WHY THE THEORY OF THE RELATIVITY IS INCORRECT

Conversation with the Reader

English text edited by Robert Fritzius

The reader: - Nikolay, you assert in "The Phenomenon of retarded potentials", in "Philosophies of physics" and in other articles on sites n-t.ru and bourabai.narod.ru , that the theory of relativity is incorrect. And, though, in your opinion, this statement is submitted by convincing proofs, it is perceived to be difficult by readers and, is frequently misunderstood, especially by orthodox relativists.

NN: - Yes, Dear Reader, in my articles I bring proofs as to why the theory of relativity is a false theory, and also I offer another way of developing physics, based on classical conceptions, on causality , and on the basis of common sense. This way of developing physics was laid out by K.F. Gauss in electrodynamics and continued by P. Gerber in graviodynamics. In the works I also show, why the theory of relativity, being from the very beginning a false theory, nevertheless was accepted for both objective and subjective reasons.

The reader: - Whether you can briefly and in the accessible form for the reader explain it?

NN: - It all began from a wrong interpretation of experiments with the movement of electrons.

Thomson and Kaufman found two abnormal deviations from the laws of classical mechanics during the experiments with moving electrons. The first deviation concerned their energy; the second concerned the trajectories of their movements. The faster the electrons moved the greater their deviations. How it seemed to them (and not only to them), it was possible to be explained by an increase of mass of the electrons as a result of their speed. At higher speeds of the electrons, they behaved as though they had more mass.

Firstly let's talk about the trajectory of the movement of electrons in a cross magnetic field.

Researchers could not assume that due to an increase of speed of electrons their force of interaction with a magnetic field decreases, creating a false apparent increase of mass, as they did not know about the retarded potential (electrodynamics) proposed by C.F. Gauss in 1835.

The reader: - How is that? Gauss proposed the law of retarded potential in 1835, and Thompson experimented in 1881 and Kaufman in 1902. Didn’t they know about Gauss’ law?

NN: - Here subjective reasoning played a negative role in a number of several subsequent developments connected to the emergence of the theory of relativity.

Gauss sent his proposed law and the causal reasons for its occurrence to W. Weber in 1835 but then soon died. Before publishing Gauss’ letter in the collection of Gauss’s works in 1867, Weber deduced and published in 1846 the law of electrodynamics for the effects of one particle on another. He published his law 11 years after Gauss’ proposal, and whereupon the letter of Gauss was published 21 years after that! Weber deduced his formula from Ampere’s law for the interaction of two conductors carrying currents and gave it as a formalism, not explaining its causal grounds. There was no more talk about retarded potentials. At the time of the publication of Gauss’ letter in his collected works, his mathematics works were widely known and retarded potentials were not an urgent question to many who read his collected works, especially the parts on physics.

The reader: - The researchers engaged in these questions, could see the dependence of the force of interaction on speed under the law of Weber, as the formula of Weber subsequently was recognized as the law of electrodynamics.

NN: - The subjective reasons have interfered here again. At this time the equations of electrodynamics of Maxwell had appeared which were deduced from the representations of Faraday for movements of ether. Helmholtz’s equations for the movement of sound had served as analogue. Rivalry of the two theories of electrodynamics began. As it seemed to researchers it was necessary to choose one of them. And two influential and well-known physicists, Maxwell and Helmholtz, accused the law of Weber as a non-observance of the law of conservation of energy. Subsequently Maxwell rehabilitated Weber’s law, but a lot of time had passed, and Maxwell’s electrodynamics had already made victorious progress so few recalled Weber’s law.

The reader: - But, researchers also could to come to the notion of retarded potentials, as there was a whole school in Germany, which was incorrectly named by Helmholtz as "a school of long-range action" (one more obstacle for recognition of the law!).

NN: - It is not at all so simple. Imagine yourself in their place. We allow, that they had guessed, that the force of interaction decreases with speed. Then it was necessary to explain one more fact about the deviation from the laws of classical mechanics. It is the abnormal increase of energy of an electron as a result of an increase of it’s speed. You see, the formula E = mc² wasn’t born in vain. The uninformed reader usually does not know that the mass referred to here has the complex formula of dependence on speed and the specified formula has absolutely other kind, namely:

E = c².

In the beginning Thompson offered another formula for dependence of mass on speed, but it is not so important now.

It turned out, that the supposed increase of mass of the electron based on its speed explained both facts: an abnormal deviation of a trajectory of movement, and the abnormal growth of energy based on speed. Even one of the greatest thinkers in the world, H. Poincaré, was discouraged by such a circumstance, and though he had taken a hand in the development of the theory of relativity, throughout his subsequent life he was overcome with doubts.

The reader: - Let as suppose, that I agree with you, and that retarded potential leads to a reduction of the force of interaction of the electron with a magnetic field, and therefore creates the illusion of an increase of its mass. But why then, in your opinion, does its energy abnormally increase with speed?

NN: - The causal explanation of the occurrence of the abnormal energy of electrons with speed (as well as other particles and bodies) was found out much later, subsequent to the occurrence of the theory of relativity, with the occurrence of the revelation of a so-called ratio for lengths of waves of de Broglie and, in connection with him, experiments of Dawisson and Jermer in 1927. Jermer and Dawisson shot accelerated electrons and nuclei through the crystal lattice of a thin metal foil and produced an interference pattern. Thus, it was found out, that particles behaved like waves. The frequency of these waves increases with an increase of speed of the particles. If these "waves" were to be accepted as longitudinal vibrations of moving particles (and it appeared to be so) it meant an increase of their energy, not only from an increase of speed, but also from an increase of the frequency of their longitudinal vibrations. The revelation of formula E = Hn for the movement of particles and bodies, where H - the factor which is dependent on a variety of interaction and on the mass of the particles and bodies, remained one step which Davisson and Jermer did not make.

