THE THEORY OF RETARDED POTENTIAL
AGAINST THE THEORY OF THE RELATIVITY

Institute of Nuclear Physics NNC RК

Translated from Russian by Yuriy Sarychev

The article of A. Einstein “To electrodynamics of moving bodies” [1] confuses the reader not only concerning authorship of the Special theory of a relativity as in it is not made any reference to predecessors, but also concerning that this theory has arisen, as it is necessary, on experiments and the empirical law, instead of on postulates, declared in it.

It is possible to restore the authorship of Special theory of relativity (further-STR) under primary sources, as well as on what experiments have it arisen.

H. Lorenz has put forward a hypothesis, has made first steps on introduction STR, and

H. Poinkaré has brought theoretical and philosophical base under this hypothesis.

Their final works on introduction of STR were: “The Electromagnetic phenomena in the system moving with any speed, smaller speed of light” [2] of Lorenz and “About dynamics of electron” [3] of Poincaré. Thus, both Lorenz and Poincaré it is necessary to count pathbreakers and co-authors of STR, as now becomes clear, they are false theories.

There has come that moment when the scientific community of the Earth can reset from itself action of hypnosis or charms of the Special theory of relativity and soberly to look at the facts and the bases of this theory. From the very beginning of its development researchers had errors and a withdrawal from certain principles of creation of a science that has resulted them in incorrect interpretation of supervision and experiments.

Three, four or, maybe, more isolated phenomena, not connected among themselves, were incorporated into a single whole. Finally, it has resulted in such pseudoscientific concepts as: space - time, a wave - a particle, energy - mass, electromagnetic waves - a special kind of a matter, a particle with zero mass of rest etc.

Any theories and laws always were under construction and are under construction on the facts, observations and experiments. Analyzing them, researchers find the empirical law, and then check its serviceability and a generality. And only after that they develop the theory, which generalizes the open law on all natural phenomena in which causes and effects are stacked in it.

STR was constructed on observations and experiments also and, as consequence, - on the empirical law. Three facts have served as the basis for its occurrence: experiments of Michelson [4], [5] on attempt of detection of movement of the Earth concerning ether; experiments of Kaufmann [6], [7] with fast movement of electrons in a cross magnetic field; a finding of transformations for inertial systems after which the form of Maxwell’s equations does not vary.

In work “Michelson’s method of interference” [8] in 1895 Lorenz has justified the hypothesis about reduction of the longitudinal linear sizes of moving bodies. Reduction of bodies in it was proportional to “Lorenz’s factor”, explaining "negative" result of experiment of Michelson and played a leading part in occurrence of the general principle of relativity. Then in work “The Electromagnetic phenomena in the system moving with any speed, smaller speed of light” Lorenz in 1904 transfers the hypothesis to linear reductions of moving bodies on experiments of Kaufmann where shows the good consent of experiments with a hypothesis at application of "Lorenz’s factor".

Thus, Lorenz has united at once four phenomena with the help of one empirical law, of "Lorenz’s factor":

*Absence of influence of movement of the Earth (on its surface) on the optical phenomena, which as though specified existence of the general principle of the relativity, uniting a mechanical principle of a Galilean relativity with the electromagnetic phenomena.

*Abnormal increase Larmor’s radius of electrons at increase of speed of their movement in a cross magnetic field in W. Kaufmann's experiments.

*Abnormal increase of energy of electrons at increase of their speed of movement.

*Preservation of a form of Maxwell’s equations at transition in other inertial system that as though confirmed the first phenomenon.

The first phenomenon appeared the most difficult for Lorenz as for a way of an explanation by it of absence of influence of movement of the Earth on the optical phenomena by reduction of the linear sizes has risen Fresnel’s theory about partial dragging of ether for moving bodies. Fresnel’s theory was under construction on clear causal principles of movement of light in environments moving rather each other and explained a wide spectrum of the optical phenomena. Reduction of the linear sizes of moving bodies had no any bases under itself. Nevertheless, with the help rather foggy and to anybody of not clear reasoning, Lorenz "proves", that electron turns in ellipsoid at its movement, thus its mass is increased (?! – N.N.), and Fresnel’s theory is incorrect, as the aerohydrodynamical theory is inapplicable for the proof of dragging of an ether by bodies.

Lorenz’s "proof" of increase of weight of electron at its movement was completely not casual as it would explain still at once two phenomena: the second and the third, listed above. And all this was entered in frameworks of the empirical law, namely, in “Lorenz’s factor”! It did not confuse Lorenz and Poincaré, that at such "explanation" there were new freakish causeless phenomena, such as: increase of mass of bodies at increase of their speed, reduction of the longitudinal linear sizes of moving bodies from speed, absence of addition of speed of light with speed of bodies - receivers and others. It seemed to them, that the purpose will justify means, and the victors need never explain. They have hided the powerlessness somehow to explain causality of the phenomena with a phrase: "Probably so the nature is arranged."

