SELF

4

S.B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina

Possibly, SR gives the time reduction in inertial frames? To check it, use the services of third observer. He answers to our inquiry that before the twins separated their motion, they both moved with the velocity v  with respect to his frame. After braking, the frame A  is at rest relatively C , while the twin B  goes on moving with the same velocity.

Thus, comparing the velocity of time flow between the frames A  and C  immediately, we yield

while, comparing the same velocity on the way from A  to B  and then from  B  to C , we will obtain another value:

As in both cases we compare two specific clocks in frames A   and C , it would be natural to require, (10) and (11) to be equal. However, as we see from these expressions, the correlation is possible only at zero velocity between all three frames.

We see from this analysis that Mach's attempt to disprove the Newton's absolute has caused the creation of a new absolute - the constant velocity of light. With all exterior dummies, Einstein has simply substituted the Newton's 3D absolute with the 4D Minkowski's absolute:

The 4D space of special relativity is the same strong and absolute as Newton's space" [Einstein: 18, vol. 2, p. 277].

With it, while the Newton's absolute had the only disadvantage - the absence of some material body with which we could identify the absolute reference frame, Einstein's absolute is much more problematic. Above we touched only several problems that arise with the constancy of light velocity introduced for any inertial frame. However we see from this analysis that, when formulating the postulate of constant velocity of light, the relativists have coarsely disregarded the experience, having substituted the scrupulous analysis for the simplified "interpretation" of the experimental data, disregarded the rigour of mathematical proof, basing on the approximate forms of record and introducing a priori the conditions, "convenient" for obtaining some "convenient", in their view, solutions. As an outcome, in transition from SR to GR, Einstein had to return to the idea of aether. But since this concept strongly contradicts the postulate of constant velocity of light, he formulated it as something phenomenological, or rather mystical:

"In this way the space has lost its absolute pattern. It appeared able to change its state, so that it could take the functions of aether and, as far as it concerns the gravity field, really took them. There still remained unclear the formal meaning of electromagnetic field which could not be explained only by the metric structure of space. However since the time of general relativity creation, one cannot seriously doubt that gravitational and electromagnetic fields should be explained by some unified structure of (4D) space" [Einstein: 19, vol. 2, p. 285].

"As the gravity field is determined by the mass configuration and varies with it, the geometrical structure of this space depends on physical factors. Thereby, in accordance with this theory, the space, as Riemann suspected, already is not absolute, and the structure of space depends on the physical conditions. The geometry (physical) already is not an isolated self-closed science as was that of Euclid" [Einstein: 18, vol. 2, p. 282].

In this way the relativists would like to say that the physical regularities of space are fully determined by the physical properties of the curvature of their geodesics and by the metric tensor? In the foreword to his Principia, Newton wrote so:

"The geometry only shows, in which way, with the help of drawing these lines, the different questions and problems are solved. The drawing of a direct or circle is also a problem, only not geometrical. The solution of this problem is taken from the Mechanics, the Geometry teaches only, how to use these solutions. Thus, the Geometry is based on the mechanical practice and is nothing other than the part of general mechanics in which the proof of precise measurement is stated" [Newton: 2].

To corroborate, what Newton said, it will be sufficient to analyse a very simple question: on which grounds do the relativists construct their geodesics?

Eddington admitted:

"A property of the world cannot be expressed immediately in the mathematical equation; only the measure of this property can be a part of this last. Any number or a set of numbers which can serve to define such property conclusive can be called its measure. Applying the term 'a property of the world', we are trying to bind ourselves as little as possible, including to this term everything that in such or other way determines the values of the observed physical values in the outer world" [Eddington: 20, p. 84- 85].

Now let us recollect the very definition of geodesics. Pure mathematically

"The geodesics are the lines on a surface whose small enough arcs are the shortest distances between their ends on the surface" [Physical encyclopaedia: 21, p. 410].

However in the physical theory the geodesics reflect the known Fermat's principle, just so:

"According to the Relativity, the world line of a material point in the gravity field is the geodesics" [ibidem, p. 411].

Note, not simply in an abstract space, but just in the gravity field. Thus, the geodesics to exist, there has to exist some power field originating it. In the absence of field the geodesics degenerate into direct lines, and the geometry - into the Euclidean. But the fields of different nature differently affect on the material bodies. Electric field affects in proportion to the charge of body, and its trajectory depends on the body mass - it means, dependently on the mass and charge, its own grid of geodesics will correspond to this body. In the gravity field the body trajectory does not depend on its mass, but this field does not react at all to the body charge. In magnetic field the trajectory depends on the body charge and on its velocity, so for the bodies having different masses and charges the geodesics will be different too. Of course,

"The field can be fully described by giving to each point of space the vector whose value and direction correspond to the gravitation acceleration which any trial body having been put to this point gains. The gravity field can be described graphically, drawing in it the curves, the tangent line to which coincides in each point of space with the direction of local field of gravity (acceleration); … The inverse dependence on the distance squared is expressed graphically as follows: all force lines start at the infinity (unlimitedly far from the region of our interest) and finish at large masses" [Bergmann: 22, p. 92- 93].

However in material 3D space there exists not only the gravity field. It co-exists with other power fields. These fields are able to affect the same bodies simultaneously, compensating or strengthening the resulting effect and giving in each case its own grid of geodesics. Doing not knowing the nature of these fields and making in this connection multitude of fantastic suppositions on their nature, can we state on the only basis of regularities of stationary gravitation field that the bodies in the world space will move just along the gravitation geodesics? Surely, no. Well, can we neglect the action of other fields? This is just, why the classical physics had to introduce an inertial reference frame, in order to take into account relatively to it all the assemblage of forces affecting the body, and on the basis of this assemblage to find the trajectory of bodies. And the main problem of classical physics was just to separate the affection of forces of different nature. This problem is actual up to now, until we have moved up to the next level of understanding in revealing the nature of mass forces.