in **our** time and **our** space. In addition, as it was
shown above, for the implementation of the postulate about the constancy of the speed of light, time
life of unstable particles would not increase, but must to decrease. Therefore
slow decay of unstable particles at their accelerated in sinchrofasotron not
neither has any relationship to Einstein's special relativity theory, if it occurs at all in the
physical reality. In APPENDIX 13 to this article analyzed
the experiments, which are given in the reasoning behind the conclusion of increesing the time
life of unstable particles at high speeds. On the method
of the conclusions they are shaped trickery. The conclusion about the
increase the life time of muons in the composition of the cosmic rays is done on the basis
their detection at the surface of the earth, at that time, as they are formed on any
the height in the atmosphere and even under the ground. Conclusion to increase the life time of the muons
in accelerators is done on the basis of registration not of the muon, but the stable
particles - electrons, the time of life which is unlimited. The conclusions are not
correctly, the data are adjusted. So, probably, any increase in time
life of unstable particles at high speeds of movement in general is not present.
Experimentally confirm the conclusions SRT impossible. If in SRT is recognized
reduction facilities, a similar "Fitzgerald's reduction", in order to observe
the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light, "space-time" should not
slow down but must speed up. That is, in this case decay of unstable particles
should have not slow down as it is officially declared, but accelerate.
If you accept the slow down of "space-time", in order to observe the
the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light charged particles in sinchrofasotron
should at speeds close to the speed of light, have a length of close to
infinity. In the Universe there are some luminous objects,
moving with the speed close to the speed of light, but they do not have infinite
length.

In
the literature is widely touted experiment Hafele and Keating 1972.
Experimenters have traveled with cezium atomic clock on the plane around
the Earth, the first in the eastern direction, then in the west. At the end of the
travel clock were compared with the reference in Washington. Experiment
was brought in as a **direct**
confirmation slowing down the time in the moving system (citation index in
the scientific literature - more than 1000 with a summary of the good coincidence with the predictions of
SRT). It turned out that they brought with them 4 copies of clocks. In 1972 were
published the results obtained on the copy, which is most close
with "predictions" SRT, while the other copies given
drift including and of opposite sign. That is really all it was in
error limits of clocks, and it was, in fact, the falsification.
A detailed analysis of the complete results of the experiment is given in the article 1996.: "Hafele
& Keating Tests; Did They'Prove Anything?" http://jtdigest.narod.ru/dig1_02/einstain.htm
For all the "not inertiality" experiment real results do not confirm
official predictions SRT of a slowing of the "space-time" in moving
systems even qualitatively, since some instances clocks showed deceleration
stroke, but others in the same conditions, acceleration. One of the most stable
copy revealed lack of influence of the travel in both directions around
of the Earth. And no wonder, because conversations about the slowing down of "space-time" in
SRT are clean water cheating the public. The matter is that on
"space-time" in SRT assigned a function of the Doppler effect and therefore,
as shown in APPENDIX 12 to this article, on approaching the observer
object hours according to the SRT should be accelerated, and on the remove - slow down.
The problem is that the clock does not have a sufficient degree of intelligence and
information, to determine: the closer they are to the specific
observer or have already started to be removed from it? Therefore, they measure the normal
classical physical time, not Einstein's "space-time" , and about
confirmation by means of experiments with the clock SRT can not be a speech,
as well as on the measurement of using the actual clocks of any design A. Einstein's "space-time".

On my opinion, the most obvious falsity of SRT demonstrates Doppler effect, which is observed as for the acoustic and optical phenomena. In CLFP the physical nature of both phenomena are the same, equal is and their mathematical description. In official physics formulas for optical and acoustic Doppler effects different. For details this problem is discussed in APPENDIX 2. But in the official formula of Doppler effect for the wavelength of the optical signals which is widely used in astronomy:

**obviously** there are a presented classic addition relative
the velocity of the source and observer V whis the speed of light C. This formula is taken from [2]
(p.226). It corresponds to the classical formula of Doppler effect for a moving
the source and fixed receiver. A. Einstein drove his formula for
Doppler effect under (32) and she looks at him just the same. But at the same time he
was forced to drop, as would forget about his own law of addition
speeds:

This
the formula can be found in [1] under the number (66.3). Addition of velocities in (32)
it looks different. Moreover, according to the formula (-9) in any attempt to add
anything to the speed of light C must be C, but in the formula (32) it is obviously not so. How physically possible in SRT explain
Doppler effect? It is declared (in words), that regardless of the relative
velocity of the source and the observer light relative to the observer is moving with
constant speed C. How, then, to explain the observed Doppler effect in SRT? The only
variable in a SRT for this situation is the "space-time". If you stood
near the railroad tracks, when passing by train with the included audio
signal, then you know that at the approach of a train sound signal high, and
when the train, coming with you, begins to be removed, the sound is replaced by the low.
This is because the relative speed V in the formula (32) when this is changed to the opposite.
A similar situation exists in optical phenomena. In SRT increase in the frequency
approaching the source can be explained solely by acceleration flow of the
"space-time" source (although officially canonizated only
slowing down) in the moving system. When the source is removed from the
the observer lowering the perceived frequency of radiation in SRT can be explained by the
only the fact that someone started to tighten up the "space-time" mobile
source in the other direction, and it started to slow down. As already mentioned above,
but the Lord God in SRT to make it none. Yes, but in the course of movement may
be another observer, for which twist "space-time" in
the other side still early. This means that for each of the observers
stationary systems in the mobile must have its own device,
defines the value of the "space-time" and for each of the
observers should be to provide a visibility of the beam of light, which is set
only to him. Such a requirement of Einstein even the Lord God can deliver
in difficulty. So the Doppler effect can be explained in SRT only by enlisting the services of the Lord God,
because it is not clear, who besides him spin "space-time"
source depending on the direction and the magnitude of its velocity relative to the
the receiver? But even attraction of the Lord God does not save the situation. In fact,
that in CLFP and in reality, the Doppler effect is connected with the environment, and in SRT it is associated
with the source. Consider, as he loved to do this A. Einstein, mental
the experiment. Let there be a star, located at a distance of many
millions of light years from us. This means that for so many years comes to us
the light from it. Let at some moment star exploded and went out, and the light,
radiated earlier this event, continues its journey in the direction of the Earth.
When the Earth moves in a circular motion in its orbit around the Sun to meet
the already former source, the range of its radiation because of the Doppler effect
is shifted to a higher region of frequencies, and, when removed, - in the lower.
In CLFP source, emitted light wave, can about her "to forget", then
it run in the world ether alone with constant speed.
The Earth is moving along this wave, and due to the Doppler effect occurs
corresponding shift the observed spectrum. In SRT Einstein's
"space-time" is formed only in the moving
source. To the Lord God preachers SRT give the job regulate it for
ensure the observed Doppler effect. But in this case, the star has disappeared.
The Lord God is not possible to adjust the frequency of the disappeared source. But,
maybe He adjusts the frequency on the route of a light wave? And here is SRT
forbids even for the Lord God. In a system moving with the speed of light,
all the changes and processes in SRT is prohibited. Thus, even with
attraction mystical, as the saying goes, "the full program", in
the SRT to explain phisicaly the Doppler effect is impossible. For SRT there is no and can not be
no experimental evidence. All real experimental
confirmation attributed to SRT, in fact, correspond to CLFP, which **differs fundamentally **from SRT.

French physicist George Sagnac in 1914 conducted an experiment, clearly demonstrating classical character of the velocity addition of the source with the speed of light. This the experiment was repeated and confirmed in 1925, the same A. Michelson together with A. Gale. Briefly the essence of the experiment consisted in the following: Two beams of light through a system of mirrors were opposite each other in a closed path in the form of a square. When the whole system was in rotation, the interference pattern created by rays changed, because the beam, coinciding with the direction of rotation and the opposite him, passed in the system a different way. The fringe shift entirely consistent with the classical adding the speed of the elements of the system with the speed of light. In our time sources of light in the instrument on the scheme Sagnac replaced by lasers, and on this basis make the so-called "laser gyros", which allow high precision detect the rotational movement of the objects in the space. According to the "postulate" SRT, this device would not work, since the time of distribution of the rays of light in both directions by SRT shall be the same regardless of the availability and speed of rotation of the system.

In
cases, when the experiments, like the experiment G. Sagnac, explicitly
contrary to SRT, its preachers resort to the argumentation of the "noninertiality of the
system". Experience is in the system with accelerations, then to the SRT he has no
relations. This argument is used preachers SRT in fraudulent manner.
When it's profitable, forget about it. Take for example the quote from the article
correspondent member of the RAS Lebedev A.N., a member of the RAS commission on
the fight against pseudoscience in the bulletin no.1 of this commission for the protection of SRT: "Scientific
finding g. Mitrofanova begin with the fact that no one relativistic device
it is not known. I do not know, in what field of physics he specializes, but obviously
not in my - physics of accelerators. For my life with my own eyes I saw not
less than a couple of hundreds of such devices worth sometimes in the hundreds of millions of dollars, none of the
which could not work, do not be dynamics of relativistic particles" Accelerators of
charged particles generally are, as one of the main proofs of
justice SRT. But what relation to the inertial systems, and,
consequently, to the SRT, may have a technical device called **the Accelerator**? To be consistent,
it is necessary to recognize, that the accelerators to a SRT do not have any relations. And where then when
consistent approach negation of all cases of non-inertial, as not
relating to SRT, experimental confirmation of justice SRT?

Bulgarian physicist, who worked in Austria, Stefan Marinov (1931-1997) in 1974-1981 years conducted a number of experiments and published their results. Experiments based on different physical principles, but built on a circuit different from the experiment of Michelson-Morley demonstrated the dependence of the velocity propagation of a light beam from the orientation of its direction with respect to the the direction of movement of the Earth, i.e. classical law of addition of speed of light with the rate of movement of the Earth. This is according to CLFP confirms and experiment of Michelson-Morley, only it is not quite clear. About the Marinov experiments you can find information in the Internet and special literature.

More I want to mention about the experiment on the radar location of the surface of Venus. Attempts to make the calculations according to SRT gave absurd results. Deemed all it was according to the classical views of summation of speed of movement of the Earth and Venus with the speed of light.

**CONCLUSION**

On this we limit discussion of creation of the speculators from the physics the SRT. Proposed exclude teaching SRT in educational institutions, as false and absurd concept, not match to a physical reality. Instead of it it is necessary to express concept developed by Lorentz, Fitzgerald and Planck, which is completely corresponds to the experimental data and is based on the previous experience of the development of science.

Proposed to return to the study of the properties and nature of the ether - the environment, filling space surrounding us here already for 100 years excluded from consideration world science by A. Einstein and his followers, but remaining an integral part of the surrounding physical reality. Properties of the environment caused by electric, magnetic, gravitational fields, the structure of atoms and molecules.

N.M. AkelievаааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааRussia, Volgogradаааааааааа аааааааа2005 Ц 12.11.2010.

Literature:

1. ╚.┬. ╤ртхы№хт У╩єЁё юс∙хщ ЇшчшъшФ Є. 1, ╠, У═рєърФ, 1977 у. 416 ё.

2. У╩трэЄютр ¤ыхъЄЁюэшърФ, яюф Ёхф. ╤.└. └їьрэютр ш фЁ. ╠, У╤ютхЄёър ¤эЎшъыюяхфш Ф, 1969 у.

Below are presented the appendixes, based on the results of the discussion in the forum MIFI. The address of the forum: http://corum.mephist.ru/index.php . Next you should select the following links: "─шёъєёёшюээ√щ ЇюЁєь", "└ы№ЄхЁэрЄштэр эрєър", "╤╥╬ - тхышўрщ°р рЇхЁр т шёЄюЁшш Їшчшъш". Discussion on the forum until not finished. Interested persons can make their comments or to ask questions. By results of discussion in the article on the web site http://www.akelevnm.narod.ru are maded changes and supplements

Expression:

аааа ,

included in the formulas CLFP and
SRT, sometimes called "relativistic member". Fitzgerald and Lorentz derived
the expression for this member in the assumption that V this is the speed of the material object **relative to the world ether**. A. Einstein
borrowed this expression from the CLFP in SRT, but in SRT V has a physical meaning is not the speed of the material body
relative to the world ether, but the relative velocity of two arbitrary
selected inertial systems. In conditions different from those
assumed the authors of this mathematical expression, the relativistic member is not work properly
neither mathematically, nor physically. Mathematically it is breeding in SRT
an infinite set of mutually exclusive values for one and the same physical
variable. The fact is, that at calculation of the same physical quantity
formulas SRT with participation of relativistic member of different ways, turn out different
values. If we, for example, calculate the length of a material object by the known
formula SRT:

in some system no.2, (in
this formula, the measurement is done by the standard length of a fixed system) moving
rectilinearly and uniformly on the system no.1, which is considered to be fixed, with
speed V2. Take this length for the basis, and let us calculate
the length of the object in the system no.3, which moves relative to the system no.1
rectilinearly and uniformly with speed V3 in the same direction, that no.2 on the speed of the system
no.3 to no.2, then we will not get the same result, which we have, calculating
the length of the object in the system no.3 directly on the speed of its V3 on the system no.1. And such options, giving
different values for the same physical quantity in one and the same
conditions can be endless. This is a consequence of the fact that
relativistic member **does not have the required
for the translation the property of covariance. **Property
covariance possess transformation, constitute the so-called "group". In
they transformation of the system of 1 to 2, and then from 2 to 3 is equivalent to
transformation of 1 in 3. By itself relativistic member of such properties is not
possesses. He is not supposed to be the authors for such use.

Let's consider a simple example. Let the system no.3 moves relative to the system no.1 with speed V3, and the system no.2- with a speed V2=0.5V3. Then the system no.3 moves relative to the no.2 is also at the rate of 0.5V. (See Fig. 8)

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа ааааааааааааааааааааааааааFig. 8

If to calculate the length of object in the system no.3 directly, we get:

.

If, however, we first calculate the the length of the object in the system no.2:

, and then, using this value as the original, we calculate the object length

in the system no.3 on the the speed of the system no.3 to no.2 (0.5V3) we receive the value of:

а

In CLFP V in the relativistic member, it's speed relative to the
world ether, the general environment for all the material objects. This value is always
the only and no polygamy does not arise. In SRT, where as V is the relative speed of arbitrary
selected systems, relativistic member turn out different values for the same physical
variables in their withdrawal from the formulas SRT on the various systems. Different
values for one variable in the same conditions mean **the contradiction** and show the falsity
SRT as a theory. In properly constructed theory the calculation result of physical
values should not depend on the way in the framework of this theory, he
is obtained. Apply in the relativistic member in an V the relative velocity of randomly selected systems
is inadmissible. Within the framework of SRT it is not applicable.

From the physical point of view, if in the relativistic member substitute for V any other value, except of the speed of the material object relative to the ether, then it just stops giving valid values, corresponding to the physical reality. Not accidentally at calculations in space researches starting point of spaceships is fixed relatively "immobile stars", that is relative to the world ether. When using other systems reference relativistic member gives results that are not relevant to fact.

The participant of discussion at the forum MIFI with nick "Neper" made a reasoned objections on above consideration. The first objection was that, in SRT there is a special law of addition of velocities, different from the classic one, and the speed of the no.3 to no.2 in the opinion of this panelist according to SRT is not such in the described example 0.5V3. In his second note "Neper" has shown that the calculation of coordinates by the formula A. Einstein's conversion from the system no.1 to no.2 on the speed V2, and then in the no.3 on the speed V23, calculated according to the rule of addition of velocities SRT, match to direct transformation of coordinates from no.1 to no.3 on the speed V3.

What can we say regarding the first objection? If it is said that the system no.3 moves relative to the no.1 with speed V3, and the system no.2 - with a speed V2=0.5V3, that behind these words lies a certain physical meaning. This is means that the system no.3 moves in relation to the system no.1 in a unit of time (or Einstein's space-time) at a distance of V3, and the system no.2 - at a distance of 0.5V3. In this case, the question of how the system no.3 moves relative to the system no.2? - becomes a matter of elementary arithmetic (puzzle for schoolboys of initial classes of secondary school). The answer is not can be any other than 0.5V3. Segments V2 and V3, are segments of a straight line. They can be measure and make sure, that the section corresponding to V23=0.5V3. However, when using the rules of addition of elementary arithmetic, neither of which justice SRT can not be of speech. Therefore, in the SRT invented their own rule of addition. In elementary arithmetic sum of the two numbers is calculated on the formula s=a+b, in SRT according to the formula:

Denial of rules of addition elementary arithmetic, lying in the basis of all that claims to the name of the "science", it would be sufficient for the recognition of false and improbable for any theory, and its authors are full of ignorant people. In the case of SRT academics nevertheless pretend that everything is o'key. We will show that this is not so, even with attraction of the special law of addition.

The discussion participant with the nickname "Neper" has shown, that if the speed of the system no.3 to no.2 to determine according to the formula:

calculation coordinates of the system no.1 in the system no.2, and then in the system no.3 by the A. Einstein's formula transformation with the "space-time" and the speed V2 and V23 respectively, is equivalent to the direct translation from the system no.1 to no.3 on the speed V3. In this was his second objection. However, in our case it is not speech about point, but on the segment, and the use of SRT Fitzgersld"s formula compare the lengths of the segments, in which there is no "space-time".

Take V3=280 thkm/1, V2=0.5V3=140 thkm/1, C=300 thkm/1. Then on the proposed by opponent formula:

It should be noted in passing that in result is 140+248.03149606...=280. This is absurd, but it is accepted in SRT. We calculate the length of the object in the system 2 by the speed V2:

а

and the length of the object in the system 3 from the system 2 by the speedV23:

In the direct translation the length of the system 1 in 3 by the speed V3 we get:

That is, the translation of length by the Fitzgerald's formula even with the use of the "correct" SRT formula to addition velocities of the system no.1 no.2 and then in no.3, is not equivalent to the direct translation from the system no.1 to no.3. But it is by the Fitzgerald's formula and, for no other in SRT proposed to compare the length of objects in different inertial systems. And it turns out, in SRT it does not work. Used in the Fitzgerald's formula relativistic member in itself have not necessary for such translation the property of covariance. Further, we show that the Fitzgerald's formula is not applicable in the the SRT at all.

When obtaned the formula,
similar to the Fitzgerald's formula, in the textbook [1] there are in the system K' coordinates
of the beginning and the end of the segment take in one and the same time or the "space-time". Equating
"space-time" on the ends of a segment in the system K', in the determination of his length, the preachers of SRT, as
would recognize that for the material object both ends must be in the same
"space-time". In classical physics, the material bodyes move
in time as the whole. This, however, has confirmed in SRT relatively
"space-time". Though, actually, in SRT it is not so, but it is at
determining the length of a material objects based on the rule: both ends of the
the material object must be in the same "space-time". Alas,
if we took the ends of the material object in the system K' in the same "space-time", we shall get on
formulas A. Einstein's transformations in the system K the corresponding coordinates in different
"space-times". From the official formula SRT (-3) at one and the same
_{1}' x_{2}' are different value t_{1} t_{2} for the corresponding points in the system K

That is, these coordinates
may not be the ends of the material object. The fact that, having two coordinates
in the "mobile "system-in-one "space-time", we by formulas
A. Einstein's transformations get the coordinates in the "fixed "
system in different "space-times", in the SRT follows of the statement,
that events, simultaneous in one system, are nonsimultaneous in the other.
We will not have naw to argue with this next absurd. In SRT one absurdity
is superimposed on the other and was bolstered by a third. In this particular case
transformations are used for comparing the lengths of material objects. Preachers of SRT as
would say: "Here we took in the system K' material object, both end of which are present in
one "space-time". This material object in the system K corresponds to the material object, one end of the
which is now here, and the other was here, but yesterday
or, say, a hundred years ago, and now he is absolutely in other place".
So we can compare the length of material objects?! If we compare the length of
the material objects and take the object in the system K' in the same space-time, and in the system K for comparison it is necessary to take a material object, the ends of the
which are also in the same space-time. However, in SRT it is not
obtaned. If we take both ends of the material object x_{1}, x_{2} in one and the same "space-time" t the K, we get the formula for conversion A. Einstein
(-4) corresponding coordinates in the system K' too in different "space-times" t_{1}',
t_{2}' and the other formula ratio of the lengths of the
"fixed"and "mobile" system that is incompatible with the first, giving
a mutually exclusive with the first formula length value.

The Fitzgerald's reduction formula is not applicable in SRT not only for the comparison of lengths of material objects, but also any material segments at all. How metering the length of the segment, the ends of which are present in different "space-times"? For it needs a time machine or the "space-time machine". In connection with the allegations preachers SRT, that all predicted it, found a "brilliant" experimental confirmation and is used in practice, it may be, they have already invented a time machine and use it on the sly? To measure the length of the line, the ends of which according to SRT are in different "space-times", they turn on the machine of "space-time", move, for example, for 100 years in the past, fix there an end to roulette, again turn on "space-time machine", stretch roulette in our time and produces measurement in accordance with the rules of SRT. And if, instead of roulette to take the electric wire, it is possible to adjust telephone link to the distant past (!). With A. Einstein can be directly consulted. Behold, it turns out, what wonderful opportunities gives us SRT, and we are not aware of.

By the way, in CLFP, because in her time in all systems is one and the same, there is no such problem. Ends material objects in it are always in the same time and by the Fitzgerald's formula compares the actual length of the real objects.

Akeliev N.M.аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааRussiaааааааVolgogradааааааааааааааааааааааааа 25.08.2009 у.

** **

In the article noted that Doppler effect for optical phenomena physically inexplicable within SRT. Those not however, lead as one of the main "evidence" of justice SRT. It looks very original, because in the formula of Doppler effect for optical phenomena right there is a classic addition relative velocity of the source and the receiver with the speed of light, that is in SRT impossible. The base for attributing Doppler effect to the "evidence" SRT serves the difference official formula of Doppler effect for optical phenomena (32) from the formula of Doppler effect for the acoustic phenomena. Thereby, as it were, it is shown, that the light waves differ from the waves in media, because in the SRT light and electromagnetic waves, are the waves of nothing in nothing.

The official formula Doppler effect for the optical phenomena looks like this:

Here V - the relative speed of a source and the receiver;

аааааааааа C - the speed of light;

ааааааааааа λ Ц the perceived length of a wave;

ааааааааааа λ_{0}
Ц the original length of the wave.

The formula of Doppler effect for the acoustic phenomena is presented below. In the textbook [3] it is the formula (103.2)

Here movement of the source to meet the receiver produces a different effect in relation to the movement of the receiver to meet source with the same speed. The situation is peculiar. In optical phenomena, where SRT principle of relativity of a motion denies, in Doppler effect he just observed. And in the acoustic phenomena, which occur at speeds much less than the speed of light, purely on the the classical laws, have no relation to SRT, the principle of the relativity of motion in the formula of Doppler effect why something is broken.

But, the simplest consideration really shows that the removal of a source from the stationary receiver with the speed close to the speed of sound, reduces the perceived frequency of twice, and the removal of the receiver from a fixed source with the same speed reduces the perceived frequency to zero. Summation of velocities in this case there is a classical way, but not quite usual. The spreading speed of the signal in the environment does not depend on the velocity of the source, but determined by the parameters of environment. The effect would be symmetric, if the speed of waves adding with speed of a source conventional mechanically. For example, if the gun shoots from the mobile platform in the direction of motion, the velocity of the platform is added to the speed of the projectile. There is a theory, an alternative to SRT, "ballistic theory Ritz" (it, by the way, promotes the well-known critic SRT V.I. Sekerin), in which the light is attributed to just such a mechanism addition speeds. In this theory with the uniform movement of the source of the radiated periodic waves are spherically symmetric about it. Light at this theory is not a wave in the environment, but the flow of variety Newton's corpuscles. Fig. 9(a)

Fig.9 (a) the propagation of light on Ritz.(b) propagation of light in the medium (the ether).

The intricate theory. I am with it absolutely not agree, but in it Doppler effect is symmetric about the movement of the source and the receiver, as in the SRT and in the official formula effect for optical phenomena. V.I. Sekerin considers the difference official formulas Doppler effect for acoustic and optical phenomena as a main proof in favour of Ritz's theory. Propagation of light waves in the ether painting should be this way, as shown in Fig. 9(b). The formula of Doppler effect for electromagnetic waves widely used in astronomy, aviation and even traffic Police, she is experimentally tested. Here in time it was already doubt that light is a wave in the ether. But, it is impossible to imagine. Had to understand in more detail. Doubt is that the nature of the phenomenon in both cases, one and the same, I was not. This corresponds to CLFP. Being, in the beginning, sure, that the formula of Doppler effect for the acoustic phenomena should be symmetrical about the movement the source and the receiver, I himself wanted even try to make the experiment, to prove the symmetry. But, it turned out that nothing to check and prove not succeed. To a speed of 0.1c (c- the speed of sound) the difference in results between the symmetric and asymmetric formulas is practically absent. And this is for the sound speed the order of 100 km/h, which in primitive conditions to reproduce is not easy. For light, of course, the speed at which you can detect any differences, incommensurably higher. The results predicted by all three theories (SRT, CLFP, the theory Ritz) to speed 0,1C, that is, to the speeds about 30000 km/s, practically indistinguishable. Therefore, according to the CLFP formula of Doppler effect should coincide with the classical acoustic formula:

╟фхё№: ν- the perceived frequency ;

ааааааааааа ν_{0}Ца
the frequency of the radiation source;

аааааааааааа VяЁаЦ speed of receiver;

ааааааааааааа VшёЄаЦ speed of the source;

аааааааааааа C Ц speed of light.

In this formula,
positive directions of the vectors V_{яЁ} and V_{шёЄ} selected
opposite to the same sign speed are equally fitted
convergence or remove the source and receiver. This is in order to more clearly
to compare the results given by the different formulas in Fig. 10.

Formula Doppler effect in SRT take from the original source. Below is an excerpt articles A. Einstein's "on The electrodynamics of moving bodies" (with reductions).

ааа

On Fig. 10 graph (1), is Doppler effect in the environment when moving the receiver, it corresponds as well to the theory of Ritz for the traffic receiver and source. Figure (2) corresponds to the effect Doppler in the environment when the movement of the source. Figure (3) corresponds to the effect Doppler according to the Einstein's formula. It is also the same for the movement of the source and receiver.

Fig. 10 Horizontal: the ratio of the speed of the source / receiver to the speed of light. Vertical: the ratio of perceived frequencies to the original.

From the graphs it can be seen that in
speed range of +/- 0.1 C, that is, up to about 30000 km/s all 3 options
give very close values. When there were different formula of Doppler effect
for acoustic and optical phenomena appear? The Christian Doppler derived a formula for
the acoustic effect and showed the presence of it experimentally, as well as
suggested having the same effect in optical phenomena. Fizeau's experimentaly proved
the presence of the doppler shift in the spectra of stars. They were both committed to
the theory of the ether, and the formula for optical and acoustic effects they had
the same. A. Einstein in the article "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" brought its
own formula for the Doppler effect, different from the formula of itself Doppler. In
SRT light waves is attributed to the special property - the ability
distributed without the environment. Here, for "proof" of this by preachers of SRT in physics was
introduced particular the special formula of Doppler effect for the
optical phenomena. Why is it gives the values, confirmed
experimentally? Because it represents the approximate expression of
the classical formula. In the classical formula (33) V_{шёЄ} and V_{яЁ}
it's velocity relative to the ether, which is not precisely known. Known can
be speed of the receiver relative to the source. Classic
formula can be presented and through the relative speed. How to do this? It is shown
in the paper [5]. For this purpose it is necessary the expression in denominator
replace to a Taylor series expansion. Let's take on the basis the formula for the length of the wave,
inverse to formula (33). Choose the positive direction of the velocity in one
side, divide the numerator and denominator by C, replace the expression in the denominator
to the Taylor series, in which disregard the members of the second and higher order
smallness. We get:

ааа ааа

Once again, disregarding
the value second order of smallness, and, given that V=V_{яЁ} - V_{шёЄ},
this is the relative velocity of the source and receiver, the obtained expression can be
written in the form:

That is, by such simplifications official formula for optical phenomena is obtained from the classical formula as approximate values. Humanity is usually be deal with speeds, significantly less than the speed of light, in which this approximate formula gives values, that are close to experimental. However, in the articles, dedicated to the Doppler effect at high speeds, I noticed that the authors for more accurate values are guided by the classical formula. So for determining the frequency of a moving source the member (C-V) put in the denominator, and for the moving receiver - in the numerator. In other words the difference formula for the optical phenomena from the classical formula of Doppler effect in the environment is a myth promoted preachers SRT. For "other" formula issue an approximate value of the classical.