However now, after many ears it is possible to assert confidently, that interpretation of the experiments becoming the basis of STR is incorrect.

Speed of light depends on density of ether and in the field of motionless ether, for example, on a surface of the Earth, it should be added with speed of a body - the receiver under the classical formula of addition of speeds. This, practically the most important experiment, is not made till now.

However from the very beginning there were observations which showed, that within the framework of not carried away ether, speed of light from space sources is added with speed of the Earth under the classical formula of addition of speeds. First, it is the star aberration found out by D. Bradley [9]. Second, it is observation of O. Römer over "deviations" on time of eclipses of satellites of the Jove, depending on that, the Earth and the Jove, approach or move off from each other. [10] And already after occurrence of STR there were made experiments, directly or indirectly indicating on this fact.

The brightest experiment showing existence of an ether, its immovability with regard to a surface of the Earth and addition of speed of light with speed of movement of the receiver under the classical formula of addition of speeds, became interference experiment (such as Michelson’s) on the rotating platform, executed at first by Harres [11] in 1912, then by G. Sagnac [12] (1913) and by B. Pogany [13] (1925). Results of experience were named "phenomenon of G. Sagnac", and in this connection S. Vavilov has written: " If phenomenon of G. Sagnac was discovered earlier, than results of experiences of the second order (of Michelson – N.N.) were found out, it, certainly, would be considered as the brilliant experimental proof of an ether " [14].

Experiment with a rotating platform has shown, that dragging of an ether by a platform on a background of the ether which is carried away by the Earth, so it is not enough, that is practically equal to zero, and thus speed of light is added with speed of parts of a platform under the classical formula of addition of speeds that means full denying a postulate on a constancy of speed of light concerning the receiver in STR.

Experiments of Michelson are necessary for considering as continuation of Arago’s experiments. Experiments of Arago [15] with a prism have shown that movement of the Earth does not influence the optical phenomena on its surface. It can mean only one: the ether is motionless concerning a surface of the Earth, which is dragged by it. This conclusion is made by Fresnel [16]. Two facts in aggregate, the star aberration and Arago’s experiments show, that the dragging of ether by the Earth concerns only to the Earth, not to all Solar system as a whole. The conclusion from here follows, that the layer of dragged ether has small size and should have a gradient of pressure that already would mean inconstancy of speed of light. On the other hand, such distribution of ether in space specifies to researchers, that near each space body there is a lens of ether which should bend a course of the beams which are taking place near it, as subsequently it was revealed, but already from positions of general theory of relativity (GTR).

The gradient of speeds was found out in D. Miller's experiments. He has carried out them in an observatory on Mount Wilson, near to Pasadena, in California at height of 6000 ft. It was made about 5000 separate measurements at various times of day and night in four various seasons in 1921-1925 [17]. All these measurements during which influence of the every possible factors able to deform result, " gave the stable positive effect corresponding to a real ether wind as though it was caused by relative movement of the Earth and an ether with speed about 10 km/c "... and by the certain direction which further Miller (after the long analysis) has presented as total movement of the Earth and Solar system " with speed 200 km/c or more, by apex in constellation of the Dragon about a pole of ecliptic with a direct ascent in 262 ° and an inclination 65 °. To interpret this effect as an ether wind, it is necessary to assume, that the Earth carries away ether so, that apparent relative movement in area of an observatory decreases from 200 km/c or more up to 10 km/c, and that the dragging of an ether displaces apparent azimuth approximately on 45 ° to northwest also ".

Then incontestable proofs of Miller’s correctness have appeared. With the help of anisotropy of background radiation American physics in 1976 have found [18] that total speed of Solar system is approximately 400 km/c by a direction of movement almost in 90 ° to a plane of ecliptic to the north.

Thus, we see how incorrectly interpreted Michelson’s experiments by Lorenz were and as the first basis STR falls.

The abnormal deviation of electrons from Larmor’s radius at increase of their speed of movement in a cross magnetic field in W. Kaufman’s experiments had an explanation in frameworks of the mechanism causality already to the moment of statement of a hypothesis about the general principle of a relativity by Lorenz. And Lorenz should know about it as his "the electronic theory" referred direct to him. Delay of potential was an explanation. It explains reduction of force of interaction from the speed, discovered by Gauss in 1835 [19] and advanced by Weber in 1846 [20], later by F. Neumann, his son K. Neumann, Riemann, Grossman, Klausius... Symbiosis of the law of retarded potential in form of Klausius and Maxwell’s equations has led of Lorenz in a spelling of the "electronic" law of a particle - a field [21].

