The scale of critical attacks and comments addressing the very famous theory of special relativity has recently gained such tremendous scope that it is appropriate to speak of the difficult situation to come. With the gradually increasing number of scientists, the innumerable flaws of this theory and the dead state of the scientific method it introduced become apparent. Clearly, the time has come to upgrade the STR and subject it to corrective revision seriously. What is needed to get started?
The fact that they were, in fact, mathematicians rather than physicists was put forth over and over again, rebuking the authors on STR. In the formulation of the theory, Lorentz's formula for transformations already prevailed, and he attempted to "accommodate" reality. And as the selection was made initially, all other options were "simply killed, and it inadvertently blocked a road for them. Thus, the deductive "mathematical" method prevailed.
Positivist philosophical-methodical methods completely abolished the observer's position and also played a detrimental role in denying the availability of objective characteristics for natural subjects and other phenomena. Within the framework of a materialistic method, the situation when each of the two observers moving from each other will alternate spatial and correct time constraints in the other system and thus be correct can never be considered. The problem is natural for scientists inclined to materialism under similar circumstances: and what exactly happens in these two systems? But instead of an answer, they get here a positivist-philosophical "fico": it appears, in fact, nothing; There is only one subjective similarity of phenomena which is taken as the scientific basis.
So, the two essential methodological flaws that STR promoted led to the impasse seen today. Therefore, we must subject a problem to a more rigorous methodological analysis in a relativistic situation to find the correct solution.
Pushed into the second plan and presented in the ability to depend on the first two. For this reason, he did not deduce the wrong time value of clocks, which would be quite natural and simple, based on the eventual effect on the thought experiment with Einstein's train. The authors at STR used this experiment qualitatively, and the quantitative ratio was subsequently subtracted after obtaining the formulas for Lorentz's transformations for space and time coordinates.
The result of this trending approach is that the impact of simultaneous relativity in the backyard of the STR and the specificity of the methodology it introduced has been little studied. It had a fatal error, as will be displayed below. The distinctive features introduced by this influence in a methodological situation are so important that it causes a radical change in attitudes towards the problem.
It is believed that the effect of the relativity of "fault" of simultaneous clocks lies in points along the line of relative motion for two moving systems. The formula for the value of this mismatch is subtracted in STR. However, in our opinion, the importance of some details of the haze to physics is badly reflected in theory. In our previous article, we tried to uncover this situation in more depth.
The question is whether, in any point removed from each other along the line of relative motion of the two systems, there is a relative distortion of the time scale and a relative displacement. We will focus on relative displacement. Clearly, in one system, all events occurring at any point removed from the origin of the coordinates for the two systems will be accompanied by relative forestation. In the other, accordingly, with relative delay. The value of this displacement shows the dependence of the relative velocity of the system and the distance between points along the line of motion.
It is important to realize that the indicated displacement occurs along the trajectory simultaneously, varying from point to point. The question is about a new aggregate factor in our perception of time-space, a role and value that is too important to evaluate correctly! This aggregate factor inevitably distorts our customary cognitive methods. To understand this, it is necessary to give some tension to our space-time imagination.
the special situation resulting from simultaneous relativity
Earlier, we had already drawn attention to the unexpected problem arising from the effect of simultaneous relativity. If we connect the space-time origin of the coordinates of the two systems at any point (O=O`), then in all the remaining points of the line of their relative motion, the relative displacement of the time scale will be. In consequence, synchronize in the two systems only those events that occur immediately at the point O=O` can only. In particular, only the instantaneous values of the vector quantities present at this point can be compared. All remaining phenomena are visible with some relative time-shift, and this fact of relative afforestation/delay is essential for the relative comparison of the two systems. In fact, both these systems exhibit the necessary relative non-linearity. The events meet at a point and then diverge along the x-axis.
So, with solitary instantaneous events, everything is quite simple. And what would it be like with a simultaneous comparison of two or more events occurring at different points in space? A big problem appears here. The factor of relative afforestation/delay in events across multiple points makes the task of such comparison theoretically impossible! What does this imply?
The classical function of measurement of spatial parameters implies matching the ends of a measured object and marks on a template. Clearly, simultaneous relativity's effect makes such a classical act of direct measurement in a relativistic situation when the subject and a template are moving from each other in the two systems, essentially not possible. We should look at this problem in detail. Therefore, it is methodically impossible, unacceptable, to directly compare the space segments in the two systems! We have the same problem regarding time increment. All this results in a direct comparison of any process involving two or more events become impossible. In particular, it relates to any motion along any non-zero spatial segment or during a non-zero period.
And now, let's recall the "strictly scientific" deduction of the famous Lorentz transformations based on Michelson's experiment and its results. In the light of the problems we found, the expectation of the experimenters and the theoretical-geometric calculations of the creators of the STR seem, at best, naive or ridiculous. The method in which they were directed is completely unacceptable. This may include the simultaneous processes of motion of a boat and a river (in the classic example of a fast river crossing) in a spatial diagram or a graphic diagram in Newton's mechanics, and then the resultant velocity from a right-angled triangle. Can receive. In relativistic mechanics, all this is permissible! There can be no direct comparison of spatial segments, periods, and motion processes, especially on a linear diagram! There is no direct comparison of vectors spanning space and time, right triangles formed from them, and simple formulas for transformations! The non-linearity of the world's characteristic relative space-time of the parallel flow of events in the two systems causes us to reject the former primitive methodological methods and look for other (perhaps, indirect) methods of comparison. Events occur in each of the two flows at particular time ratios, and arbitrary shifting, mixing of formulas, and values of variable data are completely permissible in these flows.
So, the correct method of direct comparison does not exist and cannot exist in principle.
What then do the formulas for Lorentz's transformations give us? Here, each of the two dynamic experimenters decides independently (subjectively) which examples to consider as the beginning and end of the measurement task of a spatial segment or time period within the current procedure. But for all that, as shown in our previous article, the solutions of the two experimenters contradict each other. It is, therefore, no surprise that the results of such measurements vary. Obviously, the cognitive value of similar comparisons and measurements is exclusively subjective and comparable to regular visual or acoustic illusions. When each experimenter assumes that the other system has a reduction in the length of segments and periods, these subjective comparisons have an effect.
It is given that Lorentz's transformation deals with the biased (non-objective) method and only the personal subjective - illusory aspects of reality. They do not correspond to the external objective observer. Given a meaningless measure of how far two experimenters are from each other and the absence of a correct method for direct comparison, this observer must inevitably conclude that such comparisons should, in principle, be It is necessary to negate any of the statements in And because of the illusion of relative deduction, he needs to pursue the progressive relative displacement of the time scale along the line of motion relative to the two systems. Then the issue will disappear. Then even the absurd and disturbing paradoxes of the last hundred years will disappear. Overall, all of the special relativity would be reduced to a single indicated phenomenon. Unlike the prior version, the new special relativity theory wins admirably in simplicity; That's why there is every reason to call it a special relativity light.
You must be logged in to post a comment.