S.B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina

Thus, we see how relativists impose on the science their absurd ideas by a trivial substantiation of the meaning of terms of classical physics. And this is not the limit. Let us pay attention to the phrase of the above citation from the Einstein’s work of 1905 of some ‘absolutely resting space’ having special properties. This is the clue to see the L-postulate false. Just the physical properties of space hindered Einstein to introduce his L-postulate. He has distinctively formulated it in his paper “The ether and theory of relativity”: “In the equations of electromagnetic field there are included, above the density of electric charges, only the field strengths. Electromagnetic phenomena in the void are quite determined by the laws that these equations contain, independently of other physical values. Electromagnetic field is a primordial cause, a reality that cannot be reduced to something, so it is absolutely excessive to postulate additionally the existence of homogeneous and isotropic ether and imagine the field as a state of this ether” [13, p. 686].

But this clearly perverts the reality, as well as the cited above statement that the L-postulate continues Maxwell’s theory. While really the electromagnetic field is determined in Maxwell theory not only by densities of charges and field strengths. “Maxwell’s electrodynamics has a mere mechanical origin, all its statements have been rigorously derived from the relationships of mechanics of continuum (of which the authors of later textbooks prefer failing to mention)” [14, p. 11]. “In mechanics, we could calculate the speed of elastic waves propagation (the speed of sound) in some or other substance, knowing before two values that characterise the properties of this substance, e.g., the values of its tension factor galpfa.gif (834 bytes) and density gro.gif (843 bytes) . These values were interrelated with the speed of sound by the relationship


Similarly we can calculate the sped of light in the vacuum, using the before-measured for vacuum values of two physical values, for example of the constant of electrostatic induction gepsilon.gif (832 bytes)0 and constant of electromagnetic induction gmy.gif (841 bytes)0 . For these values we have the relationship


Having got to know of electric waves, we can understand and derive this equality” [15, p. 222–223]. As we see, relativistic claims of primordial and so non-reducible to whatever essence of the EM field, as well as their claims that EM fields are determined exceptionally by the field strength and charge density are invalid. If the propagation speed of this field is directly expressed through the parameters epsilon.gif (833 bytes)0 and my.gif (843 bytes)0 characterising the physical properties of the very space, it is senseless to mind the field out of the physical essence of this space. The more that (2) is directly derived from the Maxwell equations.

Similar relativistic distortion of the standpoint of classical physics we see in relation to the absolute value of the speed of light propagation. In particular, making a limit passing from the Lorentz transformation to the Galilean transformation, relativists stipulate it in the following way: “We have to mark that the transformations compatible with the Newtonian mechanics are immediately yielded from the relationship


if we assume c = ginfinity.gif (844 bytes)  in it. Thus, following the way which we went before, we can yield the equations of trivial kinematics, if instead the principle of constant speed of light we assume the existence of signals that need not time for their propagation” [16, p. 160]. Or, in other words, “There in classical mechanics existed an idea of absolute space and time, of a unified flow of time uniformly flowing everywhere and consisting of instants each of which sets in the whole space. This idea was based on the assumed infinite speed of light signals propagation” [17, p. 339].

Bu this is basically incorrect! Relativists themselves, when it concerns their own theory, have other opinion on the classical physics’ attitude to the infiniteness of the light speed: “Except direct measurement of the light speed, there exist many experiments in which the light speed is important. We obtain all interference and diffraction phenomena, making the waves of light to pass different paths, then meet at one point and coincide. Refraction of light at the border of two media occurs because the speed is different in each of them; thus, the light speed takes a part in all optical instruments containing prisms, lenses and other such parts” [18, p. 130]. And all these phenomena have been studied and systematised in frames of same classical theory of aether which Einstein took away from the nature for sake of his L-postulate.

Thus, we clearly see that Einsteinian L-postulate does not continue the Maxwell theory. Einstein made a selection, taking from the classical theory few formulas convenient for him, breaking them from the physical ground and omitting the basic parameters that determined their connection with this ground. Nothing of surprise when relativists admit: “We have so many fine principles and known facts – and nonetheless the ends don’t meet” [19, p. 183]. Ends cannot meet if the relativists based their study not on the investigation of physical laws but on the shortening of physical foundations and interrelations for sake of doubtful postulates convenient for some ‘invented’ abstract conception. Of course, such intentional disregard of the physical meaning of phenomena unavoidably causes an avalanche of paradoxes and discrepant statements. Namely this we see in the relativistic conception.

Contents: / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 / 37 / 38 / 39 / 40 / 41 / 42 /

Hosted by uCoz