Exactly the Lorenz’ law (a particle - a field) should be applied for an explanation of experiments of Kaufmann in which there is a delay of potential at fast movement of electrons. At that force of interaction of electrons with a magnetic field decreases that make incorrect impression of increase of mass of electron. Reduction of force of interaction from speed in laws of delay of potential occurs in compliance with the relation v²/c² where v is speed of a body (electron), c - the speed of interaction equal to speed of light. There is nothing surprising, that "factor of Lorenz", incorporating this relation, has approached for the description of prospective increase of mass. However the tragedy was that "electronic" law of Lorenz has not an obvious form of factor of retarded potential in it. We have impression, that though Lorenz deduced his law from law of Klausius, he had no precise notion about delay of potential. It is clear why Lorenz with such ease became adherent of an explanation of an abnormal deviation of electrons from Larmor’s radius at increase of their speed of movement in a cross magnetic field in W. Kaufmann's experiments by increase of their mass. And it was already the second incorrect interpretation of results of experiments with introduction of the general principle of relativity.

In the first case "factor of Lorenz" for the description of Michelson’s experiments has fitted because it actually is factor of dragging of Fresnel for full dragging of ether [22]. In the second case it has fitted because its value well correlates with value of factor of delay of potential till speeds of a body approaching to speed of light.

The phenomenon of abnormal increase of energy of electrons at increase of their speed of movement was not among the initial bases of STR. However it was and is subsequently the main proof of its fidelity. The mistakes of relativists were fastened in the Gordian Knot on this phenomenon, as there were no hints that it would be possible to explain it otherwise, except for as increase of mass with increase of speed of a body.

It is possible to explain triumph STR only by this phenomenon when all scientific worlds through fingers have looked at all discrepancy, on all paradoxes and on all foggy "proofs" of reduction of the linear sizes and increase of mass of electron.

But in 1927 Dawisson and Jermer performed experiments for electrons in connection with confirmation of sights of de Broglie. Further were made experiments with diffraction for other particles, atoms and molecules, not only for electrons. "So, it was experimentally confirmed, that particles: electrons, nuclei, molecules, neutrons have wave properties" [23].

Dawisson and Jermer have made very important conclusion: “The electrons behave as a wave which length depends on their speed... Length of wave corresponds calculated under the formula of de Broglie". Thus, increase of frequency of real oscillations of bodies is reason of abnormal increase of energy of bodies at increase of their speed not the mythical increase of their mass.

was entered only for electromagnetic oscillations (of light), and a waves of de Broglie "were explained" as "a waves of probability". Besides, the relativistic theory "has already determined" dependence of abnormal increase of energy of particles due to increase of mass from speed. And it already could not be contradicted. It is surprising, as Dawisson and Jermer and other researchers have not noticed that fact, that energy of waves of de Broglie can have the same formula, as energy of light. You see it would mean, that light is a derivative from movement of particles and, hence, assumption of Huygens is truly that "light arises due to pushes, which moving particles of bodies put to particles of an ether".

Except for it, this way there was one more obstacle: it was necessary to define the reason of oscillations of moving bodies and including the reason of increase of frequency of their oscillations from increase of speed of movement. But even without it the reality of existence of oscillations experimentally with the help of diffraction and interference was already proved. How can we explain, that researchers have refused this reality, having named it "waves of probability"?

So, the main proof of fidelity of STR has disappeared from the basis of it. Energy of a moving body grows not because of increase of its mass, but due to increase of frequency of its oscillations. But if there is no increase of mass, there is no "a curvature of space - time". "A colossus on clay legs ", STR and GTR falls, pressing down under the fragments all imaginations with which the modern physics became very rich.

Preservation of a form of Maxwell’s equations at transition in other inertial system.

Preservation of a form of equations of Maxwell at transition in other inertial system was one of the main conditions for introduction of the general principle of relativity. Proceeding from existence of ether and also that light is its oscillations it is possible to come easily to a finding of a condition at which Maxwell’s equations should keep its form at transition in other inertial system. Full dragging of ether by new system of coordinates is this condition. “Lorenz’s factor” as a final case of factor of Fresnel corresponds to this conditions. Whence have left, there came. Using "Lorenz’s factor", Lorenz has easily found new transformations of coordinates at which equations of Maxwell keep the form.

The dragging of ether by the Earth comes nearer to 100 %. Therefore in systems of coordinates moving concerning a surface of the Earth with speed a much smaller than speed of light it is possible to count, that equations of Maxwell keep the form. However in inertial systems where there is no dragging of the ether, "Lorenz’s factor" is already unauthorized to use, and, hence, the general principle of a relativity does not exist.

In work " About the basic equations of electrodynamics of moving bodies " [24], published in 1889, Hertz has deduced the new equations of an electromagnetic field which are taking into account movement of electromagnetic system concerning a surface of the Earth and, means, concerning an ether with speed u. From these equations we have interaction of two charges as currents, motionless relative each other, but moving concerning ether that proves to be true by experiment, but does not follow from equations of Maxwell [25]. This fact confirms fidelity of conclusions of Hertz and rejects existence of the general principle of relativity.