аBut, let's came back to the relativistic formula of Doppler effect, which is derived by A. Einstein.

At first, see that A. Einstein considered the case of the motion receiver. Case of motion the source has not been considered. In SRT according to the postulate of relativity it is considered as equivalent to one above, and the formula identical. Therefore v in the A. Einstein's formula declared the relative speed of a source and the receiver.

Secondly, on A. Einstein's formula because of the relativistic member in the denominator the perceived frequency of the signal is slightly higher than the non-relativistic value. This is so called the "cross-section Doppler effect", predicted by A. Einstein. Preachers SRT assert, that "the transverse Doppler effect" is due to the slowdown of the Einstein's "space-time" in a moving source. But we see in the above scanned the article A. Einstein that he had the "space-time" is not slowing down, but faster, since the perceived frequency receives additional relativistic increase.

In the third, not so long ago (in the book ╬.┼.а └ъшьютр У┼ёЄхёЄтючэрэшх. ╩єЁёа ыхъЎшщФ,

┬ 2001 ╠, У ▐═╚╥╚-─└═└Ф,
2001 у.) (with the content of the book can also be found on the website: __http://sceptic-ratio.narod.ru/fi.htm#08__
),а Einstein's formula for the Doppler effect has been subjected to reasonable
criticism. In a homogeneous isotropic space the wave front of a radiated
signal represents a sphere, and on the plane it is a circle. In the formula A.
Einstein the wave front in the plane represents a version of the
cardioid. The matter is that the graph of the function (1-cos φ), the like of which
there is in the numerator of the A. Einstein's formula, in polar coordinates is
not a circle, but cardioida. That is the formula in this respect is wrong. O.E.
Akimov asked the question: who exactly so illiterate introduced in the physics of this
cosine? - and the advance version, not confirmed quotes, that did it allegedly
Lorenz. But, Lorentz was not engaged in a detailed study of Doppler effect, and in
the formula of Einstein's this cosine is obvious. Discoverer of the "cross-
effect" and he brought him into physics. In O.E. Akimov refined classical formula
Doppler effect for the arbitrary angle of view is as follows:

ааа ааааааааааааааа

ааааааааааа (34)

Here φ_{яЁ}
- the angle between the velocity vector of the receiver and the direction to the source;

ааааааааа φ_{шёЄ}
Ц the angle between the vector of the velocity of the source and the direction to the receiver.

If аφ_{яЁ}
= φ_{шёЄ} =0 O.E. Akimov's formula passes in a classic. O.E.
Akimov alone has received the updated formula and for the first time released it in
the Internet. But, as it usually happens, then it was found out, that there were
predecessors. It turned out that in the 60-th of the last century the same formula
brought by A.G. Zamyatin. But the scientific journals are not accepted his work for publication,
because in this formula on the basis of classical representations at β_{яЁ}=0
and φ_{шёЄ} =90^{0} is the same as the "cross-section
effect" in A. Einstein's formula , explained in a SRT slowdown
"space-time". Only in 1989, author was able to publish on his
brochure in Sverdlovsk for their own money in the amount of 100 copies.
Despite the presence predecessors, we will call the formula (34) by the Akimov's formula.

"Cross-section Doppler effect" (but only in the "longitudinal" direction) actually found the experimental confirmation that is advertised as one of the main experimental evidence SRT, because in the classical version of the formula "cross-section effect" in the "longitudinal" direction is absent. The Christian Doppler considered the effect only in the longitudinal direction. The fact is, that if the velocity of the source and receiver are not on the one line, them connecting, then the perceived receiver frequency is constantly changing. Each wave, the perceived receiver in this case differs in length from previous and the next. To speak in this situation of a certain frequency can be only with the big share of the conventions. However, and this case has practical interest not only in connection with the prediction of SRT. It corresponds to the observation of stars from the Earth.

O.E. Akimov's formula
is valid for acoustic phenomena, but he unequivocally
spread it on the optical, thereby, having entered into a dispute with SRT. Claims
it to the A. Einstein's formula down to the fact that it gives the shape of the wave front in
a cardioid, and classical examination gives the same "cross
the effect of" at an angle of 90^{0}, without any manipulations with time. In
protection of SRT to this question was made by N.V.Kupriaev. His article "A Critical
comments on the tutorial O.E. Akimov 'Science. The course of lectures'" even
published journal SPC (╙╘═). The first thing N.V. Kupriaev transposes the relativistic
member in the formula for the perceived frequency from the denominator to the numerator, providing
in this way touted SRT slow down "the space-time".
Below is a snippet of the article N.V.Kupriaev:

But, as we see in the above scanned the article A. Einstein There is everything is vice versa. N.V.Kupriaev further analyzes picture wave propagation from a moving source in the environment Fig. 9(b), applying it to light waves. But, SRT this pattern does not match. A. Einstein by manipulations with the "space-time" wanted to present situation so that the observed pattern when the light source moves correspond to Fig. 9 a), and "the transverse effect" is not linked with the displacement centres waves emitted by a moving source, but with a different course "the time-space" in the different systems. But, the main point made by N.V. Kupriaev, looks reasonably about classical review of "the transverse" Doppler effect. When the observer is at the point of A (See. Fig. 9(b)), he does not see the source in point i, but sees it at the point O, and the perceived length of a wave is equal to the difference between successive crests of waves in this moment. That is, viewing angle in his opinion is the angle AOi (see. Fig. 9 b ) However, O.E Akimov derived a formula of Doppler effect all so for such an approach. At the same time, if you read the above scanned fragment of the article A. Einstein, the angle in his formula is in view of not AOi, but Aix and "cross effect" is the same, which is obtained when a classical considering. If we cut by the collimator light, that was emitted strictly perpendicular to the the movement of the source to the receiver will be able to get only a wave, emitted in the moment, when the source was at the point i and the nearest places in the range bandwidth of the collimator. That is, in the case of using the collimator observation angle will be exactly Aix, and the observed frequency is described by the Akimov's equation. In other words, the choice of formula for the Doppler effect at an arbitrary angle depends on the the conditions in which the observation is conducted. To catch a single front or a small group waves that pass through the collimator from a point source is difficult. Nevertheless, such an experiment on measuring of Doppler effect was delivered. In 1988, at the Radium institute them. V.G. Khlopin under the leadership academician Pobedonostsev L.A. experiment was conducted to test relativistic formula of Doppler effect. By collimator with opposite sides at an angle of 77 and 257 degrees was carved the luminous flux emitted by the continuous beam of ions, obtained at IHEP. O.E. Akimov compared published experimental data with the results obtained by the refined classical formula. Classical refined formula gives the values, close to experimental. Unfortunately, the accuracy of the published data do not be sufficient to evaluate the effects of the second order of smallness, there are, in fact relativistic effects. O.E. Akimov's formula and A. Einstein's formula give in the conditions under which the experiment was conducted, very close values, because the speed of the particles ranged from 0.01 to 0.05╤. At energies particles 1500-2000 keV the average error, calculated by O.E. Akimov, was approximately 1%. Nevertheless, the experimenters have made the conclusion about the discrepancies with value, given the relativistic formula of Doppler effect in approximately 54%. What's the matter? It turned out, thet the experimenters really took for the calculation does not the Einstein's formula, but advertised in SRT formula predicting extra "delay of time-space" in a moving object. Between the authors, outlining the Doppler effect in SRT, there is a constant the mess in the position of the relativistic member. In one case They gives them additional increase in the perceived frequencies, in other without any justification adjustable in position, which gives decrease. This we have seen in the article of Kupriaev, the same there is in the book of Frankfurt U.I., Frank A.M. "Optics of moving bodies" - M.: Nauka, 1972 (fragment of a book can be viewed on the web site http://ritz-btr.narod.ru/frankfurt/frankfurt.html). The same can be seen in the textbook I.V.Savelyev [3]:

а

We see that in the top the fragment there is a relative increase in the perceived frequencies, and in the lower (151.8) - reduction. And for that to kids are not caught in the eye, that relativistic member without justification simply rearranged from the denominator in the numerator is changing designations. Here one cannot say that such changes are made quite unreasonably. A. Einstein brought relativistic formula of Doppler effect for the moving receiver. The Fig. 10 shows that the graph relativistic formula (3) gives a higher perceived frequency of compared to the classic schedule the moving receiver (1). If the same be done the calculations concerning a moving source, then you can get the relativistic formula predicting additional relativistic reduction of the perceived frequency on the schedule a moving source (2) in Fig. 10. Feature of the relativistic formula is that the schedule of its remains the same (3), but he graph below perceived frequency of moving source (2). Thus, if not distinguish what exactly moves? the source or the receiver? - within SRT you can with equal grounds talk about the relativistic reduction and of the relativistic increase the perceived frequency Doppler effect in comparison with the classical value, that is a contradiction. And, if you specify exactly what moves? - this means violation of the principle of relativity of Einstein and the recognition of the presence of the fixed environment - an ether.

See that whis the Doppler effect in SRT is not all right even formally. Otherwise not would need the above nonadvertised frauds. Doppler Effect, it is obviously not something that can be put in evidence justice SRT. In the article it was shown that physically within a SRT this effect cannot be explained in the principle. Yes, but isn't the classical asymmetric formula for the Doppler effect in the ether contradicts the experimental data? Alas, I have to to recognize that this is so. Although humanity, in ordinary reality, has deal with speeds of up to 0.1C in which the difference in the values of formulas (classical, relativistic, classical refined and etc.) imperceptible. And the speeds available to a receiver usually still much less. The classical formula of Doppler effect gives a pretty limited range for the "red" shift with the movement of the source of - total, approximately 1/2 times (with the motion of the Earth relative to the ether - bit more). Even data that contradict this limitation I am in the Internet not found. What the "red" bias observed in astronomy? Speed, determined by the Doppler effect, is called in astronomy "ray speed". The ray speed at 1600 km/s is already considered abnormally large and for an explanation of such facts are offered alternative mechanisms of the formation of displacement of spectra. But, it is less than 30000 km/s the speed to which the difference in values between the different formulas for the Doppler effect, elusive. The a large redshift quasars have. They have red shift of the frequency comes up to 1/1 .7 times. All this does not contradict the classical formula. There have been reports of registration in the Universe moves at a speed much higher than the speed of light (up to 20 times). But these speeds were measured in some other way, not by Doppler effect. That is, the picture of the practical observations is clearly not contrary to the classical formula of Doppler effect in the environment and for optical phenomena. But, as will be shown further in APPENDIX 15, in laboratory conditions, there have been checking effect at high speeds (close to the speed of light), as for the source, as well as for the receiver for the case of moving them by one line. On the results of these experiments one cannot say that the classical formula Doppler effect for the optical phenomena is not true, it is completely true. But, in a moving source in addition apart from Doppler effect changes the frequency of the radiation, and in the moving receiver is absorbed by the frequency so that the the effect is symmetric about the motion of the source and the receiver, and, thus, is restored justice of the principle of relativity of a motion, which in the classical formula is broken. This will be more described in APPENDIX 15. There will also be shown that the optical phenomena in general could not proceed in accordance with the classical asymmetric formula because of the violations in this case the law of conservation of energy. In spite of the fact that the a formula effect is true, included the other third-party mechanisms, which make the process of symmetric.

3. ╚.┬. ╤ртхы№хт У╩єЁё юс∙хщ ЇшчшъшФ Є. 2, ╠, У═рєърФ, 1978 у., 480 ё.

6. Herbert E. Ives УThe Doppler Effect Considered in Relation to the Michelson-Morley ExperimentФ J.O.S.A Nov. 1937, vol. 27 pp. 389-392. (the content of the article can be found on the Internet at address: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/HerbertIves1937c.pdf )

Akeliev N.M.ааааааааааа ааааааааааааааааааааааа Russia Volgogradааааааааааааааааааааааа 07.07.2009 у. Ц 07.03.2011 у.

** **

The physical length of any material object in a constant external conditions is always definitely. Material object can not have two (or more) physical length at the same time in one and the same external conditions. The idea that the physical length of the material objects can vary depending on the presence and value of speed of its motion relative to the world ether, introduced into physics Fitzgerald for explain the results of the experiment of Michelson-Morley. The formula is called "Fitzgerald's contraction".

From the Fitzgerald's contractio formula
Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformations, and the Planck formulaE=mC^{2}. All this is based on the speed of motion relative to the
the world ether. By the Fitzgerald's formula at a motion of the material body
relative to the world ether his physical length contracts in the direction of
movement. (In our time, it became clear that the Fitzgerald's reduction occurs
because of the reduction of the length of the De Broglie waves in the direction of motion relative to the
the world ether, which, in turn, determines the geometrical sizes of the
atoms and molecules.) However, in the moving system it is difficult to detect,
because equally changes the standard of length. Because of this measured
own benchmark value of the physical length of the moving system at
constant other conditions remain unchanged regardless of the presence and magnitude of
speed of motion relative to the ether. In different inertial systems,
moving relative to the world ether with different velocities, on CLFP
own standards undergo different reduction. If the physical length of the material object
are measured does not own inertial reference system, in which he
is located, and managed to measure it a reference from an external system, moving
relative to the world ether with a different speed, the measured length does not match
with the results obtained by using your own reference system.
But this does not mean that we have two different physical length. Differ only
the measured values in consequence of differences standards. You can through the formula
Fitzgerald's contraction determine the length of the reference to the second system, and ensure
the measured values after the translation coincides with the
value, measured by the own standard. It is necessary to have in mind that the formula
Fitzgerald's contraction works correctly only in the case, if it
substitute speed relative to the ether and the original length, too, should
taken in the system, fixed relative to the world ether. Only when these
the result is correct and unambiguous.

The idea of reducing
the physical length in the systems, moving with different velocities, was borrowed
A. Einstein from CLFP. Because of denying the existence of ether A. Einstein
suggested substituting in Fitzgerald's contraction formula not speed
of the material object relative to the ether, but the relative speed of the
material objects. This immediately leads to a number of absurdities, starting with
thet physical length of the material objects, nothing between him not
related begins by these formulas depend on their relative speed. If
substituting in the Fitzgerald's contraction formula not speed relative to the world
ether, but the relative speed of objects, it begins to emit an infinite
many mutually exclusive values for one and the same physical length. In
CLFP the concept on the reduction of physical length introduced to explain the results
Michelson-Morley experiment. In concept, adopted by the SRT, this reduction of physical
length, on the contrary, leads to a contradiction of the results of the
The Michelson-Morley Experiment. It would seem, must be SRT simply refuse to these
ideas, but to do this preachers of SRT can't. All the critics of the SRT
gagged the atomic bomb. Allegedly, in frame of the SRT derived the formula E=mC^{2} , on which is calculated the energy in
the nuclear explosion. And this formula is deduced it from a Fitzgerald's contraction (and
only within the framework of the CLFP). However, within the concept of SRT formula E=mC^{2}а not deducible, there differentials acquire other
view. But who will notice discrepancy differentials, if in 100 years nobody
noticed the irregularity elementary addition in SRT? (In formula addition of
speeds)

аIn the Fitzgerald's contraction formula , which is borrowed A. Einstein from ╩╦╘╧, we are talking about the ratio between the physical length in the two inertial systems. In CLFP substitute the value of the physical length, measured own the benchmark in one system, you get a value of the physical length of a similar object in another system, expressed in the same units, lead to a uniform standard of length, and vice versa. In SRT, where this mechanism borrowed from CLFP, it would like to everything was the same, but the same does not work. THere is mass of absurdities and contradictions. One of them is the following: there are in SRT two formula ratio of lengths in a fixed and a moving systems:

ш

а.

Earlier (in the earlier version of the book [1]) these formulas proudly demonstrated next one to other in one page. Now do so already shy. The second formula describe only verbally, the number is not appropriate, to refer to it it is impossible. In mathematics and physics equally named values within a coherent text refer to one and the same. In these two formulas it is obvious that the calculated on them the value of one and the same physical length, such as L, will be different. From the point of view of SRT it is quite logical. In the system no.2 as a result of the movement of her on the system no.1 length material object decreased, but we can assume that this system no.1 moves relative to the system no.2 with the same speed, only to the other side. It means that in the system no.1 should be reduced physical length of the object relation to the length of the system no.2. But this is physically impossible, is contradiction and indicates the falsity of SRT. Principally possible state, when the physical length of the object in the system no.1 more than physical length of the object in the system no.2, or, on the contrary, physical length of the object in the system no.2 is larger than the physical length of the object in the system no.1. Both claim in one and the same conditions (and in this case it is: one and the same system, one and the same speed) are mutually incompatible and together physically nonrealizebl. How does this could be don mathematically? The matter is that the Einstein's transformation formulas , of which received two of the above formula ratio physical lengths, describe not one pair of systems no.1 and no.2, but two pairs of systems: no.1 and no.2 and no.1 and no.3. In the system no.2 object in motion relative to the no.1 should to shrink, and in the system no.3 - the stretch. These requirements mutually are incompatible and can not be realized in one pair of systems ╣1 and ╣2. About this it's described in detail in the article. In the derivation of Einstein's transformations formulas used mathematically incorrect conversion.

All said enough and obvious from the formulas. But it is possible for example to review and numerical example. First, consider the simplest example of the frame CLFP, and then, the same in the frame of SRT. The challenge before us is to compare the length facilities in the stationary and the moving system. In CLFP fixed system is system, fixed relative to the world ether. Take 2 rod of the same length in 1m. compare them, when they are both in the fixed system. We are convinced, that the length of they have the same. Then rod no.1 left in the stationary system, and with rod ╣2 do so, that it was accelerate up to speed V and inertia flew past rod no.1. We will associate with rods#1 and#2 system K K' , respectively,so to the beginning rods coincided with the beginnings of coordinates, the rods were directed along the axes x x', and oriented in the direction of the movement. At the moment, when the origin of coordinates systems coincide (we assume that this is the time t=0), we'll comparison of lengths of rods, which in the fixed system were the same. Under the chosen conditions coordinate of the end of the rod in the frame of reference numerically coincides with its long, because coordinate start =0. (l=x-0=x ; l'=x'-0=x') Let speed V=0.8C. Then relativistic member numerically is

In CLFP x', this is the length of the rod measured in the moving system. Since the Fitzgerald's contraction equally undergoes to rod no.2 and the measuring range, the measured length in system K' will remain the same, what it was previously measured in the stationary system, that is 1 meter. The length of the rod no.2, measured from the fixed system K, according to the formula (13) will be:

The lower index for x means, the length of the rod measured) These 0.6 m in the system K' are perceived, as a standard of length 1 m.. Naturally, the length of the rod no.1 in the system K, measured from the system K' by own standard, will be 1/0 .6=1.666 m.. This Is the value can be obtained from the formula (14), by substituting in an x a length of the rod no.1, measured in the K by own reference (1 meter).

We see that the ratio between the lengths of the rods in the stationary and the moving system remains the same, what would be the standard, we are measured by: in the moving rod is short, in fixed - long. Physical length of the material objects in unchanged external conditions, in particular, with the constant speed of the system, is the unequivocal. If to bring to a common standard, it must be one and the same.

Now, let's see how all the same looks in SRT? The formulas (13), (14) CLFP in SRT correspond to formula (-1), (-2) . Take the moment of space-time t'=0. What happens at this conditions from (-1)? x', this is the length of the rod measured in the system K'. Because here the length of the rod and length measuring standard allso change to an equal degree, the measured length x'=1m.. Substitute this in the (-1):

аа

That is, according to the equation (-1) measurement of the length of the rod no.2 in the system K' by standard system K will show that in the system K' the length of the rod no.2 has increased in comparison with rod no.1 in the system K. Let's do a similar operation with the equation (-2) at t=0. Measured the length of the rod no.1 in the systemK x=1ь..

That is, according to the equation (-2) SRT measurement of the length of the rod no.1 in the system K by the standard of system K' will show that in the system K the length of the rod no.1 increased compared with the rod no.2 in the system K'. Length ratio of the formula (-2) is inverse to the formula (-1). Whatever the scale of standard, it applies to both compared objects as the same and can't change the ratio of the lengths of objects (to make shorter the longer). So here we have a contradiction. Preachers SRT this circumstance did not bother, on the contrary, is a complete delight. They declare this manifestation of the principle of A. Einstein's SRT relativity expressed as "the invariance of equations". In fact, this contradiction, which testifies to the false theory, since physically realize this is impossible.

For the sake of justice it is necessary note that the above comparison of lengths is not quite correct, without considering the peculiarities of the "space-time". "Space-time", as a robber Procrustes in the famous ancient Greek myth make ends meet. If the length of the object is not enough, "space-time" increases the length of a material object. If the object of the comparison are excess length, "space-time" their cuts and eliminate completely. But, it is for the above technique to officially compare the length in SRT.

According to the A. Einstein's ideas observer, nestled in a moving isolated system K', can't define whether it is at rest relatively to the stationary system K, or moving relative to it rectilinearly and uniformly with velocity V in no way. This is the content of the postulate of relativity of Einstein. Changes in the moving system K' there is a chance to determine from the stationary system K. Here is, for example, as it offers do A. Einstein in his landmark work: "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" in paragraph 2: "...now the question is about the length of a moving rod we believe determined using the following two operations:

a) the observer moves together with the scale and with the measuring rod and measure a length of the rod directly by applying scale as well as if the measured rod, the observer and the scale were at rest;

b) observer sets using placed in the stationary system of synchronous, in the sense of з 1, resting hours, in which points of the stationary system are the beginning and the end of the rod at a certain moment of time t. The distance between the these two points, measured used above, but already at rest the scale, there is length, which can be described as "a length of the rod". According to the principle of relativity, length, determined by the operation "a", which we shall call "the length of a rod in the moving system" shall be equal to the length l of the rest the rod. Length, set up by operation "b", which we shall call "length (moving) rod in the stationary system", we will determine, based at our two principles, and find that it is different from l.╗

That is, only in the stationary system can be with the help of some manipulations, according to SRT, to determine the predicted it changes in the moving system. The problem is that all predictions of the SRT and do not apply to the movement of any material body, but to the movement "frame of reference". But, the moving system coordinates in itself is an abstract, imaginary object. And it is precisely for relation to the imaginary movement imaginary coordinate system SRT predicts specific effects: reduction of space and time dilation. Reduction material objects in SRT is only a consequence of a reduction in space, if they in it will get. However, in volume allocated for space imaginary moving system, may accidentally get the object, located in the stationary system. And it will thus be reduced according to SRT, because in it nowhere is not told, that in one and the same place can be 2 independent space: one is reduced, and the other is not. Picture we get is: somebody sits, say, for example, Archimandrei (nick of one participant of discussions at the forum MIFI, probably, the student) in the system K, quietly, did not touch anybody. Suddenly, by use of the procedures proposed by A. Einstein, he specifies that space at him in a certain direction has decreased by almost to zero, and the hours of almost stopped. He was to find out: what is happened? It turned out, he managed to get in a region of space in which a man, say Neper (nick of another participant of the discussion on the forum), imagined themselves moving the system K' with the speed close to the speed of light. Archimandrei approaching to Neperє and said: "Listen, Neper! Are you more careful conceive, then I was gut flattened out due to the reduction of space and to lecture at the Moscow Institute of physics was late, the clock stopped because of slowing down of time." The physical cause of effects SRT in derivations of Einstein's transformations (Lorenz to them has no relations, it is the preachers of SRT attribute for solidity) is the thought experiment on the movement of the frame relative to the light wave regardless of whether there are material objects, or not? Because, we have, practically, all the free space is filled with the photons moving in all possible directions, the only missing condition for the emergence of effects SRT remains the imagination of motion of the system K'. That is SRT say thet we by the power of imagination can cause real physical effects in the surrounding world. Very cute! But, alas, in fact nothing of such a kind is no observed.

I shall note,
that source in SRT is a postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in all
the inertial reference systems. For realization of this postulate scale of
space and time in the **every**
point of space in the mobile system K' should differ from the respective
point of the system K. But, even figure in the I.V.Savelyev's textbook can be seen (see.
Fig. 6.2 in the scanned fragment) that these space **intersected.**

аIn fact, the objects in the system K, there is no any chance to avoid falling into the space of system K'. It is in the I.V.Savelyev's textbook the coordinate system K start at point O and ended with a few inches from her. On fact each of the axes of the system K is from plus to minus infinity, that is, in the space of system K is the whole Universe. The same applies to the system K'. Thus, in SRT in each point of space there are two different scale for the space and two different scale for time, and for objects there is the problem of choice: the requirements of what of the systems to obey? This has already been mentioned in the text of the article. Time of the mobile system in SRT is called a "local", they say, it is somewhere there, in the mu-meson, and us, by which the mu-mesons fly, it is not concerned. It is a natural sell. In APPENDIX 12 shows: from the point O system K is emitted spherical light the wave. To the speed of its movement was in the system K' such as in the system K, the other the scale of space and time must be in the system K' from the the point O' to the borders of the Universe, which ultimately ever reach the front of a light wave. About any "local" time in the system K' the speech can not be. The same applies to the scale of the space. For only a change in these values could be to give a constancy the speed of light. But, physically realize it is impossible, because there is a the problem of the one and the same place multiple independent from each other spaces and times. The space we have one. Independent of space with different properties in one place, this is nonsense.

аа All these contradictions, absurdities and discrepancies are obvious enough, so keeping in science for more than 100 years false theory of A. Einstein's SRT is carried out only due to enormous influence of the administrative factor.

Akeliev N.M.ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааRussiaааааааVolgogradааааа аааааааааааааааааааа09.07.2009 Ц 15.04.2001

** **

In the article analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, as a matter of fact, repeats the analyses done by Lorentz. In the analysis considered only the optical path followed by the light rays , but does not address the question: what influence on the interference pattern provides Doppler effect? For the Lorentz was self-evident that the Doppler effect does not influence on the processes in the experiment. However, this is not a as self-evident for all.

In the course of the discussion on the forum MIFI opponents was expressed an opinion that the Doppler effect has misrepresented the interference pattern in Michelson-Morley experiment in relation to observed.

Let's consider what processes happen in the interferometer Michelson-Morley with the Doppler's effect ? I did not deal practicaly with the interferometer myself. How it works? - explained O.E. Akimov in the article " The Michelson-Morley experiment", placed in Internet at the address:http://sceptic-ratio.narod.ru/fi/es10.htmа Rays of light from the two arms of the interferometer in the end go in one direction to the eyepiece. In the eyepiece see two incorporated with one another image of the source of light, reflected the mirrors in the two legs. But before this, rays have been obtained by dividing one and the same beam into two parts translucent mirror, so they are coherent. Two combined coherent beam having some phase shift form a standing wave - interference pattern. In the eyepiece the beams come not strictly along the axis, but under some slight angle. Part of a standing wave, as it were, turns along the image and the image sources becomes prominent series of dark and light stripes.а

During orientation measuring arm along the direction of motion relative to a world ether takes place longitudinal Doppler effect, in the transverse orientation a cross - sectional effect. In the transverse Doppler effect number of wavelengths, laying on the length of the arm of the interferometer in the propagation of the beam in the forward and reverse direction is the same. That is, the rays remain coherent. Between them could be observe the interference pattern. But, alas, man is capable of seeing only the light, which sent him straight in the eyes. See receding or a passing beam person is not able. Only if such a beam, by scattering or reflecting, is converted to the direct rays going in the eye man, it becomes accessible for observation.

In the longitudinal Doppler's effect length of the light wave in the ether is changing. In the direction of motion the beam of light has in ether smaller wavelength than at rest, in the direction against the motion wave length more than at the rest state. The rays in the longitudinal shoulder interferometer not coherent and do not form an interference pattern. But, watch this a man can't. When the two beams go in the same direction in to the eyepiece the interferometer, and the observation of the interference picture becomes possible, the coherence of radiation is restored, as they have the same frequency and the speed. The phase difference is determined only by the difference of optical paths of the two interfering rays. In APPENDIX 15 in view of the foregoing in APPENDIX 2 is presented a full formula of Doppler's effect for arbitrary angles of observation:

Here ν- the perceived frequency ;

ааааааааааа ν_{0}Ца
the frequency of the radiation source;

аааааааааааа βяЁа= V_{яЁ}
/C - the speed of the receiver
relatively to the speed of light;

ааааааааааааа βшёЄа= V_{шёЄ}
/C - speed of a source
relatively to the speed of light;

аааааааааааа C Ц speed of light;

аааааааааа φ_{яЁ} Ц the angle between the vector of
speed of the receiver and the direction to the source;

ааааааааа φ_{шёЄ}
Ц the angle between the velocity vector of the source and direction to the receiver.