The reader: - As you think, why didn’t Dawisson and Jermer or other researchers make this step?

NN: - Two reasons become the barrier to such a natural conclusion. The first - it is the theory of Lorentz. Lorentz with the help rather foggy, and clear to no one, reasoning "proved", that an electron deforms into an ellipsoid while in motion, thus its mass increases. This "proof" served as one of the bases of the theory of relativity.

The second - before them there was one more barrier: where is the causality? Why the bodies and particles vibrate?

Having refused very long time ago from an ether and from the phenomenon of retarded potential and studying of its laws, they could not guess, that retarded potential occurs non-uniformly, with the vibrations described just by the formula of de Broglie.

Also it was necessary to assert, that these vibrations are actually non-real and are rather the waves of probability. Especially they got put into the equations of wave quantum mechanics such as that of Schrödinger.

The trap was slammed. And above all the most ingenious “theory of all times and peoples” the theory of relativity put in a timely appearance.

The reader: - But if the force of interaction of bodies with an accelerating field decreases at increase of speed of the bodies (in connection with retarded potential), and their energy grows (due to the increase of frequency of their longitudinal vibrations), hence, their mass remains constant regardless of their speed.

Thus, there is no interrelation of mass with speed, with time, and there is no distortion of space - time. The theory of relativity, asserting this connection, appears as a fiction!

NN: - Yes, Dear Reader, you are absolutely right. All relativistic theories that have multiplied recently as mushrooms after a rain are fiction, as they are based on transformations of mass, time and space. Besides of this proof in my articles there are a number of other proofs of falsity of theories of relativity.

The reader: - Nikolay, in your works you also assert, that Albert Einstein is not the author of the special theory of relativity. How do you prove such a statement?

NN: - Reading and studying of primary sources shows, that the logical construction of the theory which derived from the conclusions of the experimental data of Thompson, Kaufmann, Michelson and Morley was made by Poincaré. The creation of a formalism of the description of these experiments was made by Lorentz long before the appearance of the article by Einstein. Einstein’s article is not scientific research. It is simply a phenomenological statement that nature is arranged thus so, like Euclidean postulates, not demanding proofs. Not having made any reference to authors of the theory, A. Einstein has hidden from the reader the true reasons of the occurrence of the theory and has appeared to the world as its pioneer. And it, by the way, is one of the most important subjective reasons way the theory of relativity could not be denied until now.

The reader: - What consequences may exist by a refusal of the theory of relativity?

NN: - There are a lot of consequences. I have told about them a little in my articles.

First of all, there is the explanation of nuclear energy not from "mass defect", but by "defect of frequency".

Nuclear reactors, cyclotrons and accelerators use the concept of "mass defect." Transition to "defect of frequency" will cause a very heavy painful reorganization of their theory and consequently will be impossible in the near future. But some amendments on the measurements of the speed of particles, on the frequency of their radiations and others, all will come to be made.

Secondly, there is the change of concept "Planck’s constant". The circumstance, that de Broglie’s equation is the equation of movement of bodies on which retarded potential is imposed, shows, that "Planck’s constant" is only a factor for the description for the movement of electrons, positrons and other particles similar to them in electromagnetic interactions. For other interactions and other masses, it will be a different factor. For example, for movements of nuclei or their fragments at a speed equal to that of the electrons, they will radiate higher frequency electromagnetic waves. Bringing into correlation this radiation with electrons and applying Planck’s constant, you will get for them an overestimated speed, sometimes even greater than the speed of light. And applying Planck’s constant for an inference of laws of the movement of particles of ether (amera) you would see their energy overestimated by many orders of magnitude.

Thirdly, Schrödinger’s equation of wave quantum mechanics should undergo serious changes. Schrödinger wrote the equation as system of two wave equations. The solution of it should be resonances and, hence, steady orbits of electrons around atomic nuclei. But as the ratio for lengths of de Broglie’s waves in this equation is only a probability quantity, and the second equation concerns the vibrations of the environment (electromagnetic vibrations) what resonance there can be spoken about? We cannot add the vibrations of different nature. So physicists are tormented by the outcome of this equation, and cannot find the solution.

Fourthly, the way for the graviodynamics of P. Gerber will be open. P. Gerber, grasping Gauss’s idea about retarded potential, could deduce the formula of retarded potential for gravitation (graviodinamics) which gives the exact value of the displacement of perihelion for all planets. He published his law in an article under the title "Spatial and time distribution of gravitation" in the mathematic-physical magazine Z. Math. Phys in 1898. That happened 17 years prior to the general theory of relativity. I am ashamed for authors when I read in the literature of physics written by them, that Gerber "could write the formula of displacement perihelion precisely same as Einstein in general theory of relativity" (!!). All that is vice versa! It is Einstein, who "could write" precisely same formula as Gerber! By the way, this "phenomenon" of spelling of precisely same formulas as Einstein lasted throughout all the years of his "scientific" activity. Among authors of those formulas are Lebedev, Bozé, Planck, Poincaré, Heaviside, Lorentz, Hilbert and other scientists.

Fifthly, the discovery of longitudinal vibrations of moving bodies as a result of non-uniform retarded potential, allows one to write the laws of wave quantum gravitation and of wave mechanics for the movement of bodies and media using classical mechanics.

There are many other consequences. For example, there is in the science of elementary particles (I have written about it in the article "These, completely not elementary particles"), in cosmology. The concepts of singularities, black and white holes, curvature of space-time, mass-energy, wave- particle duality, the fourth dimension and other measurements, the big bang and other imaginations will disappear.

The reader: - Thank you, Nikolay, for interesting conversation.

NN: - Thank you, Dear Reader, for the opportunity given to me to express once again on a sore problem in physics.