The law of universal gravitation in the form

if to consider it from materialistic positions, gives the prompt to researchers that between masses exposed to gravitation the information on their size and on change of distance between them is constantly transferred through space.

That the transmitted information corresponded to sizes of masses, it is necessary, that the medium would be somehow connected to mass; that media of interacting bodies can be exchanged by carried information and gave it to bodies; and, at last, the medium should be a working body of the actuating mechanism of gravitation.

The theory of the mechanism "sources - drains of ether" of Riemann [26], Pierson [27] and Schott [28] corresponds to such requirements most full and precisely. Besides, this theory (without application of the aerohydrodynamical theory) explains dragging of an ether by bodies which in this case should depend on size of mass and also existence of the ether lens near bodies bending a course of light beams. The conclusion about finiteness of speed of interaction which is connected to properties of transmitting environment is especially important. It is the main attribute of short range action.

The theory of “sources - drains of ether” can specify the reasons of movement of bodies in space. Process of birth of a matter in space should be, presumably, result of fluctuations of pressure in ether. Gradual disintegration of a matter on emitting in space ether is the reason of interaction which predetermines, in turn, causality of movement and observance of laws of conservation of energy, of an impulse and mass. Hence, movement of electrons and planets on orbits is not perpetuum-mobile, but the natural physical process, which is taking place with an expense of work, has its laws and is final in time also.

Mechanical theories of interaction, either it is the theory of screens [29], [30], or it is the theory of pulsations [31], [32], or it is the theory of "sources - drains of an ether", mean the clear obvious reasons of transfer of potentials on distance by means of the intermediate environment, dependent on certain initial properties of bodies and the environment: the screen, a pulsation or disintegration of a matter. In the first case it is the difference of impulses given by the environment to interacting bodies from external and their internal sides. In the second and the third – there is the lowered pressure in an interval between bodies which forces them to approach.

Transfer of action on distance by the material environment from a point to a point with the final speed dependent on properties of this environment is named the short range action (picture). It is characterized by time of interaction, by the speed of interaction and by dependence of force of interaction on relative speed of interacting bodies.

Time, necessary for full change of potential in a point connected with a trial body from the moment of the beginning of its movement, refers to as time of interaction.

Speed of interaction is connected to properties of the environment for transmitting of interactions and, except for it, depends on the processes (dynamics) occurring in the environment at interaction. This question was not considered in the theory of Newton - Euler because of absence of experiments and theoretical development. STR and GTR were limited to containment in themselves of the greatest possible speed of the bodies equal to speed of light in vacuum. And, it was not bound up with speed of interaction, and was declared only on the basis of mathematics.

However if to draw an analogy with speed of a sound, taking into account, that transfer of energy (impulse) is possible through air only with speed of a sound, restriction of speed of bodies in air in this case will be correct if the body has no the jet engine. From here follows, that notions of the greatest possible speed of bodies and speed of transfer of action on distance via environment are the different phenomena.

Dependence of force of interaction on relative speed of bodies, along straight line their connecting, are considered in this article in connection with works incorrectly named by Helmholtz “school of long-range action”. Gauss was founder of this school.

From positions of laws of short range action what laws of delay of potential are, or of laws of dynamics of interactions as still it is possible to name them, it is possible to ascertain that the law of universal gravitation (2) and law of Coulomb for electric interaction are statics of gravitational and electric interactions. But they are incorrect for mass moving relative each other and for charges.

As to law of Coulomb it was generalized for speed of interaction by several researchers. Therefore there are some kinds of electrodynamics. There are electrodynamics of Gauss, Weber, Klausius, Ritz, Riemann, F. Neumann, K. Neumann, Grossmann and others. However only Weber’s law meet the experimental and empirical electrodynamics created by researches of Örsted, Arago, Ampere and Faraday.

Relativists have declared the formulas of STR based on Lorenz’s factor as true electrodynamics, since the electrodynamics of Weber did not answer the general principle of relativity. It became possible due to that factor of Lorenz close enough described electrodynamics on the wide range of speeds. However further they have engaged in self-deception, asserting, that relativistic laws of movement of elementary particles on accelerators are true down to speeds 0,9998c. The matter is that speed of particles is determined through Lorenz’s factor from the obtained energy. It is difficult to judge as far as truly relativists define energy of the accelerated particles. (For some reasons, I am not declined to trust them.) Careful researches are necessary for this purpose. However with confidence it is possible to assert, that if laws of delay of potential were applied to definition of speed its numerical value would be mach less. Probably, it corresponds to the situation.