аThe formula shows that the at βяЁ = β_{шёЄ}, as it
takes place in the interferometer Michelson-Morley, the perceived frequency
radiation in all directions is equal to the frequency of the radiation in the state of rest
relative to the ether. This is a manifestation of the principle of Galilean relativity
in relation to the optical phenomena. Mechanical phenomena CLFP in full
accordance with the relativity principle of Galileo occur equally in
isolated inertial systems, moving at different speeds. About
optical phenomena one cannot say so, but the differences externally invisible, because
inside isolated inertial systems, moving with different velocities,
own sources of light are perceived with the same frequency as in the system,
fixed on a world ether. Subtle physical experiments
the difference of course of optical phenomena in inertial systems, moving with the
different rates, may be detected, but to do so is not easy.

In this article it is attempt to not just show the falsity of SRT, but also that the correct concept is the concept, which was put forward initially by Lorenz, Fitzgerald and developed by Planck (CLFP). Therefore it is necessary to consider not only the arguments of the preachers of SRT, but and other critics of a SRT, offering other alternatives.

Some authors in the Internet claim that the course of rays in the shoulder, perpendicular to the movement in the ether, in the analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment taken into account by Lorentz not correct. See, for example:

http://corum.mephist.ru/index.php?showtopic=23660&st=0

http://www.galina-2001.narod2.ru

http://sceptic-ratio.narod.ru/fi/es10.htm

In the analysis of the Lorenz in the system, stationary relative to the ether, course of light ray is tilted at an angle arcsin(V/C) in the direction of motion in the shoulder, perpendicular to the movement. Especially convincing looks the argument of the authors, critical of the Lorentz, that in this case the angle of incidence of the beam from the source is not equal to the angle of reflection of translucent mirror with tilt towards him 45 degrees. Lorenz chose the supposed cource of rays in the interferometer MM, on the basis of the Fermat's principle. Drawn by them a way is the shortest. But, the angle of incidence to the half-silvered mirror, indeed, it is not equal to the angle of reflection. Solve this apparent contradiction an american physicist E.R.Hedrick in the report to the conference of 1927 in Pasadena, devoted to the experiment MM. (Conference on the Michelson-Morley experiment. Held at the Mount Wilson Observatory, Pasadena, California, February 4 and 5,1927) It turned out, thet the moving mirror has another equivalent angle of inclination than resting. Indeed, let us imagine that a plane light wave falls on the slope of the mirror, "fleeing" from her. Each subsequent photon of the wave front will undergo a reflection further away from the point, where it would be in a state of rest. As a result of moving the mirror gets extra equivalent to lean in the direction of motion, and the wave front as well unfolds in this direction. In other words, after reflection from a moving mirror, reflected beams will have a component of the speed in the direction of movement of the mirror, equal to the speed of the mirror. The effect of the additional equivalent slope of the moving mirror in the direction of motion solve the apparent contradiction in the analysis of the experiment MM by Lorenz. Additional equivalent slope of the moving translucent mirror in the experiment MM is so that, with the observance of the equality of the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection of the beam in a transversely oriented shoulder is tilted at an angle arcsin(V/C) in the direction of motion.

So, E.R.Hedrick in the report at the conference in Pasadena 1927, has shown that moving the mirror has another equivalent angle compared with resting. For him was of itself granted that the law of reflection of geometrical optics is performed for the equivalent angle of inclination. But, not for all it is as obvious. One author in his personal correspondence to me express the opinion that the beam from a moving mirror will be reflected at the same angle as from the still, only the reflected beam will be wider.

Let us then take a closer look at the reflection
from a translucent mirror, located at an angle of 45^{0} in the side of the shoulder, perpendicular to the movement,
in the interferometer MM.

The fact that from the moving mirror reflection will not take place as from the rest, recognizes even the official modern physics. Cm., for example, ┴.╠. ┴юыюЄютёъшщ, ╤.═. ╤Єюы Ёют л╬ЄЁрцхэшх ётхЄр юЄ фтшцє∙хуюё чхЁърыр ш ЁюфёЄтхээ√х чрфрўш╗ ╙╘═, ёхэЄ сЁ№ 1989 у., Є. 159, т√я. 1, ё. 155-180. http://ufn.ru/ru/articles/1989/9/f/ But, there is not a correct statement: " ... the angle of incidence is already does not equal to the angle of reflection, ... " (p. 156)

This statement contradicts to the laws of geometrical optics and the relativity principle of Galileo. The process of reflection from a moving mirror can be viewed in two different reference frames: in the system, stationary relative to the ether and in the system, stationary to the mirror. In both cases, the law of reflection of geometrical optics is strictly observed. But, the moving mirror has in the system of a stationary ether other equivalent angle compared with resting. Let us consider the situation in the system of a stationary ether (see. Fig.).

The front of a light wave OA reaches inclined
(translucent) mirrors OF the interferometer MM, located at an angle of 45^{0} in the point O. If the mirror
at rest relative to the ether, the reflected light would go in the direction of OA. But, when the mirror moves, on
the far end to contact the mirror, the beam will go through not distance AF, as in the state of
rest relative to the ether, but the larger distance AB. Thus, the moving mirror in the system still
ether is equivalent to the tilt of the OB, additional in the direction of the movement. Ray, reflected in the point O, in the
moment of achievement wave front of the moving mirror at point B, will take place from the point O a distance equal to AB.
To determine the position of the light wave front necessary from the point O conduct the circle of radius AB. The tangent
to this circle, drawn through the point B, will be front of a light wave. Thus it turns out point
E. The Direction OE is the direction of the reflected beam. This method corresponds to the principle of Huygens-Fresnel.
It provides the required conditions: distribution of a light wave at a speed relative to the ether of
light C and perpendicularity of the speed of light C to the front of a light wave. Consider triangles OAB and OEB. This
is rectangular triangles. Hypotenuse OB they have a shared, and leg OE=AB on conditions of the building. Then,
the triangles are equal, and the angle of BOD=ABO equal to the angle of AMD. This are the corners, additional to the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection
respectively. Therefore, the angle of incidence equals to the angle of reflection for the equivalent tilt mirrors in a state of
movement OB. The law of reflection of geometrical optics for the moving mirror is being implemented, but, for the equivalent
the angle of inclination. From the equality of triangles OAB and OEB should OA=EB. And this means that the width of the beam upon reflection
from a moving mirror does not change.

Now we find out, what is optional tilt angle of the reflected beam AOE. For the compliance with the conditions of the analysis of the experiment MM by Lorentz this angle must be equal to the arcsin(V/C). Alas, in this case it is not so. Projection of the point E to direct OD lies to the right of the point G - provisions near the end of the inclined mirrors at the moment, when the front of the light wave reaches far end. Section OG is proportional to the speed of the interferometer relative to the ether V, and segment OE is proportional to the speed of light C. It means the angle AOE more of the required arcsin(V/C). But, we still do not take into account the "Fitzgerald's contraction". When driving in ether, all material objects, including the mirror of the interferometer MM, is undergoing a longitudinal cuts. Because of this, equivalent tilt of the mirror obtains a few more changes, but, in the opposite direction. The resulting picture in scale is shown in figure by blue color. See, that as a result of the "Fitzgerald's contraction" the projection of the new position of the point E - E' coincides with the point G. Means the angle of AOE' has the required value of the arcsin(V/C), because H'E'=OG. Earlier made conclusions on the equality of the angle of incidence to the angle of reflection on equivalent tilt mirrors OB', and equality width of the reflected and incident rays remain in force, as you can do exactly the same kind of reasoning to the provisions of points with strokes.

It we have considered the reflection from a moving inclined
mirror in the system of a stationary ether. What will happen in the system, fixed on the mirror?
What, in fact, will see the experimenters? Aether wind is blowing in the direction opposite to the movement
with the velocity V, will "blow back" ray OE' to the provisions OH'. The experimenters will see the mirror OF'
located at an angle of 45^{0}. The measurement of its own benchmark in the moving system will show AO=AF'. That is,the
the observers will see the mirror in the position OF, and the reflected beam in the direction of OA in full compliance with the
laws of geometrical optics. And this is independent of the speed relative to the ether. Ethereal
the wind angled mirrors automatically compensated for. The phenomenon looks the same as in the state of rest
relative to the ether. This way is the relativity principle of Galileo for optical phenomena, but,
note that only by taking into account "Fitzgerald's contraction", i.e. only in the framework of the CLFP.

Equality angle AOE' arcsin(V/C)=arcsinβ can be proved strictly. According to the formula E.R.Hedrick (view http://ether.wikiext.org/wiki/Conference_1927_5_Hedrick )

tg(BOD)=(1-β)tg(FOD)

With the account of лFitzgerald's contraction╗

Then according to the formula E.R.Hedrick

In our case tg(FOD)=1, so

Next, use the the formulas of trigonometry: (See., for example,http://dxdy.ru/topic15422.html )

Now look at the table formula

In our case

the cotangent, which we have identified. Means AOE'=arcsinβ, qed.

Akeliev N.M.аааааааааааааааааааааааааRussiaаааааааааааааааVolgogradааааааааааааааа 10.07.2009 Ца 04.11.2011

In article it is shown that the formulas of A. Einstein's transformation describe not one pair of inertial systems, but two whis mutually exclusive physically incompatible requirements relative to each other.

Because of this in the derivation of the same physical values by various formulas A. Einstein's transformations will be different mutually exclusive results. For example, in [1] for the derivation of the formula for comparison intervals "space-time" in the "mobile" and "stationary" system, in the formula (-3) (in [1] it is not numbered) is taken two different moment of "space-time" in one and the same point x'. It turns out:

_{}

But if we do the same with the formula (-4), took two moments of "space-time" in one and the same point x, we get:

Similarly, when derived the formula to compare the length in the "mobile" and "stationary" system in [1] in formula (-2) is taken two different coordinates in one and the same moment "space-time" t. It turns out:

If the same thing done with the formula (-1), taking two different coordinates in one and the same moment "space-time" t', we get:

Formula (-8) and (35),
(-7) and (36) are mutually incompatible and give mutually exclusive values for
the same physical quantities. Moreover, it's all generally accepted criteria
is a sign of falsity of the theory, they have in SRT absolutely equal rights,
since obtained from official formulas of A. Einstein's transformations by the same
way. In an earlier edition of the textbook [1] proudly displayed all
four of the formulas. Preachers SRT argue that they use the formulas SRT in
practical calculations. How they choose: to which of the two peer-to-peer formulas
count? A coin throw? Fallen eagle, regarded as one, tails tails - on the other.
Not to confuse the audience, now the formula (35) is not mentioned at all, and the formula
(36) is mentioned only in words, that indirectly testifies to the recognition of
even by the preachers of SRT problems in this question. Simple and original
the way to solve this problem offers in [1] I.V.Saveliev. In the derivation of the formula
the ratio of the lengths of (-2) through l_{0} denote the length of x_{1}'-x_{2
}', via the l is the section of the x_{1}-x_{2}, as in the derivation of (-1), on the contrary, through the l_{0} the mean x_{1}-x_{2} and through l section x'_{1}-x'_{2}, then the result is the same.
However, according to the rules accepted in mathematics and physics in the framework of a connected
text identicaly specified values shall mean one and the same. And
issue one thing for another, is a deliberate deception.

аTrick, used in the textbook I.V.Savelyev with the replacement of the names of the variables criss-cross, is rigging and should not be misleading. In SRT is considered just two systems: the "fixed" K and conditionally "moving" K'. The dotted the values in the formulas SRT relate to the system K', not the dotted - to the system K. For those and others there are mutually exclusive values. This is the consequence of the fact, that the A. Einstein's transformations asked physically incompatible, have not jointly implemented conditions. Nevertheless, some admirers of SRT believe that changing the names of the variables criss-cross, when one letter in first indicate the dotted values, and then the same letter indicate not the dotted, this is normal. Allegedly, it has a meaning, the result of the measurements should depend on the order in which of the two systems "rests" object, in which of the two systems is the observer? From the point of view of SRT it really so. Systems K and K' in it are declared having equal rights. If the looking from one to the second length of objects is reduced, "space-time" slows down, and when viewed from the second to the first should be the same. But this is a contradiction and absurdity, physically it can not be realized. Try all of this to explain popularily on the "fingers". Let the system K, we have tied up with a Peter, and the system K' with Serge. After that come the preacher of SRT, renamed Peter in Serge, and Serge in Peter and began to talk about Peter, what refers to Serge, and about Serge - something that belongs to Peter. In such a situation Peter has the right to say: "I'm on the passport Peter, not Serge, and what you describe, 't have no to do with me any relationship!" The same thing, for sure, will do and Serge. In mathematics and physics rules at the expense of even stricter than in everyday situations. What is do in the textbook I.V.Savelyev, is unacceptable. In SRT the physical length depends on the order in which of the two systems is the observer. If you are in one system, then ...if you are in another system, .... And if you are not neither in the one nor the other system, and set in your home? Then how? If the object "rests" in the same system, then ...if the "rests" in another system, then .... Really to compare the lengths of the two objects we must have their "resting" in both systems. Let try to show it popular on an imaginary example. Let the above-mentioned Peter and Serge took a pieces of iron pipes of the same length. Carefully compare them and made sure that there length is the same. Then Peter remained on Earth, but Serge sits in a super-cooper photon spaceship's pulling engines, breaks off, making a circle, accelerates up to speed close to the speed of light, turn off the engines and by inertia passes Peter. In doing so, they have time to attach the pieces of pipes to each other for comparison of the length. Further according to SRT should be such a scene: Serge: "your tube is shorter "; Peter: "No, you have a tube shorter": Serge: "I've seen!"; Peter: "And I saw!"; Serge: "I even feel could!"; Peter: "And I feel could!" Well, if both of them will be admirers of SRT and take this absurd situation, as a matter of course, in other case they could to fight.

From the four possible formulas with mutually exclusive values preachers SRT chosen for official advertising only two: (-7) and (-8). Choice turned out unsuccessful. Beneficial for SRT would have the choice of two official formulas so that relativistic member was located on the same relatively dotted values: in both formulas in the numerator, or in both formulas in the the denominator. Then with the use of officially approved formulas whill be carried out announced invariance of the speed of light. Indeed, if in the system K

а,

then in the system KТ

ааа аааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(37)

Officially by the
administrative way approved version of the pair of formulas, in which, in such a
operations relativistic members are not reduced, but multiplys, and the speed of light is not save
(not invariant in the terminology of SRT). This, of course, did not happen
by chance. Official formula comparison of lengths chosen so that it looked and
the physical meaning of the incoming values as close as possible is consistent with the formula
conversion Fitzgerald-Lorentz (13), because of her CLFP output
formula E=mC^{2} for which claimed and SRT. A "slowdown of the
space-time" (-8) which is most was advertised during the life of A.
Einstein manifold "brilliantly confirmed experimentally, " and is,
almost, the main and the only "proof " of SRT (although
in fact there's all rigged, and no increase in life time
unstable particles, in fact exist). It was necessary to promote the acceleration of
processes, and not slowing down.

However, application of the right pair of formulas does not save SRT of inconsistency physical reality. If officially recognize the reduction in the length, then for compliance with the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light along the axis of the x it is necessary that "space-time " is not slowed, but sped up. That is unstable particle acceleration in the synchrophasotron would have to live no longer, as this is a long-advertised, but less. It is not profitable for SRT, so as embedded in the presentation of the public the idea that supposedly, the slowdown of the decay of unstable particles is, practically, the only "the experimental proof of the" SRT. (As already mentioned above, virtually all in this matter has been falsified.) If the same officially recognise the deceleration of "space-time", in compliance with the the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial systems along the axis of the x the length of objects should not decrease, but increase. Then the most common of the electrons, when accelerating in the synchrophasotron to the velocities, close to the speed of light, would have to acquire length, close to infinity. In the Universe are also seen glowing objects that have the speed close to the speed of light. But they have no a length, close to the infinity. So, the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in inertial systems of even only along one axis x does not fit with the observed physical reality.

Akeliev N.M..ааааааааааRussiaаааааааа Volgogradаааааааааа ааааааааааааааааааааа10.08.2009 Ц 26.11.2009

** **

In the article it was shown, thet Max Planck derived a formula connection between mass and energy in the framework of the CLFP. SRT this conclusion does not correspond to. Therefore, in the edition of the textbook [1] I.V. Savelyev has invented a new "way to output the" Planck's formula in the framework of SRT, on the border with total arbitrariness. The way to achieve the targets selected as follows: fit the formula for the relativistic momentum under the relevant formula CLFP, and further conclusion of the Planck's formula for the ratio of the mass and energy are similar. Definitely can say that from the original formula (67.1):

by mathematically correct equivalent transformations is not possible to withdraw the final formula (67.8):

а

When justification of the fact that the latter, in fact, postulated formula corresponds to the SRT, is a false assumption, that the interval "own time" is invariant in the systems K and K', at that time, as from the formula (-8) it is obvious that it invariant is not.

Consider this more in detail, at the same time let us say a few words about the "four-dimensional interval". (See. [1], з65 "Interval", p.227-231) the four-dimensional interval, it is, as it were, the distance between the two events in a kind of imaginary, special artificially constructed four-dimensional space. For the "stationary" system K square of four-dimensional interval has the form([1], p.228):

For "moving" system K' the square of the interval (in [1] the formula is marked with a number 65.3) is:

In our simplest case we can assume that the , and formula (-10), (-11) for more visibility can be rewritten in the form (38), (39):

ааааааааааааааааааааааааа (38)

аааааааааааааааааааааа (39)

From the formulas of Einstein's transformations (-2), (-4) (in [1] it 63.16) , it follows that

Substituting (-12) and (-13) in (39) we get:

From this, in its turn,
it follows that the four-dimensional interval (-10) or in our case (38) in
an imaginary artificially constructed four-dimensional space is
invariant (no changes) during the transition from the "stationary" system K to the "moving" K', if the translation from one
system to another use A. Einstein's conversion in the form of (-12), (-13).

Further, on p. 231 provides a formula (65.4) for the period of "own time" in the "moving" system:

It said that it
is equivalent to the formula (64.2) in our case it is the formula (-8):

Then the formula (-15) are produced by the following transformations:ааааа

It further states that VΔt this is "the way, followed by a body over time Δt " along coordinate x, that is this is, like, Δx. It is proposed compare (-16) with (38), and as an output from a comparison of provides a formula (-17) or (65.6) in [1]:

of which is the conclusion that "own time is also invariant", as well as four-dimensional interval. Yes, but in (38) Δx has the physical meaning not of the distance travelled by the origin "moving" system, but of the segment in the system K, equivalent, roughly speaking, the length of the object Δx', moving in the system K'. In addition, Δt in (-15) or (-8) not equivalent to Δt in (-13). But namely in the substitution of values in the form (-13) we had a invariance a four-dimensional interval. Indeed, if we substitute in (38) Δx=VΔt, and Δt derive from (-8), we get:

This is not equal to Δs'^{2} in equation (39) in the general case x'≠0, which, actually, is the subject of
consideration. Therefore, in general case the value of the interval
"own time" Δτ (-16) is not invariant under the transition
from the "stationary" system K to the "moving" K', and the equality (-17) or (65.6) in [1] is false. And really,
in formula (-15) or (65.4) in [1] Δτ this interval "own time" in the "moving"
system K', and Δt - interval "own time" in the "stationary"
system K. According to the formulas they are clearly not equal to each other
when V≠0. Nevertheless, I.V.Saveliev when
using mathematical tricks with a substitution of notions "proves"that they are equal.

Special artificially designed in SRT a four-dimensional space is also worthy of attention. If we consider the motion of a light wave, then, no matter how long was a motion, passed by a light wave 4-interval all the same will remain equal to zero. Have you encountered in practice with the space, in which the motion with high speed unlimited time not lead to change of the distance travelled? - No. Therefore, the four-dimensional space of SRT, that's not no space at all, but a disguised in a more complex form a postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in inertial systems. Indeed, for a ray of light from (38):

ааааааааааа (40)

Similarly from (39):

ааааааааааааа (41)

This is the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in inertial systems.

аBecause of the absurdity and contradictions to experiment postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in inertial systems, in SRT makes attempt to imagine that it can be derived from some more deep physical bases. In particular, in his lectures on SRT academician A. Logunov I encountered an attempt to imagine that source in SRT can be considered not postulate of the constancy of the speed of light, but the preservation of a four-dimensional interval. But from the above it is obvious that a special four-dimensional space was constructed in the SRT only to mask the postulate of the constancy of the speed of of light in inertial systems. Physical meaning and the conformity to physical reality it has not.

In formula (67.6) [1],

allegedly, equivalent (64.1) relativistic member moved from the denominator in to the numerator. Mathematically correct expression for dx' in this case is:

but not something that is given in the formula (67.6). When doing false justification of "invariance" "own time" I.V. Saveliev, where the meaning was to be used in a dx the length of the object, instead of thet he get path traversed by the beginning of coordinates. When doing definition of a relativistic expressions for momentum, he, on the contrary, uses dx' in the form for the length of an object. In determining the impulse length of the object values are not has a meaning, but the speed of his movements together with the origin of coordinate sistem V, "lowered" by I.V.Savelyev for the magnitude of the momentum is critical. In short, "output" and "justification" are made, very gently speaking, mathematically not correct.

аIn edition of the textbook, 1986, is being used another (the third) in relation to the publications of the 1970 and 1977, the method of outputting (fit under the well-known result, obtained in the framework of the CLFP) Planck's formula, ostensibly, in the framework of SRT. In the publication of 1989. (Savelyev I.V."The physics course" tutorial In 3 volumes. T. 1: Mechanics. Molecular physics. M., Science, ed. Fiz-mat. Lit., 1989, 352 p.) Formula for the relativistic momentum is given without any output, but gives a "substantiation" of her the conformity to SRT. In the edition of 2006, given the combination of the "withdrawal" of 1986 and "justification" of 1989. The impression is made, that SRT is located in the state of formation. Planck's formula preachers SRT attributed to A. Einstein no later 1945 of the year, and to prove it took only now. The previous "proof" were faked - is not mathematically correct. As lime is and the latter variant of 2006. Let us consider it. .( Savelyev Igor Vladimirovich "Course of general physics" In five books. Book 1. Mechanics. A training manual for system of technical colleges. M. AST. Astrel, 2006, 336 p. whis fig.) Note originality situation: I.V. Saveliev by the third way is trying (and unsuccessfully) to make that A. Einstein, allegedly, has already made 100 years ago. Let's consider the first a fragment from the textbook:

When
withdrawal A. Einstein's transformations, direction of the coordinate axes is chosen to be the
way that the movement was only along the axis of the x. That is, a dy=dz=0. Here in the formulas (6.31), (6.32),
(6.35), (6.36) appear proposed previously equal to zero speed movement along the
axis y, z, and, according to (6.34) (6.35) (6.36), law of motion along the
axis x differs from the laws of motion along the axes y, z. This contradicts the principle of homogeneity and isotropy of space.
In addition to the formulas (6.35) velocity components of the axes y and z depend on V_{0}
and V'_{x}_{'} - components of the velocity in the x axis. This is contrary to
the principle of the independence of spatial coordinates Cartesian coordinate system, on
which built the whole mathematical physics, in particular, vector
algebra. The components of the speed parallel axis x, have zero projection on
the y-axis and z, so they could not be present in the formulas describing the projection of the
vectors on these axes. The formulas for velocities along the axes y, y', z, z' are manifestly false. Nevertheless, they are
official formula SRT and appeared already in the first A. Einstein's article,
dedicated to the SRT: "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies". We take a closer look
these formulas in the sequel. In Fig. 6.6 components of velocity particles 1
and 2 on-axis x x' before and after the collision is equal, and components of velocity
axis y y'are not equal, and that it should be from the expression:

аааа (42)

If when equal the mass of the particles 1 and 2, the speed of them are not equal, then by the law of conservation of momentum in perfectly elastic collision they must exchange speeds. That is, if before the collision speed is equal to u then, after the collision, it should be equal to w and vice versa. If the speed of the particle before the collision is w and after w, as shown in the figure, it can be only if u=w. In the textbook they clearly are not equal. Again mismatch.

Next
again we see incorrect for mathematics and physics replacement cross crosswise
the names of the variables in the examination of cases (a) and (b) in Fig. 6.6 (fraud).
Why is it in this time? Again camouflage the emerging
mutually exclusive values. The fact is, that the formula (42) derivated from (6.35)
for a particle 2 under the condition of V_{y} =dy/dt=u, V'_{y}_{'}= di'/dt'=w. The speed of the systems K and K'are expressed the same way, as dy/dt and dy'/dt', respectively, for any particle. Therefore, if
consider the same for particle 1, without a change of notation, with the consideration of the V_{y} =dy/dt=u, V'_{y}_{'}= dy'/dt'=w, V _{x}=0 and formula (6.36) , we obtain the expression:

аааааааааааа ааа(43)

which has equal rights to the expression (42), but giving a mutually exclusive value. That is, the process of fitting flows so: take is clearly false formulas for velocities of the motion along the axis y and y'. Considering this formula in the case of motion only along the y-axis (y') and zero speed by axes x and x', you can obtain the ratio of the velocities on the axis of y and y', with the relativistic member, as in the numerator, and in the denominator, then distribute the result in the movement on axis x and x'. Thet way to get the missing relativistic member in the right place of the expression for the momentum. That is, do what mathematically correct way to make it is impossible.

In the result of these mathematical tricks received a correction factor, the use of which provides the coincidence of the relativistic momentum to the value attained in the framework of the CLFP:

(6.43)

The equations similar to (6.34), (6.35), you can get as well in the framework of the transformations of Galileo:

V_{x}=V_{x0}+VТ_{xТ}

V_{y}=V_{y0}+VТ_{yТ}

V_{z}=V_{z}_{0}+VТ_{z}_{Т}

As we can see, the laws of motion in all three axes of coordinates in these equations **identical, **that is a reflection of
the homogeneity and isotropy of space. The difference of the laws of motion along the axes
in formula (6.35), can be still shown else thus: In them it is impossible to increase the
unlimited speed along the axis x (the speed V_{0}). This prevents a
relativistic member. When V_{0} tends to the speed of light, relativistic member
tends to zero, and for the bigger values become apparent. At the same time to
the motion along the axis y, or z there are no such restrictions. Put your V'y'=1000000C, and
get the appropriate value Vy.

The speed of movement on axis y, and z in
the transformations of Galileo does not depend on speed of movement on the x-axis. In the equations
(6.35) this is not so. In their speed of movement on axis y, and z depend on V_{0},V'_{x}_{'}, that is, from the components of the velocity
movement along the x-axis. In the physic the spatial coordinates Cartesian coordinate system
are independent, and movement in the direction of its axes are
independent. The whole mathematical physics, in particular vector
algebra, is constructed on thet property. In SRT it is all rejected.

Why to fit to CLFP view of species component of the momentum on axis x I.V. Savelyev considers the special case of motion on axis y? This is because in this direction movement of the system K' there is no and not works wonderful law of addition of velocities of SRT, contrary to the rules of summation of arithmetic. The law of conservation of momentum closely associated with the classical law of addition of velocities, negated SRT. Indeed, in case of equal masses of the colliding particles situation in the law conservation of momentum is close to the classical law of addition of velocities. In SRT it is rejected, and, correspondingly, the law of conservation of momentum in the framework of the SRT becomes void. It is the manipulation beyond the mathematical correctness trying to hide I.V.Saveliev. On the page. 223 (see a fragment below) shows that and given the adjusting coefficient of the law of conservation of momentum in the framework of the SRT all the same is not performed.

In discussed in the textbook example with given incorrect way received correction coefficient of the total momentum of the particles before the collision is equal to:

and after:

Law conservation of momentum is not observed. How I.V.Saveliev comes out of this piquant situation? Quote:

Instead Of m according to the version of the I.V. Savelyev need to substitute m divided by the relativistic member, that is to apply a correction factor again. What is it justified? Let's see what this is stated in paragraph 6.8?

