SELF |
2 |
S.B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina |
|
|
|
SELF |
2 |
S.B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina |
|
|
|
Take three arbitrary inertial frames and designate them as you do - zero, first and second. Each of them will have its own time pace as to others. According to our experience, these tempos g(0,1), g(0,2), g(1,2) have to be strongly positive values, as a negative value would mean time going back - still it occurred only in fantastic novels. Besides, proceeding from (1), we can write |
 |
(4) |
where i, j, k take the values of chosen frames. Also you will hardly disagree that we can compare the time paces between any three chosen frames, and in each case, as you are saying, (1) has to be true. Fine. Then |
 |
(5) |
and |
 |
(6) |
Substituting (6) into (5), we yield |
 |
(7) |
and as the factor g(2,0) is strongly positive, it follows from (7) and (4) that |
 |
(8) |
The same we can show the second factor g(0,1) equal to 1, too. Returning now to your (1), yield |
 |
(9) |
whence |
 |
(10) |
Noting that we chose the frames arbitrarily, we come to
the triumph of Galilean frame. 
On the whole, your work only has corroborated what we wrote in our paper. Everyone trying directly or indirectly to reject the Absolute and/or to substitute it by relative measurements have to seek the Absolute in his relative measurements. He anyway creates the Absolute frame, only less perfect. To the point, our paper resulted from our successful discussions in Google physical newsgroups, which, by the way, have been finished with the same: "Well, what of it! You anyway have not proven it!" Well, we had no intention to prove the deep essence to the people who basically cannot understand the advantage of truth. It is enough for us that in sum of unsolvable discrepancies, they have to recognise invalid the theories on which they directly or indirectly base. With it, if you noted, we do not speak of secondary revelations either particularities, though see your tendency to reduce our arguments to some particularities. One can salvage any theory if not postulates were erroneous. The mistakes in SR and photon theory which we showed you and you accepted are just in postulates. And there are not two Einstein's postulates of which you are speaking. Of this your second postulate one cannot create fully identical frames - SR. And Einstein did not postulate his conception in this appearance. He began his work of 1905 so: "Maxwell's dynamics in its today appearance is known to bring, in application to moving bodies, to asymmetry being seemingly not inherent to the very phenomena. Remember, e.g., electrodynamic interaction between the magnet and wire with the current. Observed phenomenon depends here only on relative motion of wire and magnet, whilst according to usual representation, two cases have to be separated in which either one or another of these bodies moves. Actually, if magnet moved and wire rested, around magnet there arises the electric field having some amount of energy, which at places where the parts of wire rest generates the current. But if the magnet rested and wire moved, there around magnet arises no electric field; instead, in the wire the electromotive force arises to which per se no energy is relevant but which - with the supposed identity of the relative motion in both cases of our interest - causes electric currents of the same value and direction as the electric field in the first case. Examples of such kind, as well as unsuccessful attempts to reveal the Earth's motion relatively "the luminiferous ether", lead us to the premise that not only in mechanics but in electrodynamics no properties of phenomena are relevant to the idea of absolute rest, and even more, to the supposition that for all coordinate systems for which the equations of mechanics are true, the same electrodynamical and optical laws are true, as it has been proven for the first-order values. This supposition (whose contents we will further call "the Relativity Principle") we have an intention to turn into the premise and to make, besides, an additional premise, only seemingly discrepant with this first - namely, that the light in a void always propagates with the definite velocity V independent of the state of motion of radiating body. These two premises are sufficient, in order, having Maxwell's theory for resting bodies underlain, to build a simple, free of contradictions electrodynamics of moving bodies" [Einstein, Collections, vol. 1, p. 7- 8 in Russian edition].Thus, as you can see, SR was based not on postulates but
on mutually contradictive premises, and first of them was just non-identity of reference
frames! So it is. From the above analysis there also follows the essence of your amplification: Karavashkin: << >Just the same as Einstein had to introduce foggily the absolute Galilean metric to define the warped space.Chepik Perhaps - Euclidean metric, Galilean frame. >> Yes, naturally, Euclidean metric strongly related to Galilean frame. A frame out of metric is senseless and each frame strongly gives the metric by the phenomenology of processes occurring in it. And vice versa, the reference frame without metric is not a frame, at least because you will need a space metric to measure the time interval. So we quite can speak of Galilean frame