The law of universal gravitation was generalized for speed of interaction by P. Gerber in 1898 [33].Calculated on this law the displacement of perihelion of planets correspond to observations. Except for it, the law of graviodynamics explains validity of the law of universal gravitation for a circular orbit, as into it enters derivative scalar value of distance between planets (by line their connecting) which at a circular orbit is equal to zero. At an elliptic orbit derivative is value of the second order (and it is responsible for abnormal displacement of perihelion).

Thus it is possible to establish, that the main basis of occurrence of GTR, abnormal displacement of perihelion of Mercury and other planets moving on an elliptic orbit was explained and described by the law within the framework of the classical mechanics 17 years prior to occurrence of relativity.

Fig.1. The diagram of interaction at the mechanism of "sources - drains of ether" for motionless bodies.
n₁ - quantity of particles, emitted by a body m.
n₂ - quantity of particle, emitted by a body M.

The shaded area is quantity of met particles in space between m and M bodies which is proportional to force of interaction.

Two bodies with masses m and M are shown in figure 1. They are interacting on the pattern of “drains of ether”. Each elementary particle making these bodies emits particles of ether in the world space. In this case, the total number of particles of ether emitted by a body is proportional to masses of the bodies. The quantity of the particles which are flying by through unit of a spherical surface of a body m, changes according to the law of inverse squares:

where:

N₁ – total number of particles of the ether expiring from m;

S (R₁) – the area of a spherical surface on distance R₁ from the centre;

m- mass of a body;

k₁ – factor of proportionality;

n₁ – quantity of the particles penetrating unit of the area.

For the second body we have:

R₂=R-R₁, where R – distance between bodies m and M.

Distribution of quantity of emitted particles of an ether in space can be represented from (9) and (10) by diagrams of curves (fig. 1). In each unit of the area in an interval between bodies the quantity of met particles is shown on fig. 1 as height of the shaded area. It is easy to see, that the shaded area is proportional to quantity of the particles that met in an interval between bodies.

And as the quantitative effect of interaction in the offered theory of “drains of ether” depends on number of met particles of ether, force of interaction can be defined through the area of the shaded part on fig. 1:

where: k – Factor of proportionality;

Having made necessary transformations (11), it is possible to receive the formula of a kind of the law of universal gravitation:

However this law is law for motionless bodies relative each other.

At free falling of a trial body m on motionless M during the time of interaction t_int, the body m will overcome distance l₁ (fig. 2) which we shall name length of interaction.

The body m on length of interaction l₁ will not feel change of force of interaction because of delay of potential, as its media, communicating, were not in time to inform yet.

The diagram of interaction at the mechanism of "sources - drains of ether" for approaching bodies.
Twice shaded area is retarded potential. They can see from the diagram that
it is distributed on all distance between bodies, and its vertical component on the diagram
depends on speed of rapprochement of bodies. It corresponds to Gerber’s notions at a derivation of his law.

On fig. 2 it is visible, that time of interaction develops of two times: time of interaction for segment R₁, when the potential does not change absolutely (in relation to motionless bodies), and time when the potential on a segment from R₁ up to R varies uniformly. Thus full change of potential is proportional to the area of the twice shaded site.

If time of interaction was instant, force of interaction would change proportionally to shaded part. At final value of speed of interaction this part of potential starts to affect only after time of interaction with delay. Let’s name it retarded potential.

On fig. 2 it is visible that retarded potential is distributed uniformly on distance R₂=R-R₁, hence, for its full realization on a body m it is necessary time t_p = (R-R₁)/U, where U is speed of interaction.

On the other hand, the higher speed of a trial body m, the larger width has twice shaded site on fig. 2. Hence, it is possible to enter proportionality of delay of potential in unit of time from speed. So has acted P. Gerber in 1898.

Having taken Newton’s potential:

having substituted distance which the retarded potential should pass from m₁ to m₂ instead of r:

where: v - speed of propagation (interaction);

and also having entered proportionality of delay for a time unit from speed which appeared equal:

he has received expression for potential:

Having substituted it in standard equation of Lagrange

he has received the law of graviodynamics of three components, similar to the law of electrodynamics of Weber:

Thus, here it is convincingly shown, that law of Gerber is deduced from conceptual reasons. And as the most important application of such law is the explanation of displacement of perihelion of planets it is possible to ascertain, that law of Gerber satisfies to conditions of causality and cognoscibility that cannot be told about theory of relativity.

For revealing laws of movement of bodies in fields of forces in view of late potential we shall consider free adiabatic falling of a trial body in a field of the central forces of a massive body.

The space is three- dimensional, homogeneous and isotropic, that is to say Euclidian space. The gravitational kind of interaction is taken. The origin of coordinates, in view of massiveness of a body of M to which these coordinates are connected, it is possible to count motionless.

The sequence of process of interaction of a trial body with massive body is shown on fig. 1.