According to I.V. Savelyev in perfectly inelastic collision of two material bodies the excess of energy goes into their rest mass. In connection with this I propose a way enrichment according to I.V. Savelyev: Take in the bank for rent two pieces of gold general mass of 1 kilogram, and begin to beat one piece of the other. With each blow the weight of gold will increase. After some time you will have already 2 kilograms of gold. A kilogram returning to the bank, and for the remaining become a millionaire or a billionaire. I'm afraid that those who believe the approval of I.V. Savelyev to try thus increase the mass of gold, will be disappointed. When absolutely inelastic collisions of the two bodies of their weight does not change. The excess of energy becomes not in a mass, but in the warmth and the energy of deformation. The mass defect arises only in nuclear reactions. I do not think that the author of the textbook for Moscow The Engineering - Physical institute did not know where to actually go excess energy in perfectly inelastic collision of two bodies? But what only noodles not hang to the ears of children in order to "substantiate" the false theory SRT! Since the thesis on the increase of the mass of bodies as a result of absolutely inelastic collision is a fiction, it turns out that I.V.Saveliev himself proved failure to obey the law of conservation of momentum in the framework of SRT.

Planck's formula
E=mC^{2} in the framework of the SRT in correct way is not deducible. Once
again, I repeat that this formula is obtained of Max Planck in the framework of the already existing in
while the concept of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald, to Einstein and his theory of
is not relevant. Besides, as it turned out in the previous statement, in SRT is not
followed the law of conservation of momentum. In the literature was mentioned,
that in the early days of the SRT been discussion of non-compliance in its framework of the law
conservation of momentum, but how is it over? - don't say that. But nothing. Law
the conservation of momentum in the framework of SRT as 100 years ago was not carried out, so now
is not performed. Just think, what kind of stuff! In SRT rules of summation of arithmetic
rejected, is based on everything that even remotely claim to
the name of "science", and there are only some there, the law of conservation of momentum!

In the process of discussion in Internet at the forum MIFI practically none of the opponents did not become a defend the thesis I.V.Savelyev of full transition of excess energy in the rest mass for a completely inelastic collision, because everyone knows that during inelastic collisions of of material bodyes, they heat up. The transformation of energy into heat is obvious. And this already means failure to obey the law of conservation of momentum in SRT, because in the example it is saved only with the full transition of excess energy into the mass rest. The formula for the total energy of the body, borrowed SRT of CLFP:

shall not imply a change
the rest mass of the body in perfectly inelastic collision. It is valid for all
the possible values of speed V, including V=0. After that, as the speed of the body as a result of absolutely inelastic
the collision would fall to zero, the total energy of the body according to the following formula will be:
E=mC^{2} that corresponds to the rest mass m. Two identical bodies after
absolutely inelastic collisions will have rest mass 2m, but not

as this stated in the textbook I.V.Savelyev. Participant of the discussion on the forum MIFI with the nickname of the "Viscount" has agreed that the mass of the body in the sense of the number of atoms in the result is absolutely inelastic collision does not change. He applied cute expression: "Though beith, Though strike, at least over his head twist". However, he noticed that the thermal energy, which goes excess energy in the absolutely inelastic collision, too, has its own equivalent of the masses. This is not something what is called the rest mass, but also mass. All that has passed into the heat energy, almost instantly begins to radiate into the surrounding space in the form of infrared radiation. Really this process starts even earlier than the there is a complete stop bodies. This is a transitional process. In physics the results of the processes is usually evaluated after the end of the transitional process. And after the end of the transitional process no changes to the rest mass in relation to the mass of the the source of the bodies will not be. Therefore, as discussed in the textbook example in the SRT the law of conservation of momentum is not performed even after all of the manipulation.

Akeliev N.M.аааааааааааааааааааRussia Volgogradааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа 29.09.2009 Ц 27.11.2009

** **

Participant the discussion in forum MIFI with the nickname "└ЁїшьрэфЁхщ" considers, that if not to take a false statement I.V. Savelyev on the transition of excess energy into the mass of rest, in CLFP will not be the law of conservation of momentum, and in SRT, thanks to the bogus, it allegedly performed. Let us consider the simplest example, which considers I.V.Saveliev in the framework of the CLFP, and show that in the framework of the CLFP to comply with the law of conservation of momentum is not necessary, as in SRT, have recourse to falsification.

In CLFP inertial systems are divided into 2 categories: on a dedicated system, associated with the "fixed" ether and all the other, moving relative to the selected rectilinearly and uniformly. The only necessary and sufficient distinction CLFP from classical physics is the "Fitzgerald's contraction". So, let there is a kind of an inertial system K', in which somehow determined that she is moving relative "fixed" world ether (system K) with the speed V' . In this system is observed the phenomenon: two bodies of equal weight m move towards each other, also with speeds equal to V'. Body 1 is moving with the velocity V', the body of a 2 - speed -V'. Note, thet both speeds measured by their own system standard of length K'and vectors of these velocities lie on one straight line, coinciding with the direction to the speed of system K'. Further, there is a completely inelastic collision these bodies, and they are in the system K'stop. Before the collision, the total of their momentum in the system K' was p=mV'-mV'=0. After the collision speed formed body having mass 2m in the system K' is equal to zero and, therefore, and the total momentum is zero. That is in the system K' law conservation of momentum observed. Let's see how the process operates with the point of view of a dedicated system? The ratio between the speed of the system, measured in system K'own benchmark, and the actual velocity relative to the a world ether is determined by the formula (15) (see the text of article):

.

Relativistic member here is a scale factor for conversion speeds. So the actual system speed K' relative a world ether compared with the speed, measured own benchmark will be (less):

Speed of body 2, measured in the system K' (V'), in terms of the scale of dedicated the system of the same scale factor will be numerically equal to the same value. Therefore the speed of the body 2 relative a world ether before the collision, equal to the speed of the system K' relative a world ether, minus the velocity of the body 2, the measured own standard and converted to the scale of dedicated system, will be equal to zero:

Respectively and the momentum of the body 2 in the system, related to the ether, before the collision is equal to zero:

p_{2}=mV_{2}=0.

Similarly the velocity of the body 1 relative a world ether before the collision will be equal to:

,

and momentum:

.

The total momentum of bodies 1 and 2 before the collision is equal to:

.

After absolutely inelastic collision of the bodyes of the total weight of 2m moves together with the sistem K' relative a world ether with the speed.

and, accordingly, has momentum in the dedicated system:

that coincides with the total momentum of the bodyes before the collision. So, the law of conservation of momentum in the CLFP observed without the necessity of introduction of fraud, as in SRT.

Problem with the law of conservation of momentum in SRT arises from the absurd special law of addition of velocities, contrary to the rules of addition elementary arithmetic and do not correspond to physical reality.

Akeliev N.M.ааааааааааааааRussia Volgogradааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааа27.11.2009

** **

** **

аIn APPENDIX 6, it was noted that the formula (6.35) for projections of the velocity vector on the the y-axis and z in the publication of a textbook I.V.Savelyev, 2006 are manifestly false. They demonstrate different law movement on axis y and z in relation to the law of motion along the x-axis, that contrary to the homogeneity and isotropy of space. They also demonstrate the dependence of the speed of movement on axis y, and z on the speed of uniform and rectilinear motion along the x-axis, which is contrary to the independence of spatial coordinates Cartesian coordinate system.

Let's look at the wording of the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial systems in the latest edition of the textbook I.V.Savelyev:

"The principle of the constancy of the speed of light approve that the speed of light in a vacuum is not dependent on the speed of the light sources and, therefore, are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Note: the experiment of Michelson-Morley, confirming the validity of this principle will be described in book 4 of this course." Please attention to note. In the first volume is a false statement (see text the article) that the experience of the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the main postulate SRT about the constancy of the speed of light in inertial systems, and its description is given in 4-th the volume. That is, students are taught to accept false STO on faith. Rent exams students on the materials of the first and the fourth volume, at least in different semesters. This is an illustration of the stated in article thesis about the there's SRT is a kind of religion.

Now take one of the formulas (6.35) (see the scanned fragment in APPENDIX 6)

Suppose that V'_{x}_{'}= -V_{0}. From the formula (6.34)

it should be,
that V_{x}=0, that is, we choose a point
fixed relative to system K. Now let us start from this point the beam of light parallel to the axis y' (and y, respectively).
For example, this can be done with a laser pointer, which in this case
will be in the beginning of the coordinate system K. The start point of the beam of light
removed in the system K' from the origin of coordinates "mobile" system in a negative direction. If
start point of beam occurred at the beginning of the coordinate system K the starting place will remain so at this point. Front
the beam will move along the axis of the y. Axis y parallel
axis y', then a ray of light in
the case will be parallel to the axis y'. In formula (6.35) V'_{y}_{'}=dy'/dt', it is the projection of the velocity vector on the axis y'. The speed of the light beam in the system K' according to the postulate of SRT of the constancy of the speed of light
in all inertial systems is equal to C. Since the velocity vector is parallel to the axis y', the projection of it on this axis, too, will be equal to C. V'_{y}_{'}=C, and it is the only projection of the vector. Axis x (x') he is perpendicular to, the projection on thet axis is equal to zero. Then, from (6.35)
we get:

(44)

That is on this formula the velocity of light in the systems K and K' along the y-axis (y') are different. Below given explanatory figure.

Fig. 11

But what about a postulate which approve that the speed of light does not depend on the motion of the source and the same in all the inertial systems? On the x-axis preachers SRT at least pretend that a postulate is implemented mathematically. In fact, on the x-axis, they did not it turned out. Is vividly evidenced the failure to observe the postulate of the officially canonized formulas to reduce the length and deceleration of space-time (see text of the article). And on the axes y and z, they even steel not take the trouble to do it, the flock all the faith accepts. Thus, SRT postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial systems loudly proclaimed in words, but not implemented mathematically, nor on the x-axis, or the axes are y and z. Physically this postulate did not realizeble. Non-observance of the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in the direction of the y and z axes in SRT is not an accident. In the direction of the axis of x' it is not a coincidence. In right pair taking formulas for the change of the scale of length and change the "space-time" invariance of the speed of light is achieved due to the same change in the the scale. In the direction of y in SRT change applies scale "space-time", caused by the movement along not the axis of the y, but along the axis of the x. The change of the scale of length along the axis of the y' does not exist at all. In this approach the speed of light, of course, is not saved. In any case, as shown above, we can offer a situation where this contradiction is the main postulate of SRT becomes the obvious.

This conclusion met with fierce arguments of the opponents on the forum MIFI. According to their opinion, in SRT, the speed of light C is equal to the vector V' (see. Fig. 11). That is, not vector OA but vector O'A. In this case,

The substitution of this
value in (44) gives the V_{y}=C. Yes, but the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in inertial
systems explicitly said that the speed of light in vacuum is the
constant and does not depend on the motion of the system. In this formulation clearly there is in
mean speed of photons in the direction of their movement. According to the laws of geometrical optics
the photons move in a straight line, and the direction of their movement is given by a source in the
the time of emission. In our case, all broadcasting by source photons move
along a straight OA. Speed of photons in the direction of their
motion according to the official statement of the main postulate SRT should
persist, and the length scale and the space-time should be chosen under this
condition, as it is done for the beam of light directed along the x axis. In
our example V' (vector O'A) is a secondary value. This
the apparent trajectory of an abstract point A in the system K'. Along vector O'A there are no
photons except the one in the top, common to vectors OA and O'A. If we
rotates the system K', the apparent path was a spiral, if
pumped - zigzag. But photons, or in a spiral, or zigzag themselves move
can't, although by the choice of the coordinate system, we can ensure the visibility of the
a variety of seemingly trajectories. A light moving in the shortest way from
source. In a homogeneous environment, which is the world ether, the shortest way
is a straight line. Photons, at least, in a vacuum (the world ether) with
the speed of light, moving from the source in a straight line. In this case, it is moving
occurs along the y-axis. Of course, the speed of the first photon, measured
regarding runaway from this point O' along the vector O'A in this case
would be higher than the speed of light. But, in this case SRT does not impose the ban.
About that in the 1970-th XX century in the literature there was a special discussion in connection with the discovery by
astronomers objects that have a visible speed greater than the speed of light. Speed
the movement of the solar bunny in SRT can be higher than the speed of light.
It is justified by the fact, that photons do not move along the trajectory, the
moving solar bunny. With the help of such a movement on this trajectory is not
may be transferred information. Here is the same situation. Along vector O'A photons
do not move. The information in this direction transferred can not be. Therefore, and
restrictions on the movement of abstract point A in the system K' not
superimposed. But transferred to the information from the light beam can only be along
vector OA. Here according to the official statement of the postulate of the constancy of SRT
the speed of light in inertial systems of speed of photons is equal C, no more and not
less. Proceeding from this, we must count all the rest of speed. For Example: Let
in point of space-time t' photon at A point has coordinates (x',y').
Coordinate x'=-V_{0} t'. A photon with the speed of light moves from a laser pointer. For
the space-time t' coordinate laser pointer (that is the starting point) was x'=-V_{0} t'. From this point the photon has traveled with the speed
light y'=Ct', and at the initial moment is y'=0. Let's enter the unit vectors. Let the **i** is the unit vector of the axis of x', and **j** is the unit vector of the y-axis'. Passed
the photon path along this line is **S**=(Ct'-0)**j**+(-V_{0}t'+V_{0}t')**i**=Ct'**j**
and speed S/t'= C. Speed of point A in the system K' is **V**=C**j**-V_{0}
**i**. A module of this speed >C, but
SRT, as already mentioned above, in this situation does not impose any restrictions,
since photons do not move in the direction of O'A, but in the direction of OA. Yes, but in
the systems K and K' miscellaneous "space-time ". "Space-time" in the systems K
and K' on SRT different not by itself, but to ensure the similarity of speed
of light. In SRT there no postulate about a different space-time in different inertial
systems, but there is a postulate on the similarity of the speed of light. Come ought to be from
similarity of speed of photons. All the rest is the result. However, all of
what has been said is only logical reasoning on the basis of the official
wording of SRT. In fact, in SRT in our example, the notion of
"speed of light" really means vector O'A, that is, the vector sum of the speed actually photons in the direction of their
movement and speed of motion of the system. And on A. Einstein it is the sum of the two
unrelated with each other speeds, each of which is defined by its
an independent law, is the **world
constant**. However, this amount should have been called something else,
because the photons do not move along the trajectory determined by such treatment. Other
words, in SRT is postulated by the law for the nature the constancy of the speed of movement
photons along the apparent trajectory.

With "visible", "apparent" trajectories of movement we face constantly. This is the trajectory of movement of the Sun on a firmament, which is actually is determined by the rotation of the Earth around its axis. Other examples of "apparent" movement can serve as a movement of the solar bunny or the light spot from the the laser beam. The opposite of "apparent" movements are true movements, which defined by physical causes: the laws of mechanics, electrodynamics and etc.. In relation to the true movement the "apparent" movement is a secondary and are determined by the law of addition of velocities. For the "apparent" movements really can't be set any direct laws or restrictions. Laws and restrictions can only be set for the primary the true movements. As a result of the analysis of the example we have found out: if the velocity of light mean speed of photons in the direction of their movement, the official formula SRT gives an absurd outcome. Speed of photons in the direction of their movement for SRT different in different inertial systems. Instead of this under the speed of light A. Einstein offers imply "seeming" trajectory along which the photons do not move, which is the result of a vector addition of speed of photons with the speed of the system. The movement of photons is the true movement, and the referred value is "apparent" movement. In SRT, therefore, with a postulate is established direct restriction on "seemingly" movement. Roughly speaking (for clarity), is established by the law the constancy of the velocity of motion for the solar bunny. And established in such a way the "law" cornerstone laid in the basis of the the building of modern physics by preachers of SRT. When in the course of the astronomical observations were detected movement of space objects with velocities, exceeding the speed of light, preachers SRT announced that move are apparent. This, they say, movement, type of movement of the solar bunny. The preachers of SRT then solemnly assured to all, that in SRT restrictions are imposed only on the true movement, and under the speed of light, which is stored in inertial systems, refers to the speed of photons in the direction of their movement. But in fact, as we discovered, in SRT things is just on the contrary.

Opponents at the forum MIFI attempted to contest made here conclusions, arguing that vector OA in Fig. 11 in general is not a velocity vector in the system K'. I ask: "But what is it?" - "Simple just vector" In the physics there is not "just vectors". "Just vector", it is in mathematics. In the physics all vectors are vectors of something: the vector of force, the vector of velocity, the acceleration vector, vector of moving, etc.. Vector of what is a vector of OA, if it is vector difference of two vectors are vectors of speed? In the textbook I.V. Savelyev, given the definition of speed: "Speed is the derivative of a radius-vector of the particle-in-time". The radius-vector in the textbook is carried out only from the beginning of the coordinate system. Vector OA under such a definition is not suitable. In system K vector of OA is a derivative of the radius-vector of time and is equal to C, because it is light. So, it's all the same, the velocity vector even by definition I.V.Savelyev. For the speed there is a simplistic definition. To quote a Great Soviet encyclopedia: "the Speed in mechanics, one of the main kinematic characteristics of the motion of the point, numerically equal to the uniform motion relation of the traversed path, s, to the period of time t, for which this way passed, i.e., v = s/t." Since in this example we are dealing with the rectilinear uniform motion, to us this definition is quite suitable. In the definition makes no mention of the radius-vector and the method of measurement of distance path. The physical meaning of the concepts of "speed" is not in the radius-vector but the distance, distance per unit of time. Under this definition suits vector OA. (see. Fig. 11) The radius-vector, this is just one of the ways of determining the coordinates of the point in the reference system. The module of vector OA numerically equal to the distance in the system K', covered per unit of time the system K' along the axis y'. This is a speed. Found a strange distortion in the interpretation of the concept of the "speed" of the persons who have received education in MIFI. For example, if the graduate of the moscow engineering physics Institute will give the task to determine the speed of the lunar rover on the surface of the Moon, he could do it only in the case if its for this throwed to the Moon. Only in this way he will be able to hold the "radius-vector". In the case of the sistem "Earth" for him, the concept of "the speed of the lunar rover on the surface of the Moon" simply does not exist. In the rainbow case, while on Earth, he will be able to something muffled mumble only about the "just vector" or "vector difference", and realize that it, too, speed - will not be able to, the gears in his brain jam. а

If
OA is a beam from a laser pointer, and in the air
attended the dust particles, because of the scattering on it the beam become visible
visually. Now is popular laser show, during which the laser beams are good
visible. I recommended to the opponents on the forum to visit this show, move
relative to the laser source and find out where from in this will come
laser beams? - from the laser, or from the observer? So you can clearly see
the light in this process, the speed of light is cast on
the direction of OA, but not in the direction of O'A. The Concept of "speed of light" and "speed
a photon in the system K' with respect to the origin" it's not the same (they are not
identical). Not by accident in Fig. 11 they correspond to different vectors. In
classical physics, the first is a constant, while the second depends on the speed of
the system K'. Although now, in connection with the establishment of the physics of unchallenged administrative
domination of the preachers SRT, of this right does not say, but **in the classical physics**, including
basic kinematics, optics and electrodynamics, light is considered as
the spread of free elastic vibrations in the environment - world ether. Speed
the spread of such movements, as well as in any other media, is
constant, as well as constant is the speed of sound in air, water,
metals, etc.. When considering our example in the framework of classical physics,
the stationary system K is a system, that is resting relative to a world ether.
The speed of propagation of light waves in a world ether is determined by the parameters
environment. In this case, the electric and magnetic permeability of vacuum.
Speed of a photon in the system K' on the origin of coordinates in classical physics
is variable - vector sum of the actual speed of light
(constants) and the speed of motion of the system K' on a world ether. What
this value is a variable that does not mean that in the system K' by measurement
and calculations may not be defined in fact the speed of light, which is
the constant (the vector of OA can be defined in the system K', as vector
difference vectors O'A and O'O). In SRT, as we have seen, it is with precision
to the contrary: the world's constant is the vector sum of the speed of light and
the speed of the system, and the speed of the actual light is variable,
calculated from the condition of equality of the result of the summation of officially
approved by the constant. It will be good if so would proclaimed in a postulate. No, the postulate
proclaimed constancy is "speed of light", though the light did not
apply for the trajectory, the speed of which is declared
a constant.

Although this is only indirectly related to the topic under discussion SRT/CLFP, noting that, falsifying and distorting the foundations of physics, preachers SRT even get up to determination of the speed. I looked modern school textbooks in physics. In them already, as the I.V.Savelyev, the speed is determined, through the derivative of the radius-vector with respect to time. In my school years, pupils in the school the concept of "the radius-vector" and even "derivative" the head does not deluded, and the speed was defined as the distance traveled per unit of time. And it was correctly because the pupils should form a physical representation about physical quantities. The "experts" of physics at the forum MIFI teach-in mathematical definition of speed, and what does it mean physically? - do not understand. In our institute abstract of lectures on the physics the speed was determined, as the derivative on the time the distance between the two points. It is more correct definition. The starting point on which is determined by the speed of this, may be, as fixed in the given system of coordinates, or move in it in an arbitrary way. By one radius-vector to describe the last case it is impossible. In determining I.V.Savelyev is not visible the major characteristic of the concepts of "speed" - it relativity. And this is not accidentally. SRT preachers introduce to the physics the absurd false statement (postulate) of absoluteness the speed of light, so now the school sought to have childrens are not formed an idea of the relativity of speed.

а

Akeliev N.M.ааааааааааааааааааRussiaааааааааааа Volgogradааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааа27.11.2009-12.03.2010

** **

Let the speed of movement system K' along the axis x is equal to zero. That is, a V=0. Then, from (-3) and (-4) (see the text of article)

get

t=tТ

From (6.35) (see. scanned image of a fragment of a textbook in APPENDIX 6)

аunder this condition, we obtain:

V_{y}=VТ_{y}_{Т}, because V in equation (-3) is equivalent to V_{0}
in formula (6.35) (various symbols used in the textbook). Note that V and V_{0},
is the speed of the system K' relative to K along the x-axis. In
the case of the systems K and K' are motionless relative to each other. However, the "inside"
system K' might be a moving object. V'_{y}_{'} this is the projection of the velocity vector of the motion of such
the object on the axis yТ.

Let's rewrite the above equality in the form of:

orа dy=VТ_{y}_{Т} dt

After integration we obtain:

y=yТ+VТ_{y}_{Т}t

t=tТ

Compare this with the transformations of Galileo for the axis x

x=xТ+Vtаааааааааааааааа ааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(11)

аt=tТ

See, that in SRT for the movement of the subject "within the system" K' on axis y'acts classic transformation of Galileo. This means that the velocity of the object on axis y' is not limited, reducing the length and changing the scale of the "space-time" are not exist. Since in the the case of y=y', the same refers to the movement of the object along the y-axis in the the case, when the movement of the system K' along the x-axis is absent. For the movement of the subject "together with the" K' along the axis of the x in SRT act Einstein's transformations:

The difference of the laws of motion
on axis x "together with the sistem" andy "inside the system" is obvious. And with that, what if V=0 (V_{0} =0), then V_{y}=V'_{y}_{'} it, in fact, means the difference laws of
movement on axis x and y. In this approach, when on axis x apply Einstein's transformation, whereas on the y the Galileo transformation, and mathematical tricks
you can do just as I.V.Saveliev in the derivation of the formula for
the relativistic momentum considers the case when the movement is only available for the
axis y, displays on that basis equation (6.35),
just like, in SRT for the case of movement "within the system" K', a kind of
dependence, and then distributes it to the axis x in the case of the movement "together with the" K', although in
SRT for these cases, there are completely different laws of motion (see. APPENDIX
6).

When V_{0}=0 from
formula (6.34) (see the scanned fragment in ANNEX 6)

it should be V_{x}=V'_{x}_{'}, and from (-3) (see text of the article) t=t'. That is
Galileo transformation we have in this case in SRT and for the movement of the subject
"within the system" K' and along the x-axis. So, the speed of movement of the object "within
the system" K' in this case is not limited and on the x-axis. Change the scale
space-time is also absent. The system K' is an abstract
an imaginary object. When V_{0}=0 it practically does not differ
from the system K (V_{x}=V'_{x}_{' }V_{y}=V'_{y}_{'}, t=t'). However, in SRT in the
depending on how we imagine the movement along the x axis: "together with the"
or "inside" of the stationary sistem? - depends on the presence / absence of reduction
length, speed limit, change the scale of space-time. Then let's
imagine that the system K' immobile in relation to the system regarding
we want to move (K). Next, build a rocket, write on her side
in large letters: "OBJECT IN THE SYSTEM K'" and will fly on it without any
speed limits at least a billion times faster than the speed of light. A SRT on it
gives a "Good". For example, on a missile with such a magical inscription according to SRT can be for
half an hour to fly to the star Alpha Centauri and back. However, it is better
fly along the y-axis. If we will go along the x-axis, the preachers of SRT can attach
to our rocket coordinate system K' and the movement at a speed greater than the speed of light
from this it will be impossible (in SRT is the corresponding formulas for the x-axis, but
for the y axis such a formula is not at all). As we can see, peoples created SRT, had
a great sense of humor. Note, that in the basic kinematics speed of system
reference and the velocity of an object within the system has absolutely equal rights, there are
summed up with each other on an equal rights. In SRT, as we can see, it's not, so she
contrary to the basic kinematics.

System of coordinates, it is an abstract imaginary object. In itself an imaginary movement of this imaginary object may not cause any consequences in the physical reality, except imaginary. About the real physical effects it makes sense to speak only if "coordinate system" associated with some material object (not necessarily hard, but always in a certain way), because the real physical effects may cause only the actual material objects. And on the contrary, the motion of a material object is causing all necessary physical effects regardless of our desires, we want to examine it, or not. tied we are with him "system of coordinates" or not; included the object in its membership or not, including which axis we sent along with this movement: x or y. In the SRT, when we consider the motion of "coordinate system" along the x-axis, it is not mentioned, that in it must be a material object. This is an obvious absurdity in SRT which there are countless. For some admirers of SRT, the opponents on the forum MIFI, this causes quite wild submission, if by itself imaginary movement imaginary abstract "coordinate system" has some significance, and can cause some real physical effects. On the contrary, the movement of the material object in the direction of the y axis "within the system", in their opinion, it is not a movement at all. Physical effects, seting for movement along the x-axis is not their problem. Admirers of SRT believe that the "system", is a horn with the coordinate axes, and only in the presence of such a horn can be talk about a "transformation". Horn, this is an imaginary object, which applies only for clarity and convenience. If there is the velocity of an object in the system K' along the y'-axis' and the speed of the same object on the y-axis of the system K, then we can ask a question about the dependence of coordinates from time (space-time). By defining the law, according to which changes coordinate, we do "conversion". Horn fixed is not necessary.

After the conclusion of the formula of the relativistic
addition of speeds (6.34) in the SRT always happy to demonstrate that, if
at least one of speeds: V'_{x}_{'}, or V_{0} is equal to the speed of light
C, the resulting value V_{x} too is equal to C. But the amount of the V'_{x}_{'} in SRT is not limited by the value of C (V_{0}
limited). It can be arbitrarily large. For example, if V_{0}=0.5C
and V'_{x}_{'}=2C from the formula (6.34) we have V_{x}=1.25C. How it is the charm! In CLFP speed
more than the speed of light relative to the world ether makes mathematically
impossible relativistic member. In so doing, he acquires the imaginary value, not
have a physical meaning. In SRT in the formula (6.34) relativistic member, as
such, no. The fact that in the denominator, it is completely not the equivalent of.

One of the opponents in the forum MIFI expressed bewilderment: where in the formula (6.34) violation of the rules of addition elementary arithmetic? Well, if C+C=C, which is equivalent to 1+1=1 then the contradiction here the rules of addition of elementary arithmetic, in my opinion, it is fairly obvious to anyone who studied in school, at least one class. In the first class the children on sticks addition teach: "Children, take to the arms one stick. Add to it another stick. How many sticks out?" Well, if someone in the first class was not explained, let us consider the details. For the analysis again take the formula (6.34) from the last edition of the textbook I.V.Savelyev:

,

here:

V_{0} Ц speed of movement of "moving" system K'
relative to the "fixed" along the x-axis;

VТ_{x}_{Т} Ц the speed of the material object along an axis x' inside the "moving" system K';

V_{x} Ц the total speed of the object in
"stationary" system K along the x-axis;

C Ц the speed of light.

