which corroborates the said.

Thus, we see that together with the imaginary non-simultaneity, when the clocks have been synchronised, in the moving frame the transformation coefficients of time intervals become equal in general case.

With it, the yielded equations already will not satisfy the 4-D interval – and, this means, Einstein’s L-postulate. Thus, we see that the conditions of physical time introduction in inertial frames, as well as the principle that all frames are identical, contradict Einstein’s premise of the constant speed of light in all frames. When introduced the correspondence between the transformation and local physical time, the transformation of time scale loses its dependence on the pattern of bodies’ motion in this frame, the parasitic inclination of the generatrix disappears, but at the same time it loses its relation to the basic postulate of Einstein.

We have to especially mark: this introduction of the time correspondence is not something unnatural, if we can compare this imaginary increment of times with the time zone on the Earth that were introduced conveniently but don’t really bear a function of miscorrespondence to the simultaneity in physical studies. The common time for the Earth remains common, irrespectively of the time zones. And when necessary, for example, to determine the time of Moscow – London flight, we calculate the time interval without the time shift, lest to appear in a paradoxical situation when the aircraft, having flied a large distance, in the time scale flied in the negative direction of the time axis. The same with Lorentz transformation. If in the moving frame we have the physical time that is homogeneous and allows to determine the simultaneity of events in this frame, there appears the shifted time that relates to the transformation and in no way changes this simultaneity. These imaginary additions arise exceptionally when we interrelate the frames. We can use them or can disuse, or can use with any other arbitrarily moving frames. Undoubtedly, the natural physical time cannot and does not depend on, whether someone, and who namely, checks the between-frames time.

And, as we could see, to synch the origins of time intervals, we can put the observers at the related points and at the moment of meeting they will simply exchange the digital codes of time. They will check time at the moment of an elementary event of the meeting of observers, and this elementary event has important properties that allow synchronising the zero point of time in both frames. Einstein defined these properties so: “The premised event concentrated at one point and having a least duration is called an elementary event. The reading of clock located in the close near of this event is called the time coordinate of the elementary event. Thus, the elementary action is determined by four coordinates: the coordinate of time and three coordinates that determine the spatial location of the point where we premise the event” [16, p. 149]. According to these properties, even should the imaginary non-simultaneity took place, the observers would immediately check it with their own physical time and in working the results would do the same operation of agreement which we did, putting all events in the moving frame into some unified appearance. The fact that with it the L-postulate is violated only corroborates the conclusions of previous section that L-postulate is unphysical. Einstein knew it and multiply returned to this issue in his works writing, in particular, so: “Actually, according to the principle of relativity, the law of light propagation in the void, as every other law of nature, has to be equal both for the permanent railway which we take as the body for reading and for a carriage. But in accordance with our reasoning, this seems to be impossible. If any light ray propagates in relation to the permanent way with the speed c, then, seemingly, the speed of light propagation with respect to the carriage has to be other – in contradiction to the principle of relativity.

In connection with this dilemma, it seems unavoidable to deny the principle of relativity or a simple law of propagation of light in the void. The reader who attentively followed the above consideration surely believes that the principle of relativity, being almost unquestionable by force of its nature and simplicity, has to be retained, while the law of light propagation in a void has to be substituted by a more complicated law consistent with the principle of relativity. However, the development of theoretical physics showed this way unacceptable. Deep theoretical studies of electrodynamic and optic processes in moving bodies made by H.A. Lorentz showed that the experiments in these areas make necessary such theory of electromagnetic phenomena whose unavoidable corollary would be the law of constant speed of light in the void. So the leading theorists are inclined to reject the principle of relativity, though they still did not success to find an experimental fact contradictive to this principle” [30, p. 540]. But the principle of substitution of physical reality by the thought out structures of which we spoke in the beginning of this paper just the same did not lead Einstein to a full-valued solution of the issue, as well as in all other his undertakings. So he sequentially denied his own statements, retaining his basic formalism that has been worked out, basing on his false premises. This last, as we already said, produced an avalanche of paradoxes and discrepancies of the Einsteinian conception that required new and new inadequate premises and suggestions that took the conception farther and farther from the description of regularities of nature, which was its initial idea.