The trial body of mass m, starts to fall from a point A with initial speed v=0 on a body M under influence of Newtonian forces (2): F₁=γmM/R₂

Fig. 1

In time t_{int 2} there is an increase of force F₁=γmM / (R-l₁)², that is shown by the diagram on fig. 2, the trial body will be moved from a point B to a point C (fig. 1). Starting from a point B, there is an increase of intensity (arrival of retarded potential), caused by change of distance between bodies from a point A up to point B. This increase of intensity on time will be prolonged as much, what is the time of movement of the trial body from A up to B.

Time of interaction can be connected with distance R and speed of interaction as follows. According to the mechanism of interaction of "drains of an ether" considered earlier before intensity of a field for a trial body will change, emitted by a trial body particles of an ether should react with counter particles emitted by the central body, then the particles of the central body which have reacted on the way, should arrive to a trial body and change force of interaction (intensity of a field). Average time of interaction of all particles can be expressed so:

where: 2kR - double average distance which all interacted particles pass up to their place of interaction;
k - the factor indicating average length of interaction;
l₁ - length of interaction (length on which there is a movement of a body without increase of intensity);
U - speed of interaction,

Time of arrival of signals from points A and B up to points after B is equal time of movement of a trial body between these points. We shall assume that the body has moved in a point C during the time of interaction (t_{int. 1}). It is obvious, that the length of interaction in a point B (l₂) is less than length of interaction in a point A (l₁) because the trial body became closer to a body of interaction M. It means, that signals of change of intensity since way АВ will come up to a point C in time t_{int. 1}, and a signal from a point B will come not in a point C, but earlier, for example, in point Е because t_{int. 1}< t_{int. 2}.

Conclusion: "signals" of changes of intensity since a way from A up to B will come to a trial body on a way up to a point C and simultaneously, starting from point Е, "signals" of change of intensity will start to come after a point B, i.e. on a segment of EC there will be a summation of changes of intensity (retarded potential) from different sections of movement of a trial body.

Having summarized processes of imposing of retarded potential on Ri=0÷R, we can come to the conclusion, that on segments EC and FD etc. there is a condensation of signals of intensity of a gravitational field, that is the harmonious component enters into movement of a body in a field of forces. Intensity of a gravitational field is numerically equal to acceleration of a trial body, and it follows from this that at the account of principles of short range action and delay of potential the trial body can not fall with the acceleration having the law as at indefinitely high speed of interaction γM/R². The harmonious component should enter into it. It means that the trial body at falling in a field of forces should have longitudinal vibrations of acceleration and speed.

The logic conclusion about non-uniformity of arrival of signals of retarded potential to a moving body replies a question of the law of conservation of energy at delay of potential, as well as possible.

Law of Weber was subjected to criticism by Helmholtz concerning that it contradicts the law of conservation of energy. Criticism of Helmholtz was maintained by Maxwell.

The equation (8) and law of Gerber show, that lagging of potential increases with increase of relative speed of bodies. Delay of potential if it to consider in existing frameworks of the classical mechanics, results in a conclusion about infringement of the law of conservation of energy; in other words, the body loses potential energy more, than finds kinetic. There are no bases from experiments and observation of a nature for non-observance of the law of conservation of energy. Therefore the conclusion that the "missing" part of energy is realized by a body in energy of longitudinal vibrations which are initiated by non-uniformity of arrival of the late signal, caused by change of time of interaction, speed of a body and magnitude of potential, is quite logical.

In the mechanics of Newton the law of conservation of energy at falling of a trial body can be written down so:

where: v _{(U= ∞)} - speed of a body in the given point at indefinitely high speed of interaction.

Having entered in the law of falling of a body final speed of interaction, we see that average instant speed of a trial body in the given point will be less for the reason that there is a delay of potential and a body participates in longitudinal vibrations. Energy of harmonious vibration is determined by the maximal instant linear speed of a body

Both energy (14) and (15) should be equal to a difference of the potential energy at the adiabatic process:

But

hence:

Equality (27) is fair only for the certain points of a way determined by a concrete phase of vibrations, at that the body reaches these points on time later, than in the mechanics of Newton. Speed of movement of a body with longitudinal vibrations can be determined only as average instant speed and is phase.

That part of energy of movement which is determined by retarded potential will be transformed to longitudinal vibrations only. But, as delay of potential depends on speed (see equations of Weber, of Gerber etc. [24], [25]), and at v→0 delay of potential tend to zero too, a ratio

has while the unknown law which should be limited to two extreme points: v_phase → v_{lin. max.} at v_phase → 0 (hence, in this case f →1), and also v_{lin. max.} →αv _phase at v_phase → U, and the first extreme point is abundantly obvious, while last assumes, that the body can achieve speed of interaction. Thus there is a full delay of potential, and the body gets the greatest possible energy equal E=mα²U²/2 or E=δmU² which relativists, having entered concept of variable mass (it agrees factor of Lorenz), represent as E=mc², where c is speed of light.