To make the formula (6.34) a little more clear, we rewrite it in the form of:

а

Figuratively speaking,
the preachers of SRT, how would ask the Mathematic question (by the preparation of
the corresponding equations): "How can we make it so that one plus one
equal to the unit?" Mathematics impartially says: "For this we need each
of summands is reduced in such proportion" We see it in
slightly transformed formula. But physically it does not happen even in the framework of the
SRT (not to mention the reality). V_{0} the speed of the system K' along the x-axis, which was, it
and stayed. In the formula it is in the same form and size. V'_{x}_{'} - the speed of the object "within the system" K' along the axis of the x', as has remained the same. Division by a factor
means a change of scale. But, of any additional change scale
length in addition to the "Fitzgerald's contraction", in SRT is not declared. What is in
the numerator of the formula (6.34), this is something that is summed physically. Physically summands
represent the segments of a straight line (the path traversed by the unit
space-time). Of course, the value of the V_{x} in the left part of equality is not equal to the amount of physical
sum of the segments V'_{x}_{'} and V_{0} (in other words the sum of the corresponding
vectors). But SRT is issued it for such a sum! This is the contradiction
the rules of addition of elementary arithmetic and the rules of summation of vectors
in vector algebra. The physical meaning the value V_{x} does not have. Mathematically, it is an answer
to the question: how from the physical amount of sum of vectors to do something that whant to get
the preachers of SRT?а

а

Akeliev N.M.аааааааааааааааааааааааRussiaаааааа Volgogradааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааа30.11.2009 Ц 14.12.2009

As was shown in the analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment in the text of the article (an analysis of the Lorentz), when there "Fitzgerald's contraction" exist, optical path, followed by a light beam in longitudinal and transverse orientation of the arm of the interferometer is the same. Optical path is the path followed by a light beam on a world ether with the speed of light C. He's right proportional to the time spent on the passage of a beam of light the distance. The same optical path means that the time spent on passing arm of the interferometer in the forward and reverse directions, at different orientations will be the same. It is important to understand on the answer to the question: does the orientation of measuring shoulder in length or breadth to the direction of motion of the Earth relative to the world ether influence on the measurement of the speed of light in the bi-directional method of its measurement? No, no influence. The measured length of a shoulder, despite the existence of a "Fitzgerald's contraction" in both directions will remain the same (equally with arm of the interferometer will be reduced measuring line). The optical path, and therefore the time of passage of the shoulder is also the same. Therefore, the speed, measured as the average time to the passage of the shoulder in the forward and reverse directions, too, will be the same at longitudinal and transverse orientation of measuring shoulder in relation to the movement of the Earth. But in APPENDIX 4, we found out that it should vary depending from the change of velocity of the Earth relative to the world ether to the extent that changes relativistic member. Let's try to roughly estimate the these limits. In the relativistic member we need to substitute the speed of the motion of the Earth relative a world ether. How to define it? In 1965 was opened so-called "cosmic microwave background radiation". The quanta of this radiation with the spectrum corresponding to the spectrum of an absolutely black body with a temperature of 2,725ºK uniformly fill the space, moving in all possible directions. When decided to measure the anisotropy of this radiation, it turned out that the celestial sphere is divided into two halves: one hemisphere of radiation frequency is shifted to higher side, the second - in the lower. It is connected with the motion of the Earth relatively of the system in which the cosmic microwave background radiation is spherically symmetric. On the whole logic this system is a separate system CLFP related to fixed ether. The Doppler shift of the CMB determined that the Earth is moving relatively to this dedicated system with a speed of approximately 370 km/s in the direction of the constellation Virgo. The same value in the value and direction got in his experiments with unidirectional measurement of the speed of light Stefan Marinov. To what extent is the change of the module of speed of movement of the Earth relative a world ether in connection with the irregularity of her movement? The speed of the motion of the Earth in an elliptical orbit around the Sun changes from maximum 30,27 km/s and a minimum 29,27 km/s.. This the irregularity is revealed in the course of the year cycle. There is a daily irregularity connected with the rotation of the Earth around its axis, maximum appearing at the equator 0,46 km/s. A significant contribution was supposed to make the speed of the motion of the Earth in its orbit. If the plane of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun coincides with the plane of the orbit of the Sun's motion around the center of the galaxy, the speed of movement of the Earth's orbit was to be sum or subtract during the year, with a speed of motion around the center of the galaxy. But it would so if the Milky Way was in the vicinity of the equator. In fact, in the mid-latitudes the Milky Way (the plane of the disk of our galaxy) comes almost up to the zenith of the celestial sphere. If one considers the tilt of the axis of rotation of the Earth concerning the orbital motion around the Sun, it turns out that the plane of the orbit the Earth is approximately perpendicular to the plane of the orbit of the Sun's motion around the center of the the galaxy. (Will be roughly to believe that is perpendicular to) In this case, the one-year movement of the Earth around the Sun and daily motion around its axis change only the direction of the velocity vector on a world ether, but have little effect on the value of its module. And in the relativistic member appears the module speed relative to the world ether. The observer on the surface of the Earth moving on a world ether, as would, in the small daily and a large annual spiral. The period of rotation of the Sun around the center of the galaxy is about 200 million years. The speed of the Sun's motion around the center of the galaxy is 220 km/s. This is less than the above-mentioned velocities with respect to the a dedicated system. Then, together with the galaxy, the solar system somewhere else moves relative to a still a world ether. Speed of movement around the center of the galaxy and together with the galaxy is so slow pace of change, that their can be considered practically constant. Then, on the background of speed of movement of the Earth on a world ether, approximately 370 km/with basic non-uniformity makes only the irregularity of the Earth's motion along the orbit - 1 km/s. And it must be taken into account, the unstable component of the velocity is approximately perpendicular to the main stable component. How when the such irregularity is changing relativistic member? Will roughly assume that the speed of light in vacuum, determined by some independent method for parameters of the environment (world ether): the electric and magnetic constant is C=300,000 km/s. Substitute the lower limit in relativistic member:

=299999770,405 ь/ё

Substitute in relativistic member the upper limit:

=299999770,306 ь/ё

We see that as a rough approximation assessment according to CLFP a one-year difference in the measured value of the speed of light, if it measure the immediate bidirectional method is of the order of 0.1 m/s. At the same time we can see that the speed of light, a certain direct bidirectional method, although not depend on the direction, at the same time significantly, approximately 229 m/s less than the speed of light measured by the independent method based on the parameters of environment.

Now,let's see
how to it meet available experimental data. (See physical
encyclopedia: www.femto.com.ua/articles/part_2/3693.html
Officially approved (by the Decision of the General assembly of the International committee of the
the numerical data for science and technology - CODATA in 1973 speed of light:
299792458 ▒ 1.2 m/s. coincides with the value obtained for the parameters of environment
(the electric and magnetic permeability of the world ether). The most accurate
value, mainly coincides with the above-mentioned, received in 1972 by independent
measurement of the wavelength and frequency of the radiation 299792456 ▒ 0.8 m/s. As shown in the
APPENDIX 4, in the moving sistem regardless of the speed of her movements, the frequency and
the wavelength of the light sources, moving together with her, perceived the same
as in the system, fixed on a world ether. But at varying speeds
relative to the world ether on the length of length scales fit different number of
waves of light radiation. Therefore, measured by the standard length
the value of the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation will not correspond to the
true. However, this is not so. Standard length is not
a piece of metal channel, as in the beginning of the 20-th century, but a certain number of
waves of a certain spectral lines of a particular source. In 1960 ╒I
General conference on measures and weights adopt a new definition of the meter:
the metre is the length equal 1650763,73 wavelength in vacuum of radiation,
the transition between levels 2*P*_{10}
and 5*d*_{5 }atom
krypton-86. The length of such a reference does not depend on the velocity of motion of the system. On
a matter of fact, in the most accurate experiment to measure the speed of light,
the wave length of one source was measured by wavelength of another.
Of course, in this approach, when everything is determined by the length of the wave
electromagnetic radiation, it is not surprising that calculated on the wavelength and
the frequency of the radiation of the speed of light is equal to the value, calculated according to the
parameters of the environment. Unfortunately, in 1983, the preachers of SRT got to the
standards of length and time. Second identified at the time of passage of light
a certain distance in meters and meter is the distance passed the light in
some time in seconds. But the mentioned above the most accurate experiment
was conducted prior to the introduction of falsifiers of physics that the next point of absurdity. And
what values gives a direct measure of the speed of light bidirectional
method? The most accurate of the published results is:
299792,5 ▒ 0,15 km/s. (The standard metre determined by experiment that gives the error
▒ 150 m.) See, that the accuracy of direct measurements far from
which is necessary for the detection of instability of the measured values in
the annual cycle. Why such a low accuracy of the direct measurements of?
Now is the time can be measured with an accuracy of up to femtosecond (10 ^{-15} s.),
distances - up to the angstrom (10^{-10} m.). Above we roughly estimate that the
the difference between the values calculated on the parameters of the environment and the measured
bidirectional method, according to CLFP should be about 229 m/s. This
the essential difference, but it is within the tolerance of the most accurate
published today, the value of direct measurement - 300 m/s.
There is, all the available experimental data, at least do not contradict the
CLFP. But I believe that with modern facilities can be direct
measurement of the speed of light bidirectional method perform much more precisely, and not
the possibility that the more accurate data hiding SRT preachers, who head the
the world of physical science, to cover the difference of the values of the direct and indirect
measurement, which corresponds to CLFP and contrary to SRT.

Akeliev N.M.аааааааааааааааааааааRussiaаааааааа Volgogradааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааа04.01.2010

The Poincare Group are "the heavy artillery" preachers of SRT. In technical Universities they are not teaching due to the small practical applicability. However, against the critics of SRT this arsenal is used successfully. So one of the critics of SRT I.V.Sekerin, working in the SB RAS, wrote a letter to the minister of education and science A.A.Fursenko with the requirement of the deletion of SRT from the program of teaching schools and Universities, as false theory. His letter was given to the examination in several research institutions. And here is the answer from the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (Dubna, Moscow region): "the Laboratory of theoretical physics name D.I. Blokhintsev.

Relativity has the exact mathematical representation or as a group of Galileo, or as a group of Poincare. These groups belong to the class of Lie groups, the theory of which developed very deep. Components of the velocity of relative movement are group parameters, the group of space-time symmetry. Law of addition of velocities is determined by the Lie algebra of the group of Galileo or the Poincare group. In the second case the speed of light is an absolute scale in the space of velocities (from the geometric point of view - Lobachevsky's constant ). The Geometry of Lobachevsky and the Poincare group are here sides of the same coin. Deny the relativity of Einstein (the Poincare group) means to deny Lobachevsky's Hyperbolic geometry.

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа Senior researcher of LTP JINR

ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа Pestov A.B."

As Lobachevsky's Hyperbolic geometry , so the Poincare group are abstract mathematical models. Compliance of their to physical reality requires evidence.

Conclusion H. Poincare
transformation of coordinates and "space-time" SRT in the group form is submitted
in the article of "Wikipedia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_transformation Note that H. Poincare is not
the author of these transformations. The author of them is not even Lorenz, which they
falsely attributed, but the English scientist Joseph Larmore, who published them in 1897
year. Poincare made fit to pre-known to him as a result of
can be more difficult for perception the way. For this purpose used
more not visual matrix form of the records of the equations. Consider this version of the output
formula SRT, if possible, briefly. H.Poincare reaches the desired result
by the introduction of "axioms" and assumptions. Moreover, if A. Einstein at least
trying to create the appearance of physical validity of their "postulates", then H.
Poincare takes his "axioms" and the assumption "from the ceiling," without nothing physically
substantiating. Just when such ungrounded assumptions
it turns out beforehand known to him the result of a Larmore's formula. In the section:
"Coordinate transformations as a group" instead of two postulates A. Einstein
is introduced 4 postulate H. Poincare, of which in the process of further output
uses only 2:

1. Х Closure: the composition of two transformations is a transformation: consider a composition of transformations from the inertial frame K to inertial frame K', (denoted as K→K'), and then from K' to inertial frame K'', KТ→KФ; apparently there exists a transformation, K→KФ, directly from an inertial frame K to inertial frame K''.

4. Inverse
element: for any transformation K→K' there apparently exists an inverse
transformation KТ→K

In the next topic : "Transformation matrices consistent with group axioms" at the first equation are introduced t and t', z and z' the odds. This is also hidden "postulate". Why is introduced t', different from t? We know perfectly well that in classical physics there is no any t'. Everywhere there is one and the same time t. How does in SRT is achieved visibility of execution of a postulate on the constancy of the speed of light in inertial systems? - the scale length and "space-time" is changing in the same degree (see APPENDIX 5, formula 30). The fact that already in the first system of equations are introduced different t and t', z and z' with the coefficients, is a preparation for mathematical realization of this focus. In the following two systems of equations for the velocity of motion of the beginning the coordinate system K' relative to K, measured in the system K' and K is set equal to one and the same value v. It seems quite natural.

In transformations of Galileo it is so. But in CLFP this is not so. In the moving sistem changed the standard of length, it is supposed to do so in this case. The velocity of the origin of the coordinate system K', measured by different standards of length in the moving system and in the system, fixed on a world ether, will be different. Here, believing measured the speed of the same, in advance prepare a situation, when change the scale of length will be compensated by equal zoom "space-time", so that the velocity of the origin of the coordinates was invariant. But the speed of light, it is also the speed, in these conditions, and it will be invariant. That is, this low observable assumption, taken H. Poincare out of nowhere, prepares the ground for the implementation of the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in inertial systems. Now, there's just so change the scale of length, that the speed of light, measured in mobile and stationary systems, not depended on summarized with her speed of moving system. I.V.Saveliev for this rightly introducing a postulate A. Einstein on the constancy of the speed of light in inertial systems and solve the obtained system of equations. Here, in the less obvious matrix method solved a system of equations in total form. But the place for the speed of light C in them are already booked in the form of the coefficient, the previous compilation of equations for the velocity of the origin the system K'. Instead of the A. Einstein's postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in inertial systems H. Poincare introduces the principle ╣1, on the basis of which after multiplying the matrices requirement of equality of diagonal elements, which is equivalent to the demand of permanence in all inertial systems of values, prepared by previous manipulation to the speed of light C. that is, it is the same postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in inertial systems, but pronounced maximum confusing way. The Second postulate of A. Einstein A. Einstein's "the principle of relativity", H. Poincare corresponds to the principle ╣4. Compliance here is quite obvious. "The A. Einstein's principle of relativity" lies in the fact that the formula in particular, the transformation of coordinates in different inertial systems should be look the same. It has H. Poincare, without further ado, is achieved by the direct use of "axioms" ╣4. That is, this "axiom "is equivalent to the second postulate of SRT or "the A. Einstein's principle of relativity". It is important to understand that, as "postulates" A. Einstein, as well as the "axioms" H. Poincare, taken not from experimental data (experimental data they directly contradict), but of personal views of the authors about what is required to complete and the final happiness of mankind. In other words, the Poincare group, based on the "axioms", equivalent to the "postulates" A. Einstein, do not have the intrinsic cost and are used preachers of SRT only for entanglement brain critics of the SRT and the rest of the public.

In the case under consideration here briefly Wikipedia article "Lorentz transformation" I especially liked the mention of CLFP in section "History":

In early 1889 Heaviside had shown from Maxwell's equations that the electric
field surrounding a spherical distribution of charge should cease to have
spherical symmetry once the charge is in motion relative to the ether.
FitzGerald then conjectured that HeavisideТs distortion result might be applied
to a theory of intermolecular forces. Some months later, FitzGerald published
his conjecture in Science to explain the baffling outcome of the 1887
ether-wind experiment of Michelson and Morley. This became known as the
FitzGerald-Lorentz explanation of the Michelson-Morley null result, known early
on through the writings of Lodge, Lorentz, Larmor, and FitzGerald. Their explanation was widely accepted as
correct before 1905.

That is, from 1890 to 1905 years explanation of the results of the experience of the Michelson-Morley done by CLFP, everywhere was recognized as correct. And still now CLFP is the only theory that where mathematically and physically correct explanation of this experiment. In CLFP conclusions are not based on " postulates" taken from the ceiling, but on the experimental data and all the previous experience of the development of science. However, in the 1905 the normal development of physics was interrupted by the appearance of a complete collection of stupidity and absurdity - A. Einstein's SRT. The answer to the question, how so unsatisfactory theory was able to get the status of the universally recognized and the only true in the world of physical science? - goes far beyond physics.

Found on the Internet at an interesting article a French author: C. Marchal "Poincare, Einstein and the Relativity: the Surprising Secret" http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf05/ps/c5-1.pdf With June 5 on August 1, 1905, at the university of Gottingen (Germany) was held scientific seminar. The organizers were David Hilbert, Hermann Minkowski and Emil Wiechert. Poincare was not present at this seminar, but sent to the announcement on its own 3 recent work on the relativity principle and the "Lorentz transformation". The university of Gottingen, in which previously taught Gauss, Riemann, Lejeune-Dirichlet, was considered to be one of the leading universities of the time. School of mathematics in it was headed by David Gilbert, a former scientist top of the world rank. However, the palm better in a world specialist in the field of mathematics of that time he has successfully challenged the Henri Poincare. This is evidenced by a prestigious international Bolay prize in mathematics, awarded by Poincare. One of the organizers of the seminar Emil Wiechert in early 1905 published in the university journal the work on the movement of the electrons with the speed greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. Just 5 June 1905 Poincare made a report at the French Academy of sciences the principle of relativity, created the effect of an exploded bomb. Materials associated with this report, were sent to all leading universities of Europe, including Gottingen. In these works was made a conclusion about the impossibility of motion of material bodies with a speed higher than the speed of light in a vacuum, and that, by the way, the question, which were going to devote a seminar in Gottingen university. And Wiechert, and Gilbert sharply negative attitude to Poincare, as the scientific competitor. Meanwhile, the opening of the Poincare saw a huge the worldview value. In short, the organizers of a seminar decided not to disclose in it the works of Poincare. Was discussed, as planned, the movement of the electrons with velocities greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. And the works of the Poincare were allegedly lost. In fact, they fall into the hands of G. Minkowski. Not to disappear good, Minkowski decided to pick up for them a new author. Such was selected A. Einstein, his former student in 1896-1900 already not by the time accused the occupation of plagiarism. It was unknown in the world of science the young man, which in the case of exposure did not lose anything, and in case of success of a scam acquired the fame of the author of a great discovery, changing the understanding of Nature. Himself Minkowski decided not to publish the work of Poincare on its own behalf, but almost immediately connected to "develop " SRT after the publication on behalf of A. Einstein. All this would have only a moral meaning, if the result was the correct theory. Not so important for the end status , who is its author? But, Poincare, bad knowing physics, made in his theory a number of errors. A.Einstein, who have not known or physics, nor mathematics, added to the theory of still a bunch of absurdity from himself personally. Poincare was extremely educated intelligent person. Plead for himself, exposing the plagiarism A. Einstein, he considered it impossible. He was generous person in respect of the recognition of foreign achievements in the areas, which work itself. So with his feed a "group of Lorentz" and "Lorentz transformation". Although the Lorentz was not engaged and will not interested in what "groups ". What Poincare called "Lorentz transformations" on actually invented Joseph Larmore. He sent Lorentz its work on this subject. Lorenz tried to use these conversion (without much success) in the simplified form in one of his work, which has become known to Poincare. It is curious, that Joseph Larmore never challenged the authorship of the "Lorentz transformation". Maybe it was somewhat scientist, of which could "wipe his feet" all who are not lazy? No, he was secretary and chairman of the London The Royal society. In our president of the Academy of sciences of the United Kingdom. He just understood physical falsehood invented by them transformations and do not want them to be linked with his name. Now, generous for recognition of another's merits H. Poincare, Einstein did not mention in his writings or once. In his opinion, the contribution of A. Einstein was zero or negative.

And what Lorenz? I'm spreading his original concept, but he, like, relinquished it? No. At a conference in Pasadena 1927, he said: "... thus, we came to the ordinary theory of experiment, which should give hope to the displacement of interference fringes, the lack of which is explained by the the well-known hypothetical reduction (Lorenz reduction). If I am asked, consider whether I of this decline, as a reality, I will answer "yes". It is the same reality, as all that we see."(ё.123) And again: "Real time for me was still presented the old classical concept of absolute time, which does not depend on any of the special systems of reference. There is, in my opinion, only this one true time." (p.121) In these two sentences is the essence of CLFP. It was in 1927, when the orgy in the media to promote a SRT A. Einstein was already in full speed.

Akeliev N.M.ааааааааааааааааааааааRussiaааааааа Volgogradааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааа27.01.2010-05.11.2011

An example, presented in the APPENDIX 8, is interesting for the fact that it have the meaning of practically coincides with the example, considered by A. Einstein in the article "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies". There A. Einstein cheerfully begins with a consideration of the three-dimensional variant: there are two inertial systems K and K'; the system K' is moving relative to K with the velocity V along the x-axis; In the moment of the beginning, when the origins of the coordinate systems are the same, from this point is radiated spherical light vave. The equation of the light wave front, at the moment of time t in the system K has the form:

And further presentation continues with the obvious intent, proceeding from the A. Einstein's postulate
relativity, and the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in
inertial systems, to submit such conversion, after which the same
spherical wave will have in the system K' equation of a sphere of radius Ct' with
center point OТ:

But in the course of presentation a spherical wave where it disappears and is replaced by one
and the only ray which is match in the direction with the velocity vector V. Let's
all the same consider graphically this example, though, in a two-dimensional
version:

Fig. 12

In Fig. 12 circle ABDE with the center at point O is a projection of a sphere,
formed by the front of a spherical light waves at the moment of time t,
radiated at the initial moment from the point O. To perform a postulate on
the constancy of the speed of light in SRT expressed the intention to build a sphere with the center
at the point O', with a radius of Ct', coinciding with the sphere ABDE. It is clear that if the
time t in the system of K corresponds to any particular fixed value of
"space-time" t' in the system K', to build such a sphere **is impossible**. But in SRT, however, such a sphere is built. How
does implemented such a trick? It is done so: in each direction of a straight line,
connecting point O' on the surface of a sphere ABDE the radius of Ct, with a center at point O in the system K' changes
length scale and scale of "space-time", so that Δl'/Δt'=C.
Δl'counted in the length scale of the "stationary" system K, the distance
from the point O' up to the surface of the sphere ABDE, for example the length O'E (see. Fig. 12). For
preservation of conditions Δl'/Δt'=C should be to Δt' has changed in the same
proportions. That is, Δl'/Ct=Δt'/t. Hence, we see that in the direction of O'D
length scale and "space-time" in the system K' should be reduced, in
the direction of O'A - increase, and in each of the intermediate directions to take
some intermediate value. From this discussion we can make a lot of
interesting conclusions.

Firstly, it should be noted then, as described in APPENDIX 8: photons do not move along the trajectory O'E. Here the limitation with the change of the scale length and "space-time" without explanations of physical reasons is superimposed on the vector sum of the two movements (OO' and OE), each of which is determined by an independent physical law. No material objects do not move along the trajectory O'E, but the scale of space and the rate of space-time in this direction should be changed for SRT in the specified proportions.

Secondly, talk about that according to SRT objects in the moving system is undergoing a longitudinal Fitsgerald's contraction, and "space-time" slowing down are pure hoax. Mathematically, these assertions are proved by incorrect way. To the right of the the origin O' (see. Fig. 12) objects according to SRT should decrease, and "space-time" accelerate, left - on the contrary length increases, and the "space-time" slowing down. In intermediate areas these parameters must take intermediate values.

Thirdly, false is the statement that moment of time t in the system of K corresponds to some kind of fixed a moment of "space-time" t' in the system K'. t' is different for each of the directions, carried out from the point O'. Moreover, and along each of the lines of "space-time " t', the particular value of t, not the same and varies from point to point. The instrument for measuring the "space-time" it is impossible to create, because any device is not a point object, and on the SRT in each point of space the system K' flowing their own "space-time ", different from the neighboring points. And to this same point of space in the system K still flows and the normal classical time. In the unit of measurement for the "space-time", you must specify the point in space, which it corresponds to.

Fourthly, from the drawing it is visible, that in the system K the time is flowing normally, in a classical law, equally in all directions and points.

According to the classic ideas and CLFP in the system K' position front of a spherical light wave ABDE with respect to the origin of the moving system K' is determined by the vector sum the amount C't=O'F the path traversed by photons Ct and the beginning of the coordinates Vt system K' (see. Fig. 12). That is, in CLFP in both systems the same time, but different the relative speed, and in SRT numerically the same relative speed, but different space-time and length scale. The length and scale of the "space-time" system K' for each direction in SRT are selected thus, to the translation in the system K, they gave exactly the same numeric value, which gives the classical law of addition of velocities of objects with the speed of light and the classical flow of time. Therefore, in spite of the all delirium assumptions made in SRT, she gives in some cases, the proper numerical values for the experimentally determined values. In particular, A. Einstein, in SRT, where there is a representation of the constancy of the speed of light, displays almost the correct formula for the Doppler effect and stellar aberration, which unambiguously attributed to the classic composition of velocities of objects with the speed of light. And this is because of the formula SRT and were selected so as to provide with the right translation the same value with the classical law of addition of velocities. But then why do we need that stuff and emotional fuckwittage? A. Einstein's "space-time" is absolute fiction, not having to time no relationship. Type: "We are not looking for easy ways, why just considered through the classical law of addition of velocities, if the same result can be difficult to get through the introduction of fictitious values 'space-time'?╗

In the text of article stated, that A. Einstein's "space-time" should have spatial components. We have seen above in the example of the article A. Einstein "To the electrodynamics of moving bodies" for the case of motion of the system K' along the x-axis. But the presence of spatial components of the A. Einstein's "space-time" as well follows from the equality of spatial coordinates. If when driving along the x-axis is the change of scale of the "space-time" depending on the speed of motion along the x-axis, and in the presence of the movement along the other axes must also be changing the scale of the "space-time". And since the speed of movement on the axes in the general case is different, and the components of the "space-time" should be different. In SRT this fact all forces try to not widely advertise in view of its obvious absurdity. In the textbook I.V.Savel the general case of motion of the system K relative to the system K' under the arbitrary angle is not considered. Considered the general case of motion of the object "within the system" K'. It is argued (not in words, but in formulas) that "within the system" K' regardless of the direction and speed the movement of the subject is valid the value of "space-time", defined by speed of motion of the system along the x axis, and the reduction of the length of the moving along axis y', z', x' is missing (see. APPENDIX 9). Therefore, the assertion about the presence of the spatial components of the A. Einstein's "space-time" have to prove optional. The Wikipedia article "Lorentz transformation" more steep SRT preachers than I.V. Saveliev lead the general case of a transformation A.Einstein for the movement of the system K' relative to K under arbitrary angle:

"More generally for a boost in an arbitrary direction (βx,βy,βz),

were ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааааandаааа

а"

Rewrite on the basis of
the matrix form expression for t' in the usual form:

Here the existence of the spatial components of the A. Einstein's "space-time" is obvious. (For each value t, x, y, z there is its own, different from the others, the value of t'), and so, for SRT fair expressed in the article and in the process of discussion the conclusions about what the twin needs to grow old on one axis and stay young at the other two, that a particles in accelerator should in a longitudinal direction disintegrate with time delay, but across - without, and that all this nonsenses it should be experimentally confirm those who claim that SRT found "brilliant" experimental confirmation.

From this formula, for t' in the general form as follows, that the unit of measurement the "second" is not suitable for the measurement of the A. Einstein's "space-time". To say that the value of "space-time" t of, say, 10 units corresponds to a certain number of units of t', it's nothing to say. It is necessary to clarify: to which point of space does this refer to? Therefore, the spatial position of the point should be reflected in the unit the measurement of the "space-time", which in the euphoria of the "brilliant " experimental confirmations of SRT still forgot to invent. Forgot the same invent and a device for the measurement of the "space-time". Let's imagine, that the standard mechanical alarm clock is located in point of space with coordinates x, y, and z. Alarm clock, this is not a point object. Above, below, right, left, front and behind him, as well as in all points inside it according to the general formula for t' SRT space-time flows differently. In accordance with what to rotate the gears? SRT puts a mechanical alarm clock in the very difficult position. In addition according to this formula one and the same point of space with coordinates x, y, z matches both "space-time" t, and "space-time" t'. Which of the two of them measure the alarm clock? Mechanical alarm clock does not have a sufficient degree of intellect, so that it could be ordered to measure the "space-time" t or t', and it is unlikely that it will be no able to distinguish them from each other. That is, SRT long ago "brilliantly" experimentally confirmed, but how to measure A. Einstein's "space-time"? - to invent forgotten.

