STR – the result of impermissible theoretical simplifications

Careful analysis of a phenomenon of a relativity of simultaneity reconciles in conclusion, that special relativity (STR) has been received as a result of the whole series of impermissible theoretical simplifications and mistakes.

1). The relativity of simultaneity is effect of special relativity, obviously, right for all "relativistic" situations. And the effect conforming to it should be taken into account strictly, including during a deducing of transformations. When the act of emission of a light signal combine in two systems in time in mental experiments, it is necessary to understand precisely, that all other events concerning movement of this signal, will occur in two systems not so simultaneously, and to the certain time displacement. And value of this displacement depends on a position of a point interesting to us in the space: the further from a zero reference datum on an axis of relative movement of systems, the more displacement value.

Meanwhile, at the standard "elementary" conclusion of Lorentz’s transformations from interpretation of Michelson's experience it is thoughtlessly meant, that a light signal, being emitted simultaneously in two reference systems, will simultaneously accepted in them by interferometer too. Without such "simplification", certainly, would not have sense all ratios deduced further by writers of STR. However in this "simplification" the key error will consist: the important fact of the above mentioned time displacement is skipped.

Actually, according to a phenomenon of a relativity of simultaneity, the acceptance report of a signal by interferometer occurs in two systems not simultaneously. Namely: in the system, moving from another in a direction of an axis X, it occurs earlier. That is, when the signal already has reached a ultimate goal in the moving system, it continues still to run cheerfully on a hypotenuse of a rectangular triangle in stationary system.

As at the moment of the terminal of experiment on clocks of a moving system at the stationary system this notorious hypotenuse not yet