Energy of movement of bodies in phase speed with the account (19) will look like:

The above mentioned scheme of short range action at free falling of a trial body in a field of the central force (fig. 1) allows revealing dependence of length of vibrations of a trial body on all variable factors. There are three variables: phase speed, force of interaction and distance.

The length of vibrations, according to the scheme on fig. З, is proportional to length of interaction. The length of interaction for any point Ri is equal:

t_i - time of interaction;

v_{phase i} - average phase speed on li.

а) Dependence of length of interaction on distance.

Time of interaction (t_i) and phase speed (v_{phase i} ) differently depend on distance: time of interaction is in direct proportionality to distance from (30), and phase speed is proportional to intensity of a field γM/R²_i that is inversely proportional to a square of distance.

Hence, full proportionality of length of interaction to distance can be written down:

б) Dependence of length of interaction on force of interaction

Dependence li from F (R) has more complex dependence, since in this case it is carried out a feedback: influence of length of interaction through force of interaction for length of interaction.

This dependence is responsible for the law of influence of relative speed of interacting bodies on force of interaction.

The more the length of interaction, the greater distance passes a trial body without change of intensity of a field (delay of potential), so the more loss of the unused force of interaction and the more loss of length of interaction:

Except for it, force of interaction influences length of interaction through time of interaction. This dependence is easier for expressing in reverse order: the more force of interaction, the more phase speed get a body on length of interaction. But the increase of speed proportionally reduces time of interaction. The length of interaction is in direct proportion to time of interaction:

And, at last, as phase speed directly depends on force of interaction it is possible to write down:

Having united dependences (21), (23) and (24), we shall receive;

в) Dependence of length of interaction on phase speed

First, from (30) it is possible to reveal, that

Second, the more time of interaction for length li, the less average phase speed on this segment. And, hence:

But the more time of interaction, the more phase speed is got with a trial body due to prolongation of action of force. And then:

Thus, proportionality of length of interaction of phase speed will be expressed like this:

Having united (31), (36) and (40), we shall find, that full dependence of length of interaction, which is proportional to length of longitudinal vibrations (fig. 1), from all three variables is equal:

H - Factor of proportionality.

Product R·F (R) in (42) is equal to a difference of the potential energy at free adiabatic falling:

Expressing length of vibrations through frequency:

and having substituted (43) and (44) in (42), we shall receive:

The derived formula (45) of energy of movement of bodies with longitudinal vibrations is identical (except for internal concept of constant H) to the formula of energy for radiation of Planck - Einstein. Such coincidence is not casual. It shows that radiation (photons) is secondary in relation to movement of a matter and confirms perspicacious statement of Huygens that “Light arises due to pushes which particles of a matter put to particles of ether”.

As (29) and (45) are expression of the same energy, namely, energy of movement of a body with longitudinal vibrations in a field of forces, hence, they can be equated:

Or after transformation we shall obtain:

that represents updating of the law of de Broglie.

However the formula (47) has basic differences from the law of de Broglie, both in structure and in interpretation of its connection with a natural phenomenon.

First, in the law of de Broglie speed of a body is not phase though connection of this formula with length of a wave should hint at it.

Second, constant Н is entered by de Broglie as the Planck’s constant connected with discreteness of radiation of atoms. In this case, constant Н does not specify discreteness of length of a wave, and is factor of the proportionality, dependent on a kind of interaction and from mass. If interaction is electric and the mass of a body is equal to mass of electron then H will be equal to the Planck’s constant.

Thirdly, in the formula (47) there is a dependence f (V_{lin. max}, V_phase) on linear maximal and phase speed of a body. This dependence can be revealed with the help of modern mathematical methods and experiments and represents, most likely, factor of delay of potential which correlates in the lower and average values with the Lorenz’ factor.

In the first part of article it is shown falsity of the base of TR. In the second part there is developed the theory of delay of potential (dynamics of interactions) where it is shown, that the body moves in a field of forces with the longitudinal vibrations described by the equation of kind of de Broglie. These vibrations come out from non-uniformity of delay of potential. Energy of these vibrations is proportional to their frequency and responsible for "abnormal" energy of the accelerated particles in cyclotrons and accelerators, and also of a nuclear energy.

So, there is no true basis in the theory of relativity. However who those people naming by researchers and scientists, writing the laudatory articles to address of this theory of relativity and which present each other with ranks and premiums?! Where their analytical wit? And where, at last, are their honesty, and unselfishness?

You will not find in physics of any theory except for STR and GTR which would be so roughly sophisticated and is so high exalted.