In CLFP longitudinal
reduction applies only to the size of material bodies, and the metric of the
space remains unchanged and uniform. In SRT longitudinal dimensions
material objects are reduced due to the reduction of the longitudinal
space. The reduction in space in an imaginary moving system
occurs even in the absence in it of material objects. In Fig. 12
more shows in which areas and to what extent the space of SRT in
the moving system should be reduced and stretch. Equally for
the implementation of the postulate of SRT of the constancy of the speed of light must change and progress
of "space-time". In the system K' in each point of space
"space-time" flows at different rates. Space can not be considered
isotropic, if in each of his point the time passes at different rates. The same fiow of the
time at all points in space and in all inertial frames of reference
is absolutely necessary feature and at the same time a consequence of the isotropy of
space.

German woman-mathematician Emmy Noether in 1918 proved theorem, after her
name. According to this theorem, the conservation laws, available in physics, are
direct consequences of homogeneity and isotropy of space. So the law
conservation of energy is the consequence of the same course of time in all points of the
space (respectively, and in all inertial frames of reference, since, on the
actually, the space they all have one and the same). The law of conservation of momentum
is a consequence of the homogeneity of space. Because in the space of SRT
in the moving system is fundamentally heterogeneous and anisotropic, in her
essentially unfeasible energy and momentum conservation laws. Not accidentally
the implementation of the law of conservation of momentum in SRT is proved by mathematical
fraud and physically false approvals. Similarly, the formula E=mC^{2}
, derived in the framework of the CLFP from the law of conservation of energy, in the framework of the SRT output
through mathematically incorrect manipulation, fraud.

I.V.Saveliev leads
an example to demonstrate the "relativity of simultaneity". (I.V.
Saveliev "Course of general physics" In the five books, the book of 1 Mechanics, tutorial
for technical universities, M, "Astrel" AST, 2006., 336 p., with fig., p. 199)

The same example is seen in the movie: "What is the theory of relativity?"
(1964.) Link
brought one of the participants of the discussion in the forum of the MIFI. A similar example
can be found in English. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM
In the movie, everything is more popular, so let's look at the example movie, but said so
same is true for example in the tutorial I.V.Savelyev. I would wanted to give the film another
title: "How preachers SRT lie to humanity?", and the authors and
actors, I hope, someday all the same will be count the complicity in this process.
The film is designed for a mans from the street. For the beginning we shall remind, that according to
ideas of the classical physics (and CLFP), light is a
spread of free elastic oscillations in a world ether. Speed
the spread of such fluctuations is determined by the parameters of the medium and in the homogeneous
environment, which is the world ether, is a constant. Speed
movement of the light wave front relative to other objects depends on the speed of
their relatively world ether and is determined by the vector addition of velocities.
The first statement, made in the film: "the rays of light, radiated simultaneously from
the platform and from a moving train reached the next station at the same time", in
general, is correct. But the conclusion, that from this is doing : "Speed of light
the same in all inertial frames of reference" is a lie. In the animation shows that
moving train catches up the front of a light wave, means, its speed is deducted
from the speed of light, and the speed of the light wave front relative the train less
then speed of light. Further conclusions in the movie (and the textbook I.V. Savelyev) are made
on the basis of a false statement (postulate A. Einstein) that the speed of
light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. It is only thanks to
use of this absurd premise in the examples appearing
paradoxes of simultaneity. In the movie correctly shows the relativity of motion:
the passenger in the train is travelling at a speed of 5 km/h, but relative the platform it
moving with a speed of 5 km/h plus the speed of the train (60 km/h). It is easy to see,
that A. Einstein's postulate contrary to the principle of the relativity of motion. How does
there justifyed a denial of thet fundamental principle of classical
physics?: "Numerous and subtle experiments have shown that this is so", that is,
the speed of the objects is not sum up with the speed of light. It's pure deception:
Romer's observations, stellar aberration, Doppler effect, experiment in
radar Venus, the Sagnac's experiment, Marinov's experiments - right confirm classic
speed composition of objects with the speed of light and are inconsistent with the postulate of SRT. In
the experiment of Michelson-Morley the speed of light is not directly measured, but
analyzes the effects of the second order. This experiment corresponds to the CLFP, and SRT
it contradicts. Based on the false premise, it is a false conclusion that the rays of
light, at the same time radiated from the middle of the wagon to the beginning and the end,
at the same time reach them. Light travels in a world ether with speed
of light **independent** from the movement of
the train. The front of a light wave according to the classical ideas will reach
"fleeing" the end of the wagon later than "the incident". And so in those moments of
the time these events will take place, and from the point of view of people on the platform. According to
the classical ideas, there is no, and there is can not be a paradox
of simultaneity. A logic error in the reasoning given in the movie (and
the textbook I.V.Savelyev), is obvious. The center of the light zug in the system of the "train" in
this argument remains fixed relative to the center of the wagon, but in the system
"cottager" he is still relatively cottagers and moves relative the center of the
wagon with a speed of movement of train. But physically they are not different, but **the same** light zug in one and the same
wagon. He can't behave such qualitatively differently depending on
the observer's position. That is, making a false assumption, in the movie (textbook
I.V.Saveliev and SRT) received an absurd result. In science in such cases it is accepted
to say so: made the assumption has led to a contradiction, then
assumption is not true. In pseudoscience SRT instead, on the contrary rejected
the classical conception of time, on which is constructed all the building of physics. In
the film is stated: "the World is organized this way. In the train time flows slower than
out there," "During our trip clock behind for a day at the one-millionth
a fraction of a second" "Oh, millionth of a second, it's zero!" From the point of view of
the average person, really, zero, nothing. The real clock because of the inaccuracies of the progress
behind for the day from the exact time on a much larger amount. But, from the point
of human, even a little knows physics, it is not a trifle, but a catastrophe.
Because the lag of clock and the time lag, it is a different thing. "genial"
A. Einstein confused the ticking of the clock and the flow of the time, which is not one and the same. Any
clocks are only more or less approximate model of the "course of the
time", and the ticking of the clock is not equivalent to the course of time. If the watch is broken and
stopped at the course of time it will not have the slightest impact. Passengers
the train, which have during the trip, the time has slowed down, even to one millionth of
second, more never will meet with their relatives, friends and
acquaintances, they will go to a different point on the timeline. Einstein and other preachers SRT not
accidentally try to replace the concept of "time" concept of "the clock". They
always the change of the velocity of physical processes connect with
change of speed of course of time. (For example, the rate of dissolution of sugar in the
a glass of tea increases with increasing temperature. How preachers of SRT to
still not announced, that in a glass of tea time is speeding up? Or another example:
neutrons in the nucleus are stable, and in the free state are decay. How they still
time is not declared, that in the kernel time stops? I suppose, to "genial" A.
Einstein no one suggested.) We all know that the real clock may, as
ahead the exact "the greenwich" time, so pace with it. Accuracy of the
actual clocks changes under the influence of various external factors, as
the temperature, atmospheric pressure, air humidity, the poor state of the
mechanism and etc.. Nothing particularly terrible from this is not happening. As a result of
identifying time with the clocks people it's easier to accept the idea of different
progress of space-time in SRT. In practice, there are particular exact and
stable copies of clocks, which for a long time give the coincidence with the
signals for the "greenwich" time, transmitted on the radio. In such
cases joke: "With my clock greenwich checks!" As the clock with different
degree of care from the exact time can often be in the same
conditions, deviations in their course are no deviations in the course of time and are
due to the influence of random factors. Ticking of the clock is not equivalent to the flow of
time. When in a fairy-tale kingdom translated all the clocks back in 1 hour, it may
as no impact on the offensive the moment of transformation of the carriage Cinderella into a pumpkin.
By aid of clocks we can only match to the physical time one or the other
stable periodic physical process. In the biology there is the concept of
"biological time". For example, when the cherry blossoms in the midst of winter, they say,
"she lost the biological clock". We this case does not concern. All of these
cases are not related to a change in the progress of physical time, because local
change the speed of the physical time would have to have not
such symptoms.

Let us introduce the concept of "material point". It is so small part
of the substance that it can be compared with the mathematical point.
Coordinates of a material point in the four-dimensional continuum of a Cartesian coordinate system
coordinates: x, y, z, t. Physical bodies are composed of material points. Two
different material points may not have the same spatial
coordinates x, y, z in one and the same moment of time t. This prevents a
╤oulomb repulsion, the Pauli exclusion principle, statistics bosons, of which consist
the material objects, all that you want. In different moments of time the two different
material point can have the same spatial coordinate x, y,
z, t1, x, y, z, t2. You go on the snow-covered path and you see in it tracks.
Suddenly know: "Oh! This is my own tracks! I'm the one who passed here yesterday" - and
go in the tracks of your own yesterday's footsteps. That is, you can take
coordinates themselves yesterday, but meet with you yesterday you can't
in what any way. Time is irreversible. And so the passengers in the film,
if we hypothetically assume that there time really has slowed down in
a result of a trip by train to the value Δt=t2-t1, after this may
as long as you want to search their relatives, friends and acquaintances around
space x, y, z, t1 and never no more come across, because the components of
their friends and acquaintances material points are in the coordinates x, y, z,
t2=t1+Δt. In other words the real local change of the progress
physical time objects would have to disappear objects from our world ,
because the objects is covered in
anover region with the original area of the coordinate continuum. Since the objects
do not disappear, they remain always in one and the same time. Otherwise it is necessary to introduce
the assumption that the place of the object, has undergone a delay in time from the
adjacent segment of time is shifted his full backup and thus, in
each point of space there are an infinite number of copies of objects,
corresponding to different moments of time, then there is an infinite mass. There are
the authors, who claim and such. But it is not physically feasible. Coexistence in the
one place infinite chain of the worlds (and therefore infinite mass),
corresponding to different moments of time is absolutely not physically real.
Physically feasible only one world in one
moment of time that corresponds to the concept of absolute classic
time. On the other hand, the fact that changes in the watches are not
change of the time (if the clock is not vanish), does not mean that
only for all time does not exist. The question arises: why
physical processes used in all kinds of watches, proceed as
quite stable and the same in the different places of the Earth, for example: United Satates and Russia, within the
error (because of the influence of random external and internal factors) are
the same way on different continents in the course of many decades. This is, firstly,
testifies in favor of the correctness of the classical concepts of the absolute
time in the whole of the Universe (Earth over the decades, done in the Universe
a long way), and, secondly, suggests that in the basis of such a coincidence
lies some yet unknown periodic process that takes place the same
throughout the material world at the micro level.

The most convincing
evidence of simultaneity for the subjects the case is that, when they
clash. Then the actors do not need long to prove that this event
happen "here" and "now". The origins of (and, often, and the meaning of the SRT) we should search in
the writings of H. Poincare [4], of which plagiarist A. Einstein, who knew
the french language, drew attributed to him "brilliant" ideas without reference to
the original source. Here on the simultaneity H. Poincare wrote: "We can't
directly, on the basis of intuition, to determine either the simultaneity, or equality
two periods of time. If we believe that we have this kind of intuition, we
fall into the illusion" ([4], p. 428)

Who meant H. Poincare by "we"? Personally I have intuitive
idea about the absolute simultaneity and not only in one point of space,
as in the case of collision of the subjects, but also in remote from each other
points. And these intuitive idea I try to justify in the form of
a kind of the theorem. The fact that the time defining the concept of
"simultaneity",** is the argument in
the formulas of classical mechanics**. Let clash of the two
subjects happen in the system K at the point of C in the moment of time t_{}. Then
the simultaneity of location of these subjects at points A and B can be determined as
follows: t_{A}=t_{B}
if moving along arbitrary trajectories of subjects before their clash in the
one point from point A to C and from point B to C to the laws of classical mechanics
takes one and the same time. That is, t_{}=F1(C-A)=F2(C-B) where F1 and F2 are the functions relating to
numerous formulas of classical mechanics for a uniform, accelerated motion,
location in the state of rest, as well as their combinations; A,B,C generalized coordinates of the relevant
points. Denial of the simultaneity of these events means the negation of laws
classical mechanics, the violation of simultaneity - violation of the laws of
classical mechanics. The consideration of this procedure the comparison from the system K',
moving relative to K rectilinearly and uniformly does not change the picture.
Coordinate all three points in this case differ on the value addend Vt.
But we consider the function of the difference of coordinates: F1(C+Vt-A-Vt)=F1(C-A), F2(C+Vt-B-Vt)=F2(C-B). The function of this is not changed,
therefore, simultaneous in the system K, will be as well simultaneous and in
the system K'. Thus, the absolute simultaneity of intuitive and actually
directly connected with the implementation the laws of classical mechanics. With the same associated
and causality. According to the laws of classical mechanics, which assumes absolute
simultaneity, the result always comes later causes. Recognition of the principle of
causality means the recognition of the justice of the laws of classical mechanics and
absolute simultaneity. Henri Poincare aware that the rejection of the absoluteness
simultaneity means the rejection of the laws of classical mechanics: "We have come to
only the replacement of Newton's law of other, more complicated" ([4], p.
428) Used to deal with abstract mathematical models, he has not seen
in this not any tragedy. A natural consequence of this approach is
the failure of the law of conservation of momentum in the framework of the SRT, the impossibility of correct
output in the framework of the SRT formula E=mC^{2}, derived in the framework of the CLFP from
conditions of execution the law of conservation energy, as shown in APPENDIX 6.
Preachers SRT claim that formulas SRT at speeds, much smaller
the speed of light, is equivalent to the formulas of classical mechanics. Candidate
physico-mathematical sciences Nikolay Nikolaevich Chavarga in the article: "Special
the theory of relativity and experiment", published in the Internet:
http://specialrelativity.narod.ru/
showed that formula SRT do not transfer into the formulas of classical mechanics and in the
speeds, significantly lower the speed of light.

Preachers SRT
establish the relativity of simultaneity, and even through difficulty
remote synchronization watches. Dwell on this aspect. Procedure
synchronizing the clocks by light signals for the first time is described by A. Einstein in article
"On the electrodynamics of moving bodies". However, strange as it may, any,
whoever get acquainted the original sources, it is obvious, in my opinion, that this procedure A.
Einstein, to put it mildly, borrowed from H. Poincare without reference to the author. Work
H. Poincare "On the dynamics of the electron" with his variant of the procedure of synchronization
watches by the light signals was published at a later date than an A. Einstein's article. But
in 1905 (before the article of A. Einstein) was published the preliminary version of the
articles H. Poincare "On the dynamics of an electron", on which work was to be continued. A.
Einstein served as a clerk of the patent office. There comes the application of the authors do not
only for inventions, but also on scientific discoveries **before** their publication in the open press, as well as materials
scientific conferences, published in small quantities, and inaccessible to the general public.
The Poincare synchronization procedure by light signals described in the following
way [4] (p.497):

л Suppose that there are two observers, being one in point A, the other - in the point B. They need to compare its clock by means of light signals. They agree that the observer in the B send signal to A, when the clock shows a certain hour, and the observer in A adjust his watch at the moment when he notice the signal. If they will act in this way, you will always have a place systematic an error because the light you need some time t, to go from B to A, and the clock in A always will be late for t in comparison with the clock in the B. This error is easy to fix. Enough to send signals to meet each other. You need to observer A also sent the signal to the B. After the new settings will clock in B will lag at time t in comparison with the clock in A. Now enough will take the arithmetic mean of these two amendments. But this way assumes that light requires the same time to get from A to B and return to the A. This is true if the observers are still, and false if they are involved in some general progressive movement. Because then, A for example, will move towards the light that comes from B, and B be away from the light that comes from A. So, if both observers participate in the general progress and are unaware of this, their clock will be not adjusted correctly. Watch them will show a different time, every the clock shows the local time, good for the point in which they are located.╗

In other words, H.
Poincare in this review showed that synchronize clock by light
signals on his proposed technique gives guaranteed incorrect result,
as observers to the clock almost always involved in the movement:
or together with the Earth, or together with the Solar system, or together with
the Galaxy. Neither practical or theoretical value of this technique is not
has. But the conclusion from this review H. Poincare makes strange - we must
opt out of the total for both observers time and move on to the
own, individual for each of them. Why so? I believe that
H. Poincare did not understand the simplest, most basic foundations of physics, those which
assimilated still at school age. This happens rarely. In the school years
he, apparently, has been keen on mathematics, considering that the other items in his life not
the need. In the mature age he became interested in the application of mathematical methods in
physics. And "all it would be nice and funny", if not his ignorance of the foundations of this
science. Well knowing the french language A. Einstein (in Switzerland significant
part of the population speaks in french), apparently, some
thus had access to his unfinished scientific works in the field of physics and
published them even earlier then H. Poincare himself. A. Einstein in
the field of physics was even greater ignoramus than H. Poincare. In the Internet
published the school-leaving certificate of A. Einstein. At first glance - quite
decent certificate: in general containing "four" and "five". However, for some reason,
there are also contain some "six". Well, it is, probably, the manifestations of genius A.
Einstein. Sometimes, in order to emphasize the successful results, the school children put
assessment of the "five with plus ", and Einstein, perhaps, set just "six". Alas, the
reality was different. In school, where learn A. Einstein,
used six-degree evaluation system. That is, the "four" correspond to the
modern "three". In other words, he studied mostly mediocre,
deep knowledge of the school curriculum has not acquired. It is not a secret for
the preachers of SRT, on the contrary, it gives them a puppy enthusiasm. Ignorance of A.
Einstein in elementary foundations of physics play them like this: "Everybody knows,
that something is impossible, but is ignorant, who does not know it, he is the one who
makes a discovery".

So what is not understood H. Poincare (and the more A. Einstein) in physics? He did not
understand the concept of Newton's absolute time. Newton's absolute time,
current absolutely uniformly, regardless of the points of space, movement of
objects and reference system, in itself is, in fact, the** mathematical abstraction**. Time
not equivalent to the course of any specific watch and does not depend on their
progress. Clocks of different structures represent one or another evenly
process, which can only simulate a period of time with
some degree of accuracy. Absolutely homogeneous processes to mankind until
are not available, so any of the clock represents the imperfect model of
Newton's absolute time. Unit of measurements of time, that is, the marking scale
time, too, ideally, do not depend on the motion of specific objects.
It was originally 1/24 part of the period of Earth's rotation around its axis.
Now the standard markup time given by some atomic clock service
time in Washington. The value of a reference in Washington does not change from the movement of
objects in Moscow. In spite of the fact that the Newton's absolute time is a
abstraction, the use of this approach has proven to be extremely productive and
an ideal results not only in Newtonian mechanics, but also in electrodynamics,
hydrodynamics, thermodynamics, chemical kinetics, biology, history,
jurisprudence and in everyday life. All this suggests that the concept of
absolute time Newton intuitively guessed (and, may be, he brought logically -
don't know exactly) important feature of the world around us, which has as its basis the
some until anknown physical process, the possible mechanism which
proposed in the article, in the head HYPOTHESIS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE ETHER. A.Poincare did not understand
the concept of Newton's absolute time. He believed that his proposed by
the procedure of synchronization hours by light signals is the only
the ability to sync the clocks. Proving the impossibility of synchronization of clocks
in this way, Poincare makes the conclusion about impossibility to synchronize the clock
at all. In fact the absolute time of Newton does not depend on the point in space
and reference system (which is not understood A. Poincare). So the clock you can always
synchronize at the same point in space without the use of light
signals. So, basically, almost do. After the synchronization clock
spread at the right point and synchronicity in the limits of the accuracy they don't lose.
From the XVIII century began to use especially exact ship's chronometers for
determining longitude coordinates of the vessel in the world. Clock synchronized with the
the benchmark on the Greenwich meridian and in the future used to determine the
longitude regarding this meridian. Even after the world tour care
chronometer from the sample was placed in a reasonable size and was, in any
case, no more than if it had remained close to the benchmark. In our time
extensive use of radio telescopes-interferometers. This two radio telescope,
separated by a large distance. Work such a system can only when
provided, if the clock in remote radio telescopes are synchronously. For
radio telescopes-interferometers clock is also synchronize in one place, and then
spread at the right point. The distance between the radio telescopes in the interferometer
can be very large. There is a draft of a radio telescope interferometer as, in
the second telescope is located on an artificial satellite on
the opposite point of the orbit of the Earth. It is easy to notice, that in
radio telescopes-interferometers uses the concept of absolute Newton's time.
By light signals no one clock does not synchronize. Light signals
visible only within the line of sight, that is at a short distance,
when observers easier to meet in person to verify clocks. In other words,
procedure proposed by A.Poincare, is absurd and comes from a misunderstanding of the concept
physical Newton's time. Synchronization and remote clocks is available, but
not for this primitive method, which was proposed A. Poincare. In the system
global positioning GPS watch on all the satellites of the system are synchronously
with each other and synchronously with the reference on the Earth. That is, again is used
the concept of Newton's absolute time. The problem of synchronization of clocks in the
the system is so complex that I personally would, as an engineer, and not take her
a decision. But, there specialist much higher level carefully consider all the
factors and successfully carry out this procedure. The signal from the satellite is inserted
some markers, compare them with the reference and in case of discrepancy serves
command correction clocks on the satellite. That is, the problem of synchronization of clocks in
the framework of Newton's absolute time has successfully dealt with the required
accuracy. Poincare they seemed intractable only because of the extremely weak
their awareness of the subject. And threeness Einstein knew the physics of even weaker,
the Poincare. He did not even understand that the ticking of the clock is not equivalent to the course of time:

Here is a quote from the article A. Einstein "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" з1 "The definition of simultaneity"

The "time" events - it is simultaneous with the event of reading resting clocks, which are in place events and which are synchronously with some specific resting clocks, and with one and the same clock rate in all definitions of time"

Now let us consider
the procedure of synchronization of clocks, proposed A. Einstein. Here's the relevant snippet from the A. Einstein's article
"On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" з1 "Definition of
simultaneity": "If at the point of * A *space placed watch,
the observer, who is in * A *can set the time of the events in
direct proximity to A by observing the concurrent with these
events positions of the hands clocks. If in
another point * B * of space also
there are clock (we will add: "exactly the
same clocks as in the point of * A), *then in
the immediate vicinity from *B *too
could be evaluation in time of the events by located here
in *B *the observer. However, it is impossible
without further assumption proposals
compare in time, any event in the * A
*with the event in the *B**.* We have identified so far only "A" time" and "B time", but not the total
for * A * * and B *"time". The latter can be set, by *introducing a definition, *that "time", necessary for passing the light from * A * to B is the same "time", required for passing the light from * B *to* A. *Let
at the time of t_{A} on "A time" ray of
light comes out from the * A * to * B * is reflected in the moment *t _{B}*

t_{B}-t_{A}=tТ_{A}-t_{B}

We will make the assumption that this definition of synchronicity you can give in a consistent way and, moreover, for an arbitrarily many points and thatthus, the following statements hold:

1) if the clock in * B *go
synchronously with the clock in the * A *the clock in
* A *go synchronously to the clock in the *┬;*

2) if the clock in * A *go
synchronously as to the clock in the B , and to the clock in the * C, *then
watches *in B and C *also are synchronously
relative to each other."

Well, let's deal. First of all it should be noted that A. Einstein do not made
no mathematical or physical discoveries in comparison with H. Poincare.
Method of synchronizing the clocks by light signals, as due to Poincare gave
guaranteed incorrect result, so have due to A. Einstein. Let's synchronise
a couple of clocks in the usual way (according to Newton) in point A, and then one
of them move to the observer
to the point B. At the time of t_{A } observer in A puts out the light
signal in the direction of the observer B, to which he comes in time t_{B}=t_{A}+t_{AB} where t_{AB}_{ }- passage time of the light from A to B. In time t_{B}_{ }light is reflected from the B and returns to A at the time t_{A}'=t_{B}+t_{BA}=t_{A} +t_{AB} + t_{BA} . Substituting the obtained values in the formula A. Einstein.

t_{B}-t_{A}=_{ }t_{A}+t_{AB}-t_{A}= t_{AB}

tТ_{A}-t_{B}=
t_{B}+t_{BA} - t_{B}= t_{BA}

Everybody, even H.
Poincare, it was known that, practically, in all real cases t_{AB}_{ }≠ t_{BA}. But there was one
layman - A. Einstein, who did not know this. And he did
"discovery", but more precisely, the closure of physics and laid the beginning of the era of
obscurantism in it. "Synchronously"
translated into ordinary everyday language means that the clocks shows one and the same.
In our case, the clocks are running synchronously, show the same, but, since the t_{AB}_{ }≠ t_{BA},
on A. Einstein they are not synchronous. How does their lead in synchronous, in
his opinion, a state? - genius of all times is not explained. He had always t_{AB}_{ }= t_{BA} by definition, and
so, always observed formulated their condition of synchronicity. Other
words, on A. Einstein every "exactly the same" clocks always go
synchronously, no matter how
were distinguished by their indications. Sent the light signal from A to B if it is reflected from B back into A, the clock can be considered as synchronized. This nonsense is
syncronisations clocks on A. Einstein.

4.Henri Poincare "Selected works in three volumes" edited by the academician. N.N.Bogolyubov, M., "Nauka", 1974 g., vol.3. 772 p.http://eqworld.ipmnet.ru/ru/library/books/...eTrudy-3ru.djvu

а

Akeliev N.M.ааааааааааааааааааааааааRussia ааааа Volgogradааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааа10.02.2010 - 15.04.2011

Let's discuss the life time of unstable particles at speeds close to the speed of light. As experimental confirmation of a SRT lead such data (I.. Saveliev "Course of general physics" t. 1, M., "Nauka", 1977, 416 p., with. 227)

(Translation: "The ratio of (64.2) received direct experimental
confirmation. In the composition of the cosmic rays are particles, called μ ^{+} and μ^{-}
- mesons. These particles are unstable. They fall on their own
positron (or electron) and two neutrinos. The average lifetime of the μ - mesons,
(measured in terms of when they are standing still or moving at low speed)
is about 2*10^{-6}s. .. it would Seem,
that, even moving with the speed of light, the μ - mesons can pass only the path of the order of 600 m.. However,
observations show that μ - mesons are formed
in cosmic rays at a height of 20-30 km. and in a large number
reach the earth's surface. This is explained by the fact that the 2*10^{-6} s. -
the own μ - meson's life time, that is, time measured on clock,
moving along with him. Time, measured by the clock
of experimenter, associated with the Earth, is greater. (See.
formula (64.2) v meson close to the c)
Therefore there is nothing surprising in the fact, that the experimenter observes
mileage meson, much larger 600 m.. Note that from the position of the observer,
moving together with meson, distance, passing them to the surface of the Earth,
reduce up to 600 m. (See the formula (64.1), so that the meson fly it
distance for the 2*10^{-6} s..")

In this fragment cheating is all. Starting with the fact that the length of the sample in moving system according to the official formula SRT is reduced, therefore, measured by its standard of the distance increases, but not decreases, as it writes I.V. Saveliev. Conclusion on the increase of the life time μ-mesons SRT preachers make here on the basis of the fact of their detection at the earth's surface. But unstable particles, including μ-mesons are formed in the atmosphere at any height and even under the ground as a result of the impact of cosmic rays of high and ultra-high energies. It is a well known fact. Here, for example, a fragment of the popular books "the Invisible leaves a trail" A. Bekkerman, M, "Atomizdat, "1970, 208 p., p.69-71

(Translation: "The first "felt" and even "see" their D.V.Skobeltsyn. Actually, it happened almost by accident. In 1926, Dmitry Vladimirovich experimenting ...

A series of controlled experiments fully proved that these particles are formed outside of the Earth and have so much energy that pass through the thickness of the atmosphere, the roof and the building, the walls, the Cloud chamber and go further in the depths of the Earth. These were the cosmic rays.")

