V.6 No 1

33

On correctness of basic postulates of SR

The only difference of synchronisation techniques is that when measuring the time dilation interval, the relativists use not classical definition of the light speed constancy with respect to the aether but the Einsteinian L-postulate which, as we have revealed above, has no relation to the reliable physical regularities, as it was introduced only in order to justify the relativistic mathematical manipulations with the Lorentz transformations. As far as only the technique of synchronisation with the use of light signal so-so outwardly allowed them speaking of the artificially introduced 4-D interval, they stated this technique being the only trustworthy and exact. Though the relativists did not exclude the possibility of synchronisation, e.g., with the sound waves: “as signals we can use, e.g., the sound waves propagating between A and B” [16, p. 148], and with other techniques: “Generally speaking, the clock synchronisation is possible also by other techniques: through the transfer of clocks from one place to another, through the elastic constraint etc. So we have to require lest in such synchronisation to appear unsolvable contradictions with the clock synchronisation through the light signals” [23, p. 22]. Pauli’s addition just demonstrates that relativists agree with any synch techniques, only under condition, these techniques to give same results as their technique based on the L-postulate. But for it the postulate has to be consistent with the laws of nature, as the scientists should not require from nature to be consistent with their inventions but should find the ways to synchronise which would best agree with the laws of nature, – which relativists usually ignored.

  If speaking of technique to synchronise which would not produce discrepancies and paradoxes, the most reliable way is to slow transfer the clock from one point of space to the other point. Actually, if we consider such synchronisation from the view of classical physics, where the time transformation is absent, there arise no difficulties. But if we premise after relativists the transformation of time of moving clock, excluding meanwhile the discussion, whether it is legal, then in accordance with this conception the intervals will contract in proportion with Einsteinian time contraction

In this case we can choose the pace of clock transfer so small that the error of non-synchronisation for the most remote clocks in the calculated experimental model was no more than the admissible error of experimental result. This would satisfy all experimenters who just reduce all inevitable errors to the level of trustworthy result. And we can provide the slow transfer, noting that the metric size and time scale of the experiment are usually established before the experiment and are not limited by the time limits, even if their duration is comparable with the human lifetime.

Should the difficulty were straight in the clock synchronisation, this would not require so much efforts of many generations of relativists. The difficulties arise not because of simultaneity of events of which they say but because of time transformation. Really, if the rate of time flow is different for two mutually moving frames, after relativistic point, “each of frames can equally claim that the time just of its clock is true, as each can state that namely it is at rest, since all physical laws are revealed in both frames in the same appearance. However, when two were stating something that by its very sense can belong only to one, we have to conclude that the very statement is senseless” [18, p. 224]. We easily can see that M. Born’s conclusion fully disagrees with the relativity principle which Einstein has put into his conception of SR. This principle was: “the laws of nature are independent of the state of frame’s motion, at least if it was not accelerated” [27, p. 69]. It follows straight from this principle that according to the relativistic conception, no one of frames can claim that it is at rest, and by the very sense, the statement of privileged frame can belong to no one frame because of their full equivalence, if they are at least inertial.

Moreover, if we note that according to Einstein, “further we will base both on this premise that we will call ‘the principle of relativity’ and on the just proved principle of constancy of speed of light” [27, p. 69], we have in the Lorentz transformation to yield a full equivalence of frames. And not only in transformation of coordinate points to which relativists usually confine themselves but in transformation of continuous bodies – e.g., mutually moving homogeneous rods.