V.3 No 1

7

Notice on physical Absolute

However the aether movability essentially effects on the introduction of the absolute reference frame. As we noticed above, in the immovable aether, in presence of material bodies, we could introduce some absolute frame, grounding on the existent knowledge of the material bodies motion through the aether. Indeed, this knowledge is far from being perfect, but the unambiguously detected existence of the aether wind [34], [35], [36], as well as the established primary relationship between the motion in continuum and the velocity of light, together with the multiple calculations of the electron field deformation with respect to its velocity, offer to form quite stable theoretical underpinning to determine the motion of the chosen frame through the aether. It will be enough for the basic research.

However the point is, our amount of data is too small to state for sure that the aether is stationary in the entire universe. We cannot exclude the possibility that the aether might move within the galaxy or metagalaxy. Voltaire truly noted that the Newton's gravity theory does not explain the planets, stars, stars association, interstellar gas motion, spiral-like structure of the galaxies and their sleeves that we observe in the universe. Which are the laws of their motion? Do the celestial bodies move either the aether moves dragging them? The Newtonian gravity force is exceptionally potential, and Newton understood it. In his private letter to Bentley of 10 December 1692 he wrote the following:

"It seems to me, should the matter of Sun and planets and generally all the matter of the Universe be evenly distributed in the heavens, and should each particle have the innate gravity to all others, and should all the space in which the matter was distributed be finite, the matter from the 'borders' of this space, due to gravity, would tend to the matter in the centre and would fall there, due to which it would produce a huge mass" [25, p. 126].

Though, the astronomers state, the universe not only does not collapse but inflates, and for all the time of human civilisation they never observed any collision of the stars or planets. They observe many binary stars ("the binaries are very widely observed among the stars. At least 30% of all stars are involved to the binary and multiple systems" [Shklovsky: 37, p. 54]), but they all quite stable rotate around each other, which we could not observe if there were only the potential force of attraction. This causes the suspension that the Newton's formalism might be incomplete. In the complete formalism there has to be present at least one more force providing the tangent acceleration, by analogy (or not) with the formalism of electromagnetism.

Consequently, we cannot now state trustworthy that the aether in the universe is fully stationary in all its parts. We have for it first to make integer and self-consistent in the dynamics of gravitation interactions our conceptions of the nature of gravity and of aether. Until we do so, we cannot expect to be able formulating quite reliably the conditions at which we could introduce the absolute metric of space. Any introduced metric will be relative. And the presence of deformation of the fields of particles and atoms that origins due to their motion through the aether which causes the deformation of atomic structures and through it - the deformation of the material body as the whole, - this deformation is the cause that the relative reference frames can be considered equivalent only to a definite extent. This accuracy abruptly falls with the growing velocity of the material body as to the aether. Just as to the given material substance, since its properties determine the velocity of dynamical fields propagation. And as far as the degree of deformation is proportional to the velocity of material body, in the reference frame related to the surrounding us region of the aether the deformation of the frame will be minimal. Of course, it does not mean that in some far future we will be unable to reveal some deformation caused by the motion of definite parts of the aether relatively each other. Now we can tell of it nothing certain. But the possibility to relate with the near aether some, maybe limited in its absoluteness, frame having minimal deformation offers us, at the present stage of development, with a good reason and accuracy to think this quasi-absolute metric of space to be maximally approximate to the metric of absolute space.

With it nothing prevents us to use in the philosophical issues the concept of absolute space, noting that, however long will last the period of transition from the given quasi-absolute metric of space to the absolute metric, and however many periods we will have - it is doubtless that all sequences of approach to the absolute will refine our understanding of the basic regularities, advancing in this way our understanding of the holistic laws of nature. The task of philosophy is just to select from the multitude of properties and revelations of events, what has the basic, holistic pattern. So in frames of philosophical research, it is quite natural to operate the limit to which the physicists' efforts gradually converge. The only, this requires the accurate extrapolation in phenomenology, since the trustworthiness of extrapolation falls with the distance from the point of extrapolation.

The carried out brief analysis showed that basically there was not a great contradiction between the Newton's and Mach's views on relativity. The issue of some "absolute" rises unavoidably in generalisation of the particular solutions and research results. Indeed, however high was our knowledge of natural processes, we always can take as the absolute frame only some relative frame of our choose. Even having rejected any absolute frame, we out of our wish will introduce some new frame able to serve as the absolute, because to generalise the uncoordinated results, we anyway need some basis. Naturally, the most convenient will be such frame in which the deformation of material bodies caused by their motion in space would be minimal. It is of no importance, will we call it the basic frame, or quasi-absolute, or somewhat else. It is important that by its properties convenient to generalise our results it is noted among other relative frames, and when generalising, we reduce in it all our uncoordinated results to a common denominator. It is clear that as our knowledge of natural phenomena progresses, this selected frame will modify too, as we modify all our system of measurement. We cannot exclude that during this process we will require from this frame some additional properties caused by our enhanced knowledge, as well as we cannot exclude that the absolute frame will enhance too. But anyway, at each new stage of cognition, the quasi-absolute frame will gradually approach to the idealised absolute frame, since each enhancement of the quasi-absolute frame will tend to the utmost convenience for generalisation of our results; and developing our knowledge, we will more and more completely take into account the effects of higher orders of smallness. Our understanding of this gnosiological aspect will basically change our attitude to the idealised reference frame, will give it dynamics and lift the contradictions between the Mach's relativity principle and Newton's Absolute, without excesses introduced to this subject by the Einstein's followers.