аThat is, the "proof" of the preachers SRT calculated on the total ignorance and lack of mental faculties in those to whom it is addressed. Mesons are created on the accelerator, pushing the particles, accelerated to high energies with various targets. A similar process occurs in nature. In cosmic rays are particles of high and ultra-high energies. Among them there are even such, the energy of which exceeds energy, which is going to reach in the famous, recently built big hadron collider. Particles of cosmic rays penetrate through all the atmosphere of the Earth up to the surface and even go under ground. In a collision these particles with molecules of gases of the atmosphere occur the same processes, which occur in the bombing of targets in accelerators. Born the entire spectrum of the short-lived particles, including mesons. I will not say that it is the only mechanism of the formation of mesons near the surface of the earth, but just I can say that it is the master mechanism. Therefore concludes on the increase of the mesons life time on the basis of the fact of their detection at the earth's surface, to put it mildly, is not correct.

аHowever, exactly the same conclusion (on the increase of the life time) is made in relation life time of a particle, accelerated in accelerators. In a number of publications concludes that life time of particles in accelerators increases in strict accordance with the formula SRT of slowing down of their own time. Original articles not available on the Internet. But, one thing is certain: the authors have not fled with a stopwatch in the wake behind unstable particle with the speed close to the speed of light, measuring the time of its life. We can also definitely say that unstable particles in accelerators not accelerate, because do not have time to begin to accelerate, as it has already collapsed. In accelerators accelerate the only stable particles: electrons, protons, α-particles, ions. And unstable particles is obtained as a result of bombardment stable particles of different targets. Conclusion the lifetime of unstable particle is made on the fact of detecting them at a certain distance from the target the accelerator. As formula SRT predicts an increase of life time unstable particles at speeds close to the speed of light, up to the infinity, then when the life-time of, say, 1 second, a particle must be found at a distance of 300,000 kilometers from the target of accelerator. Measurements at low speeds it is established, that μ-meson has a life time 2.2 microseconds. That is, without increasing the life time of the meson can be found at a speed close to the speed of light at a distance of 660 meters from the target, and more. Particles with a more long life it is demand to register at more large distances. There is a question: are not these the mesons, resulting from the impact of cosmic rays, are registered? Such mesons can be found on the any distance from the target of accelerator and, thus, "confirm" on this methodology in advance for any setting of the "life time".

According to the idea of A. Einstein in each of the unstable particle watches are available, working in the strict accordance with the requirements of SRT. The real clock, as shown in APPENDIX 12 work in accordance with the requirements of SRT can't. Therefore, only in unstable particles is required mechanism. And this is not some there primitive gears and springs. Suffice it to say, that they should include a block of telepathic communication with the preacher of SRT, to learn from him, what a speed of the particle is moving relative to the target accelerator? Then there should be a block computing device, which received from preacher SRT through telepathic communication channel speed and on formula SRT calculates the deceleration of space-time. Finally, they must be the random number generator, since the collapse of the particles is the process of stochastic. Well, and a small charge "in a trotyl equivalent" to the right moment, all blow it up and blasted to pieces. In short, mankind still at the macro level, this complexity of the machine is not yet created, and here it is necessary to his shove in size a little bigger than an electron.

Consider the experience of Bailey and
others on the measurement of the lifetime of relativistic positive and negative
μ-meson in a circular storage mesons CERN. Article J. Bailey etc. "Measurements
of relativistic time dilation for positive and negative muons in a circular
orbit" Nature, Vol. 268, 28 Julay, 1977. The text of the article is available in pdf on the web site http://ivanik3.narod.ru/linksLighfMeson.html
I didn't understand everything in the article, because I am not a specialist in this field. But
that understood, cause I have a lot of confusion. Firstly, this article is
statement on the experimental confirmation of the "twin paradox" (!). The authors
are more optimistic and do not understand the meaning of the word "paradox" in SRT. The paradox, in SRT
is the **contradiction**, experimental
confirm that ** impossible**.
They say, there obtained experimental data, and can be adjusted in accordance with
them a theory. And for this we must, all in all, to abandon the principle of
relativity A. Einstein, that is, the SRT. Still the authors make a
optimistic statement, that the predictions of SRT are confirmed upon availability
accelerations of up to 10^{18} g (!). By a "big experts" of the SRT it is claimed, that the SRT
not applicable to non-inertial sistems. But, let's try to understand
the experiment. μ-mesons were obtained from π-mesons, which
injected in the ring camera storage mesons. In this camera charged
particles relatively long period of time can be saved, rotating in a vacuum on
the inertia on the circular trajectories under the action of magnetic field. π-mesons
are extremely short-lived particles. Almost immediately after the
injection they broke up, turning into a μ-mesons. Each
μ-meson (negative) in turn breaks down on the electron and 2
neutrinos. In the experiment, it was determined that the speed of mesons was V=0.9994C,
at that case the lifetime of mesons, which at low speeds 2.2 microseconds,
increased in 29.3 times in strict accordance with the formula deceleration
the space-time of SRT and amounted to 64,46 ьъs. with the precision of a fraction of a percent.
Previously with an accuracy of 1% , the same results were obtained by the same authors in
a different speed to increase the life time in 12 times. It would seem, we have a brilliant
confirmation of SRT. But. The life-time of muons was determined by the registration of the **not the muons**, but electrons, which are obtained
as a result of their disintegration. The electrons, in contrast to the muons, are stable
the particles. To detect them, it is possible in any time after the collapse of the muon.
Absolutely it is unequivocally possible to assert, that the electrons were registered not
immediately after the collapse of the muon. The electron is the same as the negative
a charged particle, as the muon. After the collapse of the muon the resulting from it
the electron is spinning in the same circular trajectory (pulse
saved). Gradually the radius of rotation is reduced due to the loss of momentum on
collisions with particles of the gas in an imperfect vacuum. Detectors of electrons in
installation were located on the inner side of the ring. That is, the more
initial momentum of the electrons, the longer they are on inertia, not getting
at the detector, the more according to this method the "lifetime" of muons. And in fact
the registered amount to the time of life of muons does not have any relationship.
Indirectly, for it is said a phrase from the article: "In the optimum running of the conditions
very few muons were lost afte 100 μs" "In the optimal conditions in the
experiment after 100 mμs after injection were already extremely
little lost muons" On the inner side of the ring store mesons
together with electron detectors were installed detectors of "lost" muons.
After 100 microseconds after the injection event of registration of these muons
became extremely rare. In physics, the term "life time" unstable particles
means not exactly what is meant by these words in everyday life.
It means constant time, which exponentially decreases
the number of unstable particles in consequence of the collapses. In other words the time of life
muons 2.2 microseconds means that for 2.2 microseconds the number of source muons in
a result of the decrease in 2.71829 times. Under normal life time
muons 2.2 microseconds through 100 microseconds their original number of decrease in the e^{-45} times, and the detector will detect only muons,
derived from cosmic rays. But when the time of life 64,46 ьъё. for 100 microseconds
their original number will decrease only in the e^{-1.5} =4.7 times. For termination of registration of "lost "
muons at this time of life, it is too early. In figure 1 are shown in the article, when
detector "lost" muons actually detect muons during the experiment.
This happened in about 300 ьъё. after injecting provided,
if **was not carried out** procedure
trimming of the beam. The authors explain this by the fact that the muons are faced with the walls of the
camera, losing their energy and get into the detector. To eliminate this effect
for 10 microseconds after injecting beam of particles artificially shifted
by the electric field at a some distance in the direction of the wall. Then shift
field off. The beam of particles has been cut so that the extreme particles already
do not push against the wall. After the procedure, trimming detectors
register, practically, only the electrons. Lost muons
were registered only at the level of background values. I personally have such an opinion,
that muons broke up with the usual for them time constant 2.2 microseconds during the time of the
10 microseconds in the course of which was "cutting" of the beam, and the measurements are not
carried out, and continue along the ring spun only electrons. Initial
's energy muons was very high: about 3 Gigaelectronvolts. At the dissolution of the
some of the energy carried away with himself the neutrino. How much is it? - in
the article does not say. In the Internet are mentioned values of energy neutrinos while
the decay of muon - a few tens of electron-volts. The electrons generated
as a result of the collapse, remained very high energy of the order of 2
Gigaelectronvolts. The collision of particles such energies with the walls of the camera (up to
and without cutting beam) were born unstable particles, including muons, which are recorded by
detector "lost" muons. In figure 2 in the text of the article shows the graph
the intensity of the registration of the electrons in the first 10 microseconds after injection.
It is seen that the first 9 microseconds decline is much more intensively, than in
the future. In my opinion, this is a reflection of not only the procedure of cutting beam, but
and the period when the real disintegration of muons. For 9 microseconds from their original number of
at the time of life 2.2 microseconds remains 1.7%, and in the further decay of muons already not
makes a substantial contribution to the number of electrons rotating the ring.
In other words, no increase in life-time of relativistic particles, it seems,
in this experiment, not at all. As in the case of natural muons, as well as with
using accelerators conclusion about the increase in their life-time was made on the
the basis of incorrect interpretation of experimental data. I want to note that
the relativistic momentum in CLFP depends on the initial speed of muons at the same
the law, as the slowdown of space-time in SRT. The relativistic momentum in
CLFP:

(22)

Here V is the speed of object relative to a world ether. Therefore, the results of the experiment, at least, qualitatively confirm the correctness of the formula of the relativistic impulse CLFP. The number of electrons, received as a result of decay of muons, in the ring storage decreases exponentially with a time constant, proportional original relativistic impulse. Yes, but the authors of the article received precise (with the precision of a fraction of a percent) quantitative coincidence with the life-time of muons at low speeds after the conversion of the obtained values according to the formula SRT. In my opinion, there has been just trimming (falsification). The value of a relativistic member calculated not directly, but for some cunning methods through the data, received by protons, by translation of them to the parameters of muons. See, this is the formula of the gamma-factor (the inverse of the relativistic member):

And that's what formula is calculated gamma factor in the article:

Something I see not enough
in common between these two formulas. The authors of the article did not explain the meaning of such explicit
the differences. In my opinion, this is just fitting to the desired value.

And with the slowdown of the space-time of SRT in this case it turns out
the puncture.

Speed V in it, it
relative to what? In CLFP speed in the relativistic member, is the speed
on a still a world ether. When the motion of an electron in a circular
the orbit of any point of the tangential velocity is the same and is equal to the speed
on a world ether (in the system of stationary relative to the world
ether). This value can be substituted into the formula CLFP, and she will give
the correct value. In SRT V is the speed **relative
observer**. In this case the speed of an electron in a circular orbit
relative to an observer on the side changing on the sinusoidal law: Vэ =V sin
ωt . It is known that the mean value of the square of sine for the period shall be equal to
½. That is, the authors of the experiment to confirm SRT should have been
customized results under the formula:

as in article V is defined as the tangential velocity of rotation of the particles in the ring. The "coincidence" of the obtained results with the previous formula means inconsistency to SRT. (Not under the required adjusted)

Gravitational red
offset, predicted by GRT and explains gravitational lapse of time,
is experimentally proven fact. Of course, it is contrary to
the concept of absolute Newton's time, and, consequently, CLFP. It is not
the subject of discussion in this article. But, as the author of the GTR is
the same A. Einstein, there is a great suspicion that the GRT is the same
conscious hoax of the public, as well as SRT. Touch
the gravitational time delay, predicted the GRT. Cost of
evidence of absence of the reality of high-speed deceleration time SRT
lost, if recognized the existence of the gravitational time delay
according to the General Theory of relativity. Here is a link to the Internet at the article in journal SPS http://www.ufn.ru/ufn60/ufn60_12/Br/r6012b.pdf
Pound, (physics-uspekhi, vol. LXXII vol 4
December 1960, "ON the weight of photons" RV. Pound) author experiment, allegedly
confirmed the existence of the gravitational time delay. In article
partially considered and the history of the issue. A. Einstein in 1911, published
the formula of the gravitational red shift of the spectra, geted them, allegedly, in
the framework of the General Theory of Relativity. Its on this occasion was accused of plagiarism, because exactly the same
formula brought in 1801, the German physicist Johann von Soldner, of course, in
the concepts of classical physics. Pound in his article repeats
the simplest conclusion A. Einstein. The conclusion is based on the classic
absolute time, and then, as always with A. Einstein, "postulated" that
received in the formula the gravitational shift of the spectrum is a consequence of
the gravitational time delay. It would seem that there is nothing easier than
detect and confirm the presence of the gravitational shift in the spectra of stars. But
with the help of spectra of stars reliably confirm the gravitational shift
spectra, practically impossible. The fact is that the gravitational red
offset stars is indistinguishable from the their Doppler shift. Then
remains the Sun, which is not moving anywhere from the Earth. But, observation
the spectrum of the Sun, it appears, also does not confirm explicitly formula of
gravitational displacement A. Einstein. In the center of the disk of the Sun red shift
spectrum is many times higher than predicted formula. And only the light,
coming from the edge of the solar disk, demonstrates the close values of
bias. So they decided to put the experiment on Earth. Pound writes that it is easier to
would have been to bring the atomic clocks on the orbit of the Earth artificial satellite, and
thus, confirm the gravitational time dilation. But the magnitude of the effect
is on the verge of achievable stability of the atomic clock. The preachers of SRT
argue that the amendment to the effect of the gravitational time delay
is used in the GPS system. It is not so. The GPS system is built on
the assumption of **same**
time on all satellites and on the ground, that is, on the classical
absolute time. No amendment to SRT and GRT practically are not introduced. When detected
deviations of the on-board atomic clocks from the earthly standards, they just
adapts to meet the standard. No significant problems with the time in such
the approach in the system does not arise. In short, confirmation of gravity
time delay on satellites not be received. Then conducted an experiment on Earth
on the basis of the Mossbauer's effect of resonant absorption of gamma rays. There is a
resonant absorption of gamma rays with a very narrow resonance curve. But even for the
such a narrow resonance distance between the source and sink in height
should be about 4 km. to the absorption value has decreased on
the maximum according to the formula twice. Such the installation is impossible to do.
The experiment was put on in the tower height 20 m.. Used a lot of all tricks
tweaks (we will not list it). The only advantage of this experiment,
in my opinion, is to obtain a sufficiently stable results, however,
interpretation of what they actually mean?- I have a lot of doubt.
In short, received at the expected value of the gravitational offset by the formula
Einstein 2.5*10^{-15}. the real shift from 8 to 30 10^{-15}
with the different copies of the absorber. In what way from this bias "unknown
nature" Pound and Rebka allocated exactly gravitational component, coinciding with the
accuracy 96%? - for me personally from the article is not clear. In my opinion, Pound and
Rebka just understatement. They, with the same success could announce that from
the received displacement of 2.5 10^{-15} with 100% accuracy coincides with the
gravity displacement A. Einstein, and all the rest - offset "unknown
the nature". I personally have the impression that here the desired issue for
the actual. Well, okay, let's say, I did not understand an explanation of the large
the scientists. But the experiment has some obvious disadvantages. The source of gamma-quanta
was at the top of the tower, and the absorber with the recording equipment is at the bottom. I
met in the Internet the assumption that the spectrum of radiation of atoms can
vary with different value of gravitational potential is not due to slowing-down
time, but simply from the deformation of the electron orbitals of atoms under the influence of
the pressure. Part of this effect could be overcome by the lower location
the source and the top of the receiver. Such an experiment has been done was not. In the process of
the experiment revealed a strong dependence of the results from the difference
the temperature of the source and receiver. Instead of thermostating samples,
the authors measured the temperature difference and make the correction factors,
calculated according to a some formula. All sorts of formulas represent a model of
phenomenon, reflecting the reality of one or other degree of accuracy. I have a
doubt in the validity of such an approach, when measured effect at the level of
17-th mark. But, I would like to put attention to another. It is well known that
the first experimental "confirmation" GRT received Eddington, measured deviation
the visible position of the stars near the Sun's disk during a total eclipse. The
Sun has a powerful atmosphere. Deflection of light rays in the atmosphere, it is
a well-known effect. Called the "refraction". One of the most active
critics of the SRT and V.I. Sekerin sent a letter to the ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation with
the requirement to exclude SRT of programs of teaching in schools and Universities, as
pseudoscience. In the materials was the mentioned experience of Eddington. It was noted,
thet deviation of the rays from the stars near the Sun's disk is because of refraction in the
the atmosphere of the Sun. The letter was given to the review for member of the commission on pseudoscience RAS
academician V.A. Rubakov. Academician on this occasion said that the refraction of rays
near the Sun has its place, but it is small compared with the gravity
deviation. How can be refraction of light small, if it is in the conditions of Earth
the atmosphere and gravity visible to the naked eye? And the Sun's gravity and,
accordingly, the density of the atmosphere is incomparably above the Earth. In the more dense
the atmosphere of the speed of light below, than in a vacuum. The density of the atmosphere right
repeats the value of the gravitational potential. Ray of light, moving from the area with
lower speed in a vacuum, where its speed above, increases the length of the waves, so
there is a red shift of the spectrum. In other words, the deviation of the rays
near the Sun and the red shift of the emission spectrum of the Sun, attributed
as confirmation of the effects of the GTR may be the result of the influence of
the atmosphere of the Sun, which in the analysis in the framework of GRT categorically ignored. Exactly
similarly, in the experiment, the Pound-Rebka tube, in which spread the
gamma-rays was filled with helium gas. Distribution of the density of helium in height
pipes in accuracy repeats the distribution of the gravitational potential. Density
the gas affects the speed of propagation of electromagnetic oscillations,
therefore the length of the waves.. But this factor in the experience of absolutely not
been taken into account.

Summarizing the above, it can be argued that direct confirmation of justice
formulas A. Einstein's gravitational red shift has not received yet.
But even if such confirmation is actually received by, it is not
indicates the gravity slowing of time, because the formula
earlier there was obtained, as well as in the GRT deduced from the terms of the classical
absolute time. The Experience of the Pound-Rebka, cited in proof
gravitational displacement, suffering neglect of a number of material factors and
incorrect interpretation of the results. There is no gravity slowing
the time. Because if there was a gravitational time dilation
in the Sun, we would not see the light of him on Earth, he would just "missed"
past the Earth in time. Either to assume, that on a place of the Sun
an infinite number of its copies (infinite mass), relevant to the
different moments of time.

Let us look at another experiment "brilliantly confirming" the predictions of SRT. This is one of the last experiments to determine the speed and life time of a cosmic muons. "The Speed and Lifetime of Cosmic Ray Muons" Lulu Liu (Partner: Pablo Solis) MIT Undergraduate (Dated: November 18, 2007) http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/8.13/Muons/muons.pdf

In the above scanned fragment of the textbook I.V.Savelyev claimed that muons born at a height of 20-30 km.. In this article height of the birth muons reduced to 15 km.. But, and here and there fraudulently held back that muons are formed in the atmosphere at any height. The article is incorrect, and in the formulation of experiments and on their interpretation. But, all the same, it's some kind of the experimental data received on a computerized experimental installation, not specially programmed to falsification. In the experiment to determine the speed of muons was used two scintillation counter, separated by vertical some distance. Pulse counter top run integrator, pulse with a lower - stopped integration. In the result at the output of the integrator formed pulses, which amplitude was proportional to the lapse of time between the two events. The occurrence of pulse caused adding 1 in one of 2048 memory cells in accordance with its amplitude. Thus, acquiring the statistics of the number of events depending from the interval of time between the firing of the upper and lower counter. In the experiment was assumed that the muons are flying from the top, in series cause triggering of two counters. Dividing the distance between the counters to the time between operations, expected to get the speed of muons. Installation were calibrated by submitting to start and stop pulse inputs from a generator to a pre- known intervals. In fact muons are born at any height: the higher - the more, the lower - the less, and can fly, respectively, in all directions. But, among the recorded events there would be expected, when the muon really flew in series both counter from the top to down. And these events as well reflected in the accumulated data. Computer built graph distribution of events with resolution (according to the results of the calibration) 19.7 dividing on the nanosecond. It turned out normal Gauss distribution of the random variable. When the distance between the counters 144 sm the maximum of the distribution fell on 583 division, that is, the estimated time of flight was 583/19 .7=29.59 ns. that corresponds to the speed V=48658.66ъь/s, or β=0,162. When the distance between counters 338 cm, respectively 710/19 .7=36,04 ns. V=93784,68 km/s., β=0,312. See that with the increase of distance almost twice as recorded almost the same increase in "speed". Experiment data an interpretation is clearly wrong. But among the registered events there were events of a real flight muons two counters top-down. According to the data of the experiment we can roughly estimate their maximum possible speed. According to the most "fast" of the recorded events, it amounted β=0.236 and β=0.443 respectively. For incomprehensible for me criteria the authors have drawn a conclusion, that the speed of muons in the data exceeds the speed of light. What do they do? - changing places the ends of the "Start" and "Stop" installation input. That is, according to the logic of the experiment muons now flew from the bottom to up. And with this approach also received Gauss distribution of the random variable with a maximum at 939 division. They took the average of the two values of flight down and up. They have allegedly speed β=0.994. How? It is not clear for me. In fact, as we have seen, the maximum possible the speed according to the data of the experiment significantly less than the speed of light. Next stage consisted in determining the time of life of muons. Scheme of the experiment was approximately the same as in the previous case. Only a starting and stoping the event was recorded by photomultiplaiers in one array of plastic scintillator. It was believed that the first outbreak occurs when entering muon in an array of scintillators, and the second - at its dissolution. Was obtained falling the curve of the distribution of time between those events. Exponential decline curve determined that the life-time of muons is 1.9 microseconds. By multiplying the arbitrarily taken amendments the authors increased this value to 2.19 microseconds. Let me remind you that the life-time of muons at low speeds is considered to be equal to 2.2 microseconds. Then there is no increase the life time of a cosmic muons in the experiment were found. Similarly, a conclusion on their speed close to the speed of light is not possible according to the data of the experiment. However, the authors of once again reported "brilliant experimental confirmation of" SRT. However, in my opinion, like all of the "the defenders of" SRT, they have not all in the adequacy of the head. Suffice it to say that, in their opinion, the entire planet Earth as a result of motion one and the only muon is compressed in the 9.7 times in the direction of its movement. This, supposedly, and allows them to over 2.2 ьъё. overcome the 15 km of the Earth's atmosphere. As muons are flying from all possible directions, this compression occurs in all directions.

Akeliev N.M.ааааааааааааааааааааRussiaааааааааа Volgogradааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааа12.06.2010- 09.11.2011

This apptndix dedicated to the Fizeau experiment on the definition of "partial drag of an ether". It is known that preachers SRT lead it as one of the main evidence in the benefit of SRT. We will not repeat the scheme of experiment, it is well-known. We shall made note only to its conclusion. It turned out that if a beam of light is propagated inside transparent liquid (as particular, in the water), then, judging by the shift of the interferent fringes, the velocity of the fluid, as it were, in part is added to the speed of light beam. Is, as it were, partial drag light substance by the motion of the liquid flow.

V_{dev}=v+αu,аааааааааааааааааааааа ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа(44)а

were: V_{dev}а Ц speed of a light beam inside the liquid
relative the installation in the presence of fluid motion;

v -а speed of the light beam inside the liquid relative the installation in the absence of fluid motion;

u Ц speed of liquid flow relative the installation;

αа Ц лdrag coefficient╗.

The measurements showed that лdrag coefficient╗

а

аwhere n - is the refractive index of the liquid.

This coincided with the лether drag coefficient╗, predicted back in 1818 theoretically the French physicist Augustin Fresnel. For what reasons Fresnel brought this the formula? I find information about it failed. Many years later after the death of Fresnel formula found confirmation in the Fizeau experiment. Thus, the Fresnel believed that the ether must be partly drag by the moving substance, and this is, as it were, has been confirmed in this experiment.

Generally accepted in physics is that the speed of light in a transparent environment: v=C/n. With the account of (45) and this circumstance (44) can be rewritten in the form:

In SRT, as it is known, the existence of the ether is denied, therefore, it is given another "rationale" of the Fizeau experiment on the basis of the relativistic formula of addition of velocities. Let's see how it is done in the textbook I.V.Saveliev "Course of general physics" (v.2, M., "Nauka", 1978.)

Firstly, of course,

,аааааааааааа

when u≠0. The nature of the dependence of the expressions on the left and on the right are completely different. No, if you put the left part of the inequality in a Taylor series in the point u=0, leave from it, only the first 2 members, then we will get the right expression. Such an approach is apply for the simplification of the mathematical expressions in engineering accounts, but not in establishing of the physical laws in quantity. For example, it is well known that near the point x=0 the functions y=x and y=sin x give close values. This can be confirmed expansion in a Taylor series. This property is often practicaly used. But, we're not going on the basis of this claim, that the function y=x and y=sin x identical. Further, as we see in the output of the I.V. Savelyev is dropped one more member. It is process of trimming by the dropping of all the "superfluous". That is, the nature of the relationship in formula SRT does not correspond to the the nature of the dependence of the Fresnel's formula, although in small u/Cn them give close numerical results.

Still, we should note that
in formula (44) v=C/n is the speed of light beam inside the liquid on
installation in **no** movement
the liquid. But, in the formula of addition of velocities SRT v_{x}', as that is substituted C/n is the speed
the movement of the subject "inside" the system K', that is, in our case, this is a relatively **the moving** water. In other words,
preachers SRT indirectly (and I.V. Saveliev right) argue that the speed of
the beam of light and relatively immobile water and relatively moving with the
the velocity u will be one and the same and is equal to C/n. This is another "postulate" SRT. To
this case such a "invariance" was declared in SRT only in relation light
waves in a vacuum. Such approval shall require validation. The preachers of SRT, as
would, say, that a luminous substance entirely in 100% drag by moving
liquid. Only in this case it would make sense to attract to explain the Fizeau experiment
formula of addition of velocities of SRT.

The discrepancy Fresnel's formula (46) to SRT easy to show. Let's substitute in the Fresnel's formula (46) the refractive index of water n=1.33 and speed u=0.9C. Any official and unofficial "postulates" SRT this does not contradict. We get:

See, that the Fresnel's formula with acceptable from the point of view of SRT values of its member variables gives speed of a light beam relative installation more than the speed of light, but according to the chief "postulate" SRT this can not be. So, the Fresnel's formula does not correspond to SRT. The Fizeau experiment as a "confirmation" SRT "drawn for ears" is not quite correct mathematically and without physical grounds.

The Concept of the Lorentz -
Fitzgerald - Planck (CLFP) comes from the assumption about the **still** the ether. Of course, the conclusion of
partial drag ether by moving environment, made before on the results of the
the Fizeau experiment, does not fit into this concept. Lorenz specially
theoretically considered this problem. This is a reference even in the
physical encyclopedia: http://www.physicum.narod.ru/vol_5/322.pdf

He explained this phenomenon as follows: the electromagnetic field of a light wave produces polarization particles of the environment, within which spread. If the environment is in the movement, the electric field of the moving polarized particle is added with the source field of the light wave, causing the observed phase shift. Thus, the effect of the "drag" in the experience of Fizeau according to Lorentz was not due to partial drag ether, as it was assumed Fresnel, but a movement of polarized particles of the environment. Lorenz from the analysis of the Maxwell's equations for this case determined that "the drag coefficient" must be equal to the relation of the value of the polarization to the value of electric displacement. The polarization vector

**P**=ε_{0}χ**E**,ааааааааааааа

уфх:

аε_{0} Ц dielectric permeability of the vacuum;

χ Ц the dielectric susceptibility of environment ;

**E**
Ц the strength of electric field.

The vector of electric displacement

**D**=
ε_{0}**E**+**P**= ε_{0 }(1+χ)**E**= ε_{0}ε**E**.

Hence it should be

**P**=ε_{0}(ε-1)** ****E**,

where:

аε Ц the relative dielectric permeability of the medium.

лDrag coefficient╗ according to Lorentz:

а,аааааааааааааааа

because, as is known, the ε=n^{2}. Then the question arises:
according to the reference data for water n=1.33, and ε=80. Reference data on dielectric
permeability of water are given to a static electric field, but with the growth of
frequency of the electromagnetic field it falls so that, for frequencies of visible light
all coincides with the formula. On the dependence of dielectric
permeability of water from frequencies can be read on the website:

а http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/microwave.html

Below is a curve of depending taken from this site:

Arrows show change values when the temperature changes from 0 to 100 degrees Celsius.

As we can see, in CLFP
"the drag coefficient" **exactly**
coincides with the results of the Fizeau experiment without any additional manipulations.
Let us just note that in CLFP effect of the shift of interference fringes in
the Fizeau experiment is not due to the change of speed of a light beam in
moving fluid, but due to the appearance of the additional phase shift as a result of
interaction with polarized particles of the liquid without changing its speed
and frequency.