1. Einstein A., Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. Ann. d. Phys., b. 17, s. 891, 1905 (Has entered in printing of June 30, 1905).
2. Lorentz H.A., Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with Any Velocity Less Than Light. Proc Acad. Sci., Amsterdam, 1904, v. 6, p. 809.
3. Poincaré H., Sur la dynamique de l'electron. Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, v. 21, p. 129, 1906 (has entered in printing of July 23, 1905).
4. Michelson A.A., The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether, Amer. J. Sci., v. 22, p. 120...129, 1881.
5. Michelson A.A., Morley E.W., On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether, Am. J. Sci., v. 34, p. 333...345, 1887.
6. Kaufmann. W., Phys. Zeits., 1902, b. 4, s. 105.
7. Kaufmann. W., Gott. Nachr., Math. – Phys. Klasse, 1903, s. 90.
8. G.A. Lorentz. Interferential experience of Michelson. From the book "Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Korpern. Leiden, 1895, par. 89...92.
9. D. Bradly. The letter to Galleo. 1728.
10. O. Römer. The proof concerning velocity of light. 1675.
11. F. Harres. Die Geschwindigkeit des Lichtes in bewegten Korpern. Dissertation, Jena, 1912.
12. G. Sagnac. L'ether lumineux demontre par l'effekt du vent relatif d'ether dans un interferjmetre en rotation uniforme. C. R., 1913, 157, p. 708...710.
13. B. Pogany. Uber die Wiederholung des Haress – Sagnaschen Versuches. Ann. Phys., 1926, 80, p. 217...231.
14. S.I. Vavilov. The experimental basis of a relativity theory. Collection of works, v. 4, Academizdat, M., 1956.
15. D. F. Arago. Experiments on attempt of detection of influence of the Earth on refraction of light from stars in a prism. 1810.
16. O. Fresnel. The letter to Arago "Concerning influence of movement of the Earth on some optical phenomena". 1818.
17. D.C. Miller. Experiments on an ether wind and definition of absolute movement of the Earth. The report in Case school of applied science, 1933.
18. B. Kory, D. Wulkinson, J. Smith and others. Experiments on anisotropy of relict radiation. In: G. De Vaucoulers. A. J., 58, p. 30, 1958.
19. C.F. Gauss. Works, v. 5, Royal scientific society, Goettingen, 1867.
20. W. Weber. Werke, Vol. 4, 247...299, Springer, Berlin, 1894.
21. H.A. Lorentz. The electronic theory. Leiden, 1892.
22. J. Larmor. Aether and matter, Cambridge, 1900.
23. Semenchenko, V.K., Selected chapters of theoretical physics. M.: Prosveshchenie, 1966, p. 145...151.
24. H. Hertz. About basic equations of an electrodynamics of moved bodies. 1890.
25. J.C. Maxwell. A treatise on an electricity and magnetism. V. 2
26. Riemann. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. Mir, M., 1985, page 130. In Russian.
27. K. Pearson. Ether squirts. Am. J. Math., 13, p. 309...362, 1891.
28. G. A. Schott. On the electron theory of matter and the explanation of fine spectrum lines and of gravitation. Phil. Mag. (Ser. 6), p. 21...29, 1906.
29. LeSag. The kinetic theory of gravitation. 1782. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein., Mir , M., 1985, page 133...138. In Russian.
30. В. Thomson. On the ultramundane corpuscles of LeSage. Phil. Mag. (Ser. 4), 45, 1873, p. 321... 332.
31. K.A. Bjerknes. The pulsation theory of gravitation. 1856. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. Mir, M., 1985, page 125. In Russian.
32. C. Cooke. Bjerknes's Hydrodynamiral experiments. Engineering, 33, 1882, p. 23...25, 147...148, 191...192. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. Mir, M., 1985, page 125. In Russian.
33. Gerber P., Die räumliche und zeitliche Ausbreitung der Gravitation. Z. Math. Phys., v. 43, p. 93...104, 1898.

1. H. Poincare. The measuring of time. "Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale", 1898, t. 6, p. 1...13.
2. H. Poincare. The optical phenomena in moved bodies. Electricite et Optique, G. Carre et C. Naud, Paris, 1901, p. 535...536.
3. H. Poincare. About a principle of relativity of space and movement. The chapters 5...7 of the book "Science and hypothesis". Paris, 1902.
4. H. Poincare. The present and future of mathematical physics. The report which has been printed out in a magazine "Bulletin des Sciences Mathematiques", 1904, v. 28, ser. 2, p. 302.
5. I. Fiseau. About a hypothesis concerning a light ether and about one experiment, which, apparently, shows, that the movement of bodies changes velocity, with which light is propagated inside these bodies. C. R., 1851, 33, p. 349...355.
6. L. Foucoult. About velocity of light in the various media. Ann. de Ch. et de Ph., 1854, t. 41, p. 123...164.
7. G.G. Stoks. About aberration of light. Phil. Mag., 1845, 27, p. 9...15.