SELF

52

S.B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina

To understand the deep nature of relativistic mistake, we have to analyse the conditions on whose basis the time transformation has been grounded. Before Michelson- Morley experiments, the issue of time transformation did not exist. Poincare, Lorentz, Fitzgerald have put this question after Michelson's experiments were claimed negative. And here Fitzgerald's hypothesis arose.

"Let us recall the considerations on which the experiment by Michelson and Morley has been based. As we revealed, times the light beam spends to pass the distance l forth and back differ dependently on, whether the light propagates with the Earth motion either across it. In the first case

in second

If we now suppose that the leg of interferometer directed in the Earth motion is shorted in relation

the time  t₁ will appear lessened in the same relation, i.e.

With it we would yield

From here the following general hypothesis follows (really, as striking as groundless and brave): each body having some velocity as to ether in reduced in direction of its motion by the part of

[1, item 15, p. 214].

"The hypothesis of reduction seems to be so striking - indisputably, almost absurd - because reduction is not the consequence of some forces and takes the part of some circumstance accompanying the motion. But this opposition did not restrain Lorentz from inserting the new hypothesis into his theory, especially when new experiments corroborated to be impossible to reveal any second-order effects caused by the Earth moving in ether" [1, item 15, p. 215].

First of all, there has revealed that new experiments convinced Lorentz, the effect is absent. Materials of discussion on Pasadena conference [7] where were present all who studied the aether wind at that time, in that number Lorentz, Michelson, Morley, Kennedy, Miller, state the opposite.

The matter is, both Michelson and all adherents of 'negative' result have based their theoretical substantiation on Lorentz' calculation of two mutually perpendicular beams interfering on the screen. The only what they accounted was the aberration of beam propagating perpendicularly to the aether wind. But they did not account that these beams turn as to the device when it is turned as to the vector of this aether wind. And not the aether wind is the matter but Sagnac effect which inevitably distorts the calculation, masks the effect of aether wind and diverges the beams.