In SRT to "explain"
the results of the Fizeau experiment attracted the relativistic formula for the addition
speeds. It looks strange in itself, for until this "postulated",
what with the speed of light nothing can to add. Here appear a new
"postulate" of the fact that in the environment the speed of light in it is added to the speed of
environment according to the rule of the relativistic addition of velocities. This time, however,
preachers SRT got trapped. The fact is, that the analysis of the Fizeau experiment in the textbook
I.V.Savelyev and other literature is given, in general, not true. If there
was the summation of the speed of light in a medium with a speed of environment though
partially or in the relativistic law of addition of velocities, then the rays,
propagating in the direction of the flow of liquids and back to her, had
additional Doppler frequency shift of a different sign. Rays would no longer be
coherent, and stopped to form an interference pattern. That is,
the Fizeau experiment corresponds to the **only **CLFP,
where the phase shift is predicted without violation of the terms of coherence. And
"explanation" in the framework of SRT it contradicts the mere fact that the interference
picture **there is**, and then,
violations of coherence and change of the velocity of propagation of rays in the liquid
in the presence of its motion **has not happened**.
In this case, as in the case of the Michelson-Morley experiment, CLFP was
the only concept which gave to experiment physical explanation.

According to CLFP world ether is quiescent. Neither full, nor partial drag of ether by moving material objects are not. As the material objects is can not drag the ether, so far can not exist and ether vortices, promoted in the present time Acukovsky V. A.. ( "Vortices of hostile blow above us. The dark forces us viciously oppress." ) Ideas dragged ether and ether vortices, in my view, are inconsistent with the law of conservation of energy. For formation of the ether vortices spent to energy. When you're in the winter roll from the hill on the pope, dragging environment - the snow, the movement quickly stops due to the resistance of the environment. But if you roll from the same hill on skiing, not dragging environment - the snow, you can go much further. Must just imagine how many billions of years the Earth moves around the Sun, together with the Sun around the galaxy center, together with the galaxy somewhere else without significant losses of energy. This could not be, if she was draging the mass of the ether. Only the idea of a fixed nondragged ether CLFP has the chances to explaining the observed physical reality.

Akeliev N.M.а ааааааааааааааааааааааааааа Russia Volgogradааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааа07.11.2010

а

In all of the cases discussed up to this point, CLFP quite successfully cope with explanation of the observed physical picture of the world. But, in relation to the results of the experiment Ives-Stilwell 1938, this cannot be said. The original of their articles can be found in the Internet at the following address: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/HerbertIves1938a.pdf Briefly the essence of the experiment is as follows: Measured "transverse Doppler effect", but, in the longitudinal direction. In the classical formula the Doppler effect in the longitudinal direction there is no relativistic member of, but in relativistic formula it is present regardless of the direction. Therefore, if measure the doppler shift of radiation from approaching and receding with the same speed sources (same frequency), then according to relativistic formula the middle of the bias will not coincide with the frequency of a source in the state of rest. It showed Ives and Stilwell with good the coincidence to the value of relativistic member. They have turned a shift in the "red" side, as for an approaching, and as to the retreating source, what they interpreted as the slowing of time according to the theory of Larmor-Lorentz (not SRT). As the moving of radiation sources used "channel rays". It were glowing hydrogen ions accelerated the electric field. Radiation of approaching source observed directly on the the beam, and retreating through the reflection in the small mirror with on the opposite side. The measurements were carried out at the limit of the achievable accuracy. The idea of the experiment, in general, has been proposed W. Ritz followed by repeated A.Einstein. This is mentioned in the article. But, Ives and Stilwell, somehow, recorded it not in the asset SRT, but in the asset theory Larmor-Lorentz. In one of his articles H. Ives said, that the experiment of this kind allows to detect absolute movement in the ether. It allows you to determine the value of a relativistic member, means the speed relative to the ether. However, according to the postulates of the SRT this movement can not be found in any experiment. In general, Herbert Ives was until the end of the life the adherent of the theory of the ether. About the Ives-Stilwell's experiment can be it would put forward many comments, objections and doubts, but the results of it has been confirmed by other, independent method.

Group
experimenters from Germany during the last several years conducting
experiments on checking the "cross" (anomalous) Doppler effect in
"longitudinal" direction of accelerated ions of lithium. The ions in their installation
not acting in the role of a source of radiation, but in the role of the absorber, that is
the receiver. The latest experiment was carried out in 2009, with a velocity of ions
β=0.338╤ [6]. In their experiment, the lithium ions accelerated in the accelerator to
relativistic speeds, then fell into a special ring, which revolved in
vacuum by inertia, held a magnetic field. At a tangent to the movement of
ion beam irradiated by laser with variable frequency radiation. When the frequency of the
laser radiation coincided with a certain line in the spectrum of ions, radiation
absorbed. In the excited state of ions was a very short time and with the
reverse transition in not excited state themselves emit light already in random
direction. That is, the resulting fluorescence. The frequency of fluorescence
the experiment has not been determined, just recorded her appearance by fotomultiplier
at an angle of 90^{0} to the direction of motion of the ion beam. Irradiating the flow
ions in the course of the movement and in the opposite direction, assessed the frequency of
absorption and compared it with predicted by standard and the relativistic formulas
the Doppler effect. Estimates show that an additional abnormal **purple** the frequency shift of the line
absorption moving receiver in the proportion of the relativistic member with an accuracy of
in 0.04%. This is exactly the same as the value given by the relativistic
formula of Doppler effect in the longitudinal direction (in the graph of Fig. 10
put the points on the data of the experiment), but, at the same time, it is obvious
contrary to the thesis about the slowdown in the space-time to moving objects. Average
the frequency of absorption lines in the state of rest was ν_{0}=546465053.7
V. The frequencies on which there
absorption during irradiation in parallel and opposite movement of ions were
respectively ν_{p}=777204676 ▒200 MHz,

ааа аν_{a}=384228270 ▒ 48 MHz. If to count by the classical formula for the
moving receiver, you get the values: 731170241.7 and 361759865.5. That is
in both cases there is a shift in the violet side.

The Results of the Ives-Stilwell experiment and researchers from Germany have forced a change in the CLFP, built on a single assumption about the "Fitzgerald's contraction". In moving the light source in this case should take place decrease of the generated frequency is also in the proportion of the relativistic member. With this in the interferometer of the Michelson-Morley generally will not be offset fringes even if you change the value of the module velocity of the Earth relative to the ether. Let explain. Fitzgerald's contraction ensures the same optical path of light rays in the interferometer of the Michelson-Morley regardless of orientation, and regardless of the wavelength of the light source. However, the total number of wavelengths, laying in the arm of the interferometer, in the motion will be more than at rest relative to the ether. If at the same time will increase the wavelength of the radiation source in the proportion of the relativistic member, there happens compensation, and the number of wavelengths in the arm of the interferometer will remain the same as in state of rest. This tempting option and made H. Lorentz under the influence of Larmor and Poincare move away from the original concept, based only on "Fitzgerald's contraction". But he could not give a physical explanation even the "Fitzgerald's contraction", and here it was required to do another one, so inexplicable assumption. Mathematics A. Poincare physical explanations were don't need. He created formulas, but there sort it out, as you wish. Prevailed the idea of not to give any physical explanation at all, and simply declare this the properties of space and time. But, in the interpretation of, when the relativistic effects are explained not by the reduction of the physical length of material objects and decrease in the frequency of radiation of atoms in a movement in the ether, but change the scale of space and time, the ends just do not converge. As it was shown above in APPENDIX 2 the concept of SRT, based on such assumptions, contradict the experiment of Michelson-Morley. Lorenz tried something to explain, saying, "local time" is mathematical fiction. But, when the case took A. Einstein accompanied by the whole armada of the world mass media, it has none not listened to. Meanwhile, in the framework of the CLFP, where reduced material objects, and not space, the results of the Ives-Stilwell experiment could find explanation by not the slowing down of time, but the decrease in the frequency of the radiation as a result of physical the reasons.а

Explain the decrease of the frequency of radiation of a moving source in the CLFP, in my opinion, is not too difficult. With the motion of material objects in the ether is relativistic increase their mass.

It is Appropriate note that the growth of the mass is not in gram-molecular sense, but in the sense of resistance to acceleration, which is the result of interaction with the environment. If take in hand wand and wave it in the air, then it moves easily. If the same put the stick in a more dense medium, for example, in the water and do the same thing - can you feel the increase resistance to acceleration, equivalent to a growth of the masses. But, the mass of the wand is not increased. Due to this is impossibility of enrich themselves at the expense of the effect, trying to, for example, increase the mass of gold. (See APPENDIX 6) When driving in the ether is the relativistic increase mass of the electrons in the atom according to the above formula. The radiation of atoms quantum of light occurs in the transition of an electron from one orbit to another. The electron, which has received additional relativistic mass increase makes this transition with a lower value of the acceleration, as acceleration back proportional to the mass. When move an electron from the acceleration of the accompanying electric field creates the surge, which then spreads already independently. If you look at the wave equation

you can assume that, because of the growth of the mass of the electron, the second derivative in time created when the surge of electric field in consequence of the reduction of acceleration the electron in the proportion of the relativistic member too will decrease in the same proportion. So, to describe created by the waves to the right side of the wave equation, where there is the second derivative in time, multiplied by relativistic member. The right part will decrease, and this will affect the value the second derivatives with respect to a coordinate in the left part of the equation. They should also be decrease in the proportion of the relativistic member. The second derivative with respect to a coordinate proportional to the square of the amplitude of the harmonic signal, which is the quantum of light. The square of the amplitude is proportional to its energy. Energy of a quantum of E=hνso, too, will decrease in the proportion of relativistic member of that and equivalent to a reduction of the radiation frequency according to the anomalous Doppler effect. The absorption of radiation according to the experiment [6], by contrast, requires a higher frequency than in the classical case. To move an electron, which has relativistic increase in mass, the higher orbit in an atom require more energy in proportion to the increase, and means high frequency absorbed quantum. There is a contradiction: on the one and the same speed the atom absorbs kvant with higher energy and radiates with more low, than it is expected by classical formula of Doppler effect, derived from the purely geometrical considerations. But, the classical formula asymmetric relative to the movement of the source and the receiver, and thanks to the relativistic effect frequency of the emitted and absorbed by quanta becomes the same. Otherwise, there would have been a violation of the law of conservation of energy. Thus, the classical asymmetric formula of Doppler effect, while remaining fair, may not, however, adequately reflect the physical reality, at least in the processes of radiation and the absorption of quanta of light by atoms, because act factors, restoring the symmetry of processes.

а The modification of CLFP leads to a change in the classical formula effect Doppler (33) thus, as it was do Herbert Ives in article [5]

Here vectors of all velocities are directed by one line. In such a record formula Doppler effect becomes symmetric relative motion of the source and the receiver, i.e. satisfy the principle of the relativity of motion. Graph the dependence of the perceived frequency of speed will curve 3 in Fig. 10. Important note that the formula of Doppler effect (33) does not change and remains asymmetric relative to the movement of the source and the receiver. But included other factors, which, however, provide for the implementation of the principle of the relativity of motion. In this connection it would be interesting to check for real presence of asymmetric and acoustic formula. Whether and there like the compensation mechanism? Must be, because the nature of the phenomenon, almost the same. In view of the formula O.E.Akimov (34) full formula of Doppler effect for arbitrary angles of observation will take the form of:

It is curious, that according to this formula in the transverse direction (at an angle of 90 degrees) "cross" Doppler effect is absent. Increase in the frequency due to the effect of Doppler offset by the decrease in the frequency of the radiation at the expense of another effect, which already it would be wrong to call the "transverse Doppler's effect" (as actually in the transverse direction it is absent, and manifests itself only in longitudinal) could be called the effect Ives-Stilwell or abnormal Doppler effect (as it has already been taken in many sources). Because of this loud confirmation of the "cross" of the Doppler effect, predicted A. Einstein, are made only in the longitudinal direction. And when tried really measure the cross, were not what we expected.

It is worth just notice that the anomalous Doppler effect, is not an additional condition, necessary for agreement CLFP with the experimental data. He may well be explained by a natural consequence of the earlier findings.

5. Herbert E. Ives УThe Doppler Effect Considered in Relation to the Michelson-Morley ExperimentФ J.O.S.A Nov. 1937, vol. 27 pp. 389-392. (The content of the article can be found on the Internet at the address: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/HerbertIves1937c.pdf )

6. C. Novotny and other лSub-Doppler laser spectroscopy on relativistic beams and tests of Lorentz invariance╗ PHYSICAL REVIEW A 80, 022107, 2009

Akeliev N.M.аааааааааааааааааааааааRussiaаааааа Volgogradааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааа07.03.2011

In all textbooks it is written, that Maxwell's equations are invariant under Einstein-Lorentz transformations Recently, several authors have shown the methodology by which can be verified the invariance. Most clearly it is shovn by O.E. Akimov in http://rob-ratio.narod.ru/ma/dm2-5c.htm . There on the example of the wave equation it is shown, that it does not change its appearance with the substitution of formulas of transformation of coordinates and time-space of SRT. At the same time it was noted, that the transformations of Lorentz-Einstein are not the only transformations that leave the wave equation unchanged. So earlier than SRT there appeared the so-called "Vogt transformations" with the same property. Maria Korneva in the article "Lorentz Error", published in the Internet at the following address: http://n-t.ru/tp/ns/ol.htm , showed mathematically that there is a whole class (many) of transformations, with respect to which the Maxwell equations are invariant. Apparently, Maxwell's equations are imposed not too hard limits. So it may be offered to the many variants of transformation, to which they invariant.

Let's check by method presented in the book of the O.E. Akimov, the wave equation on the invariance on transformations CLFP. In CLFP there is one equation for the transformation of coordinates x, over coordinates y and z do not change, and the time in all systems is the same classical Newtonian:

** **

**y****Т=****y**

**z****Т=****z**

**t****Т=****t**

Here once again note that in CLFP scale of the space does not change. The physical length of the material objects in all systems is one and the same. But, the measured length due to the "Fitzgerald's contraction" turns out to be different, if it measured the benchmark system, stationary relative to the ether and moving relative to it. This fact and reflects the equation of transformation (14). So, in the system K (relating to the stationary ether) the wave equation has the form:

On the axes y and z we have any scale is not changed,
therefore, and derivatives of these axes do not change. Let us consider how to change
due to the transformation the value of the derivative along the coordinate x and time t?
Let express the first derivatives of the coordinates x and t through x' and t' according to
the transformation of the (14):

Find the second derivatives:

Substituting the obtained values to the wave equation:

See, that the transformations of CLFP (14) also did not change view the wave equation and in this sense they may just not worse then A. Einstein's transformations.

Akeliev N.M.аааааааааааааааааааRussiaааааааааааVolgogradааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааа25.03.2011

Decided to measure the speed of the
aether wind in the home conditions according to the methods described in the Internet by A. Dovzhenko. Preconditions have been
the following: the phenomenon of stellar aberration, in which the speed of the motion of the Earth
are summed up, according to the classic rule of summation of vectors of velocities with the speed of
light, well studied and is firmly established experimental fact.
The orbital speed of the Earth (about 30 km/s), calculated by the annual star
aberration, coincided with the speed determined by the laws of celestial mechanics. In
the end of the 19th century at the physicists do not
there was doubt that the aberration is firmly experimentally established
a consequence of the motion of the Earth relative to the luminiferous medium - ether. In the experiment of Michelson-Morley expected
to get the same amount in another way. The attitude of the V/C, listed in the calculations of the expected
shifts in the Michelson-Morley experiment, was even called the "aberration", considering
that it is about 30/300000=0.0001. (See the textbook I.V.Saveliev "Course of general
of physics, v.2, M., "Nauka", 1978., 480 p., p. 466) But, it is not true. Star
aberration is caused by not full module speed of motion of the Earth relatively
ether, but only the contribution that makes in it value the orbital motion of the
Earth. As already noted, in addition to the orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun
there is movement together with the Sun around the Galaxy center, together with the Galaxy
somewhere else. That is, the general speed relative to the ether must be clearly
more than expected in the end of the 19th century and appeared in the calculations
in the experiment of Michelson-Morley 30 km/s.. аIn our time, it is determined that the speed of the Earth
on a system connected with the relict background, which, probably,
is a system of a stationary ether, equal to about 300 km/s.. This is on order of magnitude greater than the value determined by
a stellar aberration. In the Michelson-Morley experiment could be expected V/C=300/300000=0.001. And it means, that on
the length of 1m ether wind should blow away beam of light at 1mm. Such a deviation can be seen with the naked eye
in the installation of small size. Only manifest this deviation shall, in the
the rotation not in the horizontal plane, as in the Michelson-Morley experiment, but in the
vertical (direction of motion of the Earth relative to the ether was discussed in the
APPENDIX 10) The corridor, the length of 100 m, as had A. Dovzhenko, in my possession no, but there is a construction line-level of the length of the
1m, as well as the laser level (type of laser pointer). Tied the laser level
to the line by scotch on one end to the other by clay attached cardboard
a target. According to my reasons in the rotation of thet design in the vertical
plane was supposed to take place offset spot of light from the laser on the
target. At the first verification offset discovered, which led me in
good mood. However, the repetition of the experiment revealed that
offset spots cause the slightest effects of force on the line, leading to
invisible to the eye of her curves. Decided to increase the rigidity of the base. Took
steel U-shaped channel length about 1.5 m.. So tied the same to him on the
one end by scotch a laser level, and on the other attached by plasticine
cardboard target. The hardness of the steel channel is very high, for his bending
requires significant effort. The rotation of design, both in horizontal, and in
the vertical plane, to the shift of a light spot in consequence of the aether wind
has not resulted. Discover the ethereal wind in the home condition failed. Here again,
it was in the days of doubt, that the light is a wave in the ether. But, this again
it is impossible to imagine. So,
we must thoroughly understand the situation. The idea of the experiment A. Dovzhenko is
far from new. Still Augustin Jean Fresnel in a letter to Francois Arago in 1818.. (This is
the letter, in which the Fresnel justifies the ratio of the partial dragging of
ether. Anyway I managed to find it in the Internet "the Letter add Augustin
Fresnel to Francois Arago on the impact of the movement of the Earth on some
optical phenomena" in the book: O. Fresnel "╚чсЁрээ√х ЄЁєф√ яю
Їшчшъх" State publishing house of technical and theoretical literature.
Translated from the French Z.A.. Zeitlin, edited by the academician. G.S.Landsberg. M, 1955
g., 607 with., p.516) is, in fact, proves that the observation of the source,
located on the Earth and moving along with it, as with a normal telescope,
so through filled with water, will not give an aberration according to the ideas of
the nature of light in the form of wave process in the still ether, in spite of the
the motion of the Earth relative to it. Briefly the essence can be expressed as follows: If
the source and the receiver, motionless relative to each other, move relative to the
the ether in the direction perpendicular to the connecting line, then for the observation of
the source the receiver automatically selects the rays,а radiated by the source on angle arcsin(V/C) in the direction of motion.аа This part of the photons has a component of
speed in the direction of movement equal to the V. Due to the aether wind, blowing with the
speed V in the opposite direction, the photons coming back on the line connecting the source
and the receiver. As a result of the observed no changes relative to the status
rest. But, this does not quite correspond to the occasion with a laser pointer. For
observations, all the same are not elected those rays that were radiated a source in the
the direction perpendicular to the movement. Then, the light spot must
shift. And the displacement of the light from the laser is not. In the book of "The Detection of Ether" (2002 у.) american author R. Webster Kher describes in detail the research,
similar experience A. Dovzhenko with a stain
from the laser source, carried out by him in 1998-1999.. The distance from the source
to the target he had about 150 m.. He came to the conclusion that the more
elimination of extraneous factors, the less is daily shift of light
stains. Being sure of the existence of ether, the author as a result of this
experiment comes to the conclusion about the complete his dragg by moving Earth. Other
authors, for example, the supporters of the ideas of V.A. Atsukovsky, argue that ethereal
wind is screened by concrete and metal structures. Followers of
"ballistic Ritz theory " assert, that the speed of photons,
like conventional particles is summed with the speed of the source. All this is not
corresponds to CLFP in which the ether is stationary, not dragg by moving
objects and are not shielded them, and photons, being elastic oscillations of the medium,
moves independently with a constant velocity relative to the ether. Is it possible
in the framework of such representations to explain the results of the experiment with a laser pointer?
It turns out that you can, and it's not difficult. It is enough to remember, what from itself
the laser is? Laser, these are two parallel mirrors, one of which
translucent. Between the mirrors has a "active medium" with the inverse of
density of population of electronic levels. Ray of light, moving from one mirror to the
another, is further gained by the induced radiation common-mode
along the way excited atoms. Part of reinforced thus
luminous flux bursting out through the translucent mirror in the form of
flat coherent waves. At rest relative to the ether,
strengthening are only rays propagating strictly perpendicular to
the surfaces of mirror, because only these rays have the opportunity to repeatedly
cross the period of the active medium. (See. Fig. 13 a) And what will happen if, for example, mirrors,
forming the laser resonator, move relative to the ether, so that the plane of
mirrors are parallel to the direction of motion?
it is Clear that the growth in this case will be exposed to the rays, which in
the time of such movements remain within the system of mirrors, circulate, reflected from the
the same points. And this will rays, having the slope in the direction of
movementа arcsin(V/C). Photons radiated by a laser with
mirrors, parallel movement, have a component of V in the direction of motion.
(See. Fig. 13 b) Laser beam in comparison with conventional sources has the
dignity, that gives a clear spot of light in the big distance. This
determined attempt to detect the ether wind with its help in the home according to the scheme
experience A. Dovzhenko. But, it turns out that the laser beam has the peculiarity that
the ethereal wind in its radiation is automatically compensated by the conditions of
its formation. Found in the home ether wind with the help of
laser pointer in the experience of the scheme A. Dovzhenko, alas, will not succeed. The laser was
for this is not quite appropriate source.

╨шё. 13

Knowing about the existence of two effects: (a) laser
radiate at an angle in the direction of motion, offsetting the ethereal wind; b) tilt the mirror in the motion
gets extra lean in the direction of motion, as a recompense for
the ethereal wind (see. APPENDIX 4), it is easy to explain the experiment, calling
difficulty in understanding the results achieved. This is an experiment on laser
location of the Moon's surface. Several expeditions were delivered to the Moon the angle
reflectors. In particular, such reflectors were installed on the soviet
lunokhods. On the Moon there are also several american reflectors. Regularly
to this day in the United States and Russia are produced by the experiments on laser location of these
reflectors. A laser beam is sent and received by one and the same
a telescope. Time of passage of the beam to the Moon and back is about 2.5
sec.. The Laser beam has a certain degree of divergence. As a result a spot light
at the return of the reflected beam to the Earth has a diameter of about 20 kilometers.
(See the book of R. Webster Kher "The Detection of Ether") But, we assume that the ethereal
wind has a velocity relative to the Earth, about 300 km/s. So, a stain from a laser beam for 2.5 seconds.
must have been blown out of the ether wind for about 750 km from the point of radiation. It
in no way could be adopted by the same telescope, which radiated. However, think about the identified effects us.
The laser automatically emits light in the direction of the angle,
offsetting aether wind. Angle reflector principally consists of
inclined mirrors. Tilt mirrors in the motion relative to the ether,
as we have seen, acquire additional equivalent tilted to the side
the movement, which compensates for the aether wind. Thus, in the experiment in
laser location of the Moon surface, everything looks as if everything is happening in
stationary relative to the ether condition.

Then, it was not possible to
discover the ethereal wind in experiment at home, and even more
complicated, does not mean that it is impossible to detect experimentally at all.
Data such experiments have already been published, including
world's leading physical journals [9]. However, the fate of such publications was not easy.
Victor V. Demyanov managed to publish the results of research on
ether wind, carried out by him in 1967-1975 years. only in 2010.
(!). Until this time, scientific journals, controlled by the preachers of SRT, not
accepted it for publication. It does not have some of the dissident research in
primitive conditions. Studies have been conducted V.V. Demyanov quite
officially, with good financing, on good experimental basis. In this
the time he worked in FNIFHI. It is the branch of the Physical-Chemical Institute named
Karpov in the city Obninsk. In the 60-th of the last century it was decided at the same time and
independently in different countries to conduct experiments type of
Michelson-Morley, only with environments, as distinct from the air and vacuum.
It was expected that they will give the same zero result from the ether
wind, as the experiment MM, which "will strengthen the evidence base of SRT". Shamir and Fox
[7] reported the absence of the ether wind in the installation type MM with environments
made of plexiglass, these results have been published. Unlike them, V.
Demyanov in great detail figured out the properties of the interferometer type MM, held
experiments with different environments and showed that in the interferometer MM with
environments, other than vacuum, ether wind is clearly detectable,
predictively and reproducibly is fixed. The publication of these results was
locked preachers of SRT. In 2006, similar results were obtained
researchers in Australia [8]. Apparently, connected with it and the lifting of the ban on
publication of the results of V. Demyanova in 2010.. Now in the Internet you can find
several articles of V. Demyanov. V.V.Demyanov, of course, is an outstanding
experimenter world level. His work, in my opinion, deserves
the awarding of the Nobel prize, if compare it with the works, for which this
prize give. But, as a theoretician, he has not such a high level. His translation
the offset amount of fringes in the velocity of ether wind
is not absolutely correct. Because the correct theory,
apparently, no one has yet developed. It is important to note here that: interferometer MM
gives zero results for the ether wind, if experimental
installation is placed in vacuum. As noted the authors of [8], "the Fitzgerald's contraction"
really works. If environments in the interferometer are substances
with dielectric permittivity, different from 1, on account of the "Fresnel's drag"
the phase shift of a light wave in the shoulders of the interferometer, differently oriented
with respect to the direction of motion in the ether, turns out to be different. When you turn
this interferometer clearly recorded the shift of fringes. The higher the
dielectric permeability environments, the greater the effect. The second
a point which should be noted. On the approval of V. Demyanov effect detection
ether wind does not depend on whether there is an experiment in the room above
the surface of the earth, in the basement or a metal box. Aether wind is not
shielded or concrete structures, nor the earth, nor metal
screen. All this is fully consistent with CLFP, and SRT are contrary to the fact, that according to the postulate of relativity
absolute motion cannot be detected by any experiments. Why
the same results have V.V.Demyanova have turned out different from the results of Shamir and
Fox? V.V. Demyanov believes that there is no conscious falsification (although, I
admit this). V.V.Demyanov convincingly shown [10] that, in installation
Shamir and Fox, probably, have not been taken into account peculiarity of not air environments: to them
must not to make ends straight. Otherwise reflected from the ends of the light gets in the registration
device and distorts the observed pattern. Here there is no
opportunity to tell about all V.V.Demyanov's experiments. Recommend reading the
the article [11]. (The article can be found on the Internet) In [8] and other sources in
the Internet is described an interesting experience De Vito, just proving the existence of
the aether wind.

7. J.Shamir, R.Fox. A new experimental test of special relativity. Nuovo
Cim., v.62, No 2, pp.258-264 (1969).

8. Reginald T. Cahill A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute
Motion

and Gravitational Waves Detectedа
Progress in Physics, 4, 73-92, 2006.

9. V.V.Demjanov, Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on
Michelson interferometer in optical media,а
Phys.Lett.A 374, (2010) 1110-1112

10. ┬.┬.─хь№ эют л╧юўхьє
╪рьшЁ ш ╘юъё "эх юсэрЁєцшыш"а
¤ЇшЁэ√щ тхЄхЁ т 1969-юь уюфє?╗а
├юёєфрЁёЄтхээр ╠юЁёър └ърфхьш шь. ┬.╘.╙°ръютр, ═ютюЁюёёшщёъ

11.а ┬.┬.─хь№ эюта
л╚эЄхЁЇхЁюьхЄЁ Єшяр ╠рщъхы№ёюэр эр ¤ЇЇхъЄрї яхЁтюую яюЁ фър юЄэю°хэш V/C╗а
├юёєфрЁёЄтхээр ╠юЁёър └ърфхьш шь. ┬.╘.╙

Akeliev N.M.ааааааааааааааааааааааааааааа Volgogradааааааааааа аааааааааааааааааааааа07.10.2011 у.