von Sergey N. Arteha
Criticism of the foundations of the relativity theory
Sergey N. Arteha
Originalausgabe: Kritika osnov teorii otnositelnosti – 2004
[Übersetzung aus d. Russ.]: WWW 2005 – ca. 221 S.
Die Forschungsgruppe G.O. Mueller führt in der Ergänzung des Kapitels 4 ihrer Dokumentation dieses Buch von Sergey N. Arteha aus:
Abstract (S. 2): „The present book is devoted to systematic criticism of the fundamentals of the relativity theory (RT). The main attention is given to the new G. O. Mueller: SRT. Kap. 4-Erg. 52 Textversion 1.2 – 2012 logical contradictions of RT, since presence of such contradictions brings „to zero“ the value of any theory.
Many disputable and contradictory points of this theory and its corollaries are considered in detail in the book.
The lack of logical and physical grounding for fundamental concepts in the special and general relativity theory, such as time, space, the relativity of simultaneity etc., is demonstrated. A critical analysis of experiments that resulted in the generation and establishment of relativity theory is presented in this book. The detailed criticism of dynamical SRT concepts is also given in the book. The inconsistency and groundlessness in a seemingly „working“ section of the relativity theory – the relativistic dynamics – is shown.“ – Lit.-Angaben: S. 210-221; nach Sprachen gegliedert.
Afterword. – S. 204: „Many methodical and logical problems of the relativity theory was demonstrated in the book. The presence of methodical „problems of explanation“ leads to the „blowing the theory at an empty place“. But the presence of logical contradictions puts the final point in the development of any physical theory.
In Chapter 1 of the book the logical inconsistency of SRT kinematics was proved on the basis of mental experiments. Chapter 2 was dedicated to logical contradictions of GRT. The absolute experimental inconsistency of the relativity theory was shown in Chapter 3.“ – S. 205: „… the case of modern scientists „near“ the relativity theory. They try to consolidate their status by administrative means for ever. We take, for example, the creation of „The Commission for Fight with Pseudo-Science“. Seemingly, the declared purpose is „rather noble“: to protect our land from charlatans. However, analogous organizations are absent in majority of other countries and nothing happens to their purses.
In our country the practice of examination before financial decisions was also present always. From ideas viewpoint, the scientific association itself has abilities to separate incorrect ideas, and, especially as immunity to charlatanism.“ – S. 205: „The situation becomes more clear, when the following opinion is scored for sound: someone having doubt as to relativity theory is not physicist. Different opinions, theories, schools can exist on any other question. But suddenly „the hub of the universe“ is discovered – it cannot be discussed.
And how must we treat physicists before 1905: whether they are not physicists? And how must we treat physicists from 20th century (including some Nobel Prize winners), since they were opponents to the relativity theory? Are they all not physicists? How can science be generally progressing without free discussion of ideas and their gradual understanding? – S. 206: „Unfortunately, the situation with the relativity theory cannot be remedied with the help of separate publications.
Even if most scientists will understand the error of the relativity theory, it will be rather difficult to „blow off this soap-bubble“. – „Since even recently „there organized“ the expulsion of SRT opponents from Academy of Sciences.“
- 16. Juli 2012