also as of the metric correspondent to the inertial frame by Newton - Galileo. If we
extend the Galilean metric onto the four-dimensional space-time, in this 4-metric not only
the space coordinates but also time have to transform linearly, as I already wrote you. If
time transforms nonlinearly, this will correspond to non-inertial frame - as we know,
Newton's laws do not work in it (of course, out of passing to the inertial frame). And
Einsteinian Relativity works neither with nor without passing, as it is a fiction in no
way adjustable to dynamics, based on unprofessional analysis made just by Einstein. The
followers only had worsened it, but namely Einstein is guilty. So, when in the beginning
of his work of 1905 Einstein built it all on the premise: "Let we have a coordinate
system in which Newton's equations of mechanics are true" [A. Einstein, Collection of
scientific works, v. 1, p. 8 of Russian edition], he immediately introduced the
discrepancy with principles introduced before, which disproved the existence of system he
takes as the basis. The result is just that his system does not work in dynamics. Thus, we
would have to criticise it deeper. Not in vain we did not analyse your paper criticising
Einstein, though copied it then to our computer. No sense. An analysis of semi-popular
Einstein's work out of analysis of his basic works of Relativity is senseless. All
mistakes and errors in Relativity can be caught namely in the basic works. In the
following works, both Einstein and followers omit the limitations, "forget" the
problems and retain only what they strove to prove, disproving the classical physics.
There seems very strange in this connection your statement about a frame in a void: Karavashkin:<<>>> are not these bodies that shrink along their motion? Or void space?
If bodies, why a liquid would be worse?
Chepik: Fine question. And why void space worse? Let us take a rectilinear loop and accelerate it along its long side to a such speed that in our inertial frame it becomes equilateral. What will happen in the middle of its before-rectilinear sides in your system and in SR? Will they curve inwards either outwards? No, the sides will remain direct, though the angle will not remain right in SR. But the distance in the loop axis will be the same as the sides. If we put three sources of light that will simultaneously emit pulses of light, on one short side in its middle and edges, the receivers on another short side will receive the pulses simultaneously. The void has also shrinked. >> This so much recalls us Einstein's gedankens. It follows from your consideration that in material space it occurs alike. If
we put a movable loop on the water and then lessen its size, will the water inside the
loop also shrink? If you really want to consider the issue, let us.
The main problem seems to be here that we should not confuse the metric of material space
with processes that occur in this space. As I wrote you before, in the shock wave in gas
there occur clearly nonlinear processes, but the metric related to gas does not become
nonlinear. The same with the aether as material substance. Fields and material objects
deform, but the metric of aether remains constant. Just this metric corresponds to the
Newton- Galilee Absolute. And only in this metric we can follow the transformations that
occur. But if we approach from virtual variants, we will stay in these virtual spaces and
analyse a hole of ring cake.
By the way! One story about mathematics. A son-student arrives to his parents' farm for vacations. They sit to dinner, and father asks: - Well, what were you taught at the university? - Oh, Daddy, so much! - For example? - Mathematics… - What a bird is it? - How to explain… see, two chickens are on the table, but I can mathematically prove them three. - Just the case, Sonny! Well, I think so: this chicken is for me old peasant, this another is for mother, and that your mathematically proven third is for you. Good taste! And one more story concerns the logic and causation. One tippler came to another to drink; this another does not mention him, he reads a solid book. - Hey, what is it? - A book. On logic. - And what is this logic? - I still did not fully catch, but seems, knowing it, you can decipher anyone. - How? - See. Have you an aquarium? - Yes, you know. - This means, you like fishes? - Of course. - And like to go fishing? - Yes! - And while fishing, do you like to drink? - You know … - Well, after you drank, do you like women? - Oh, yes! - This means, you are not a gay. - That is the logic! Oh please, give me this book! In few days to this second comes another his friend and sees him excitedly reading. - What is it? - Logic. - And what is logic? - A complicated science! For example, do you have an aquarium? - No… - This means, you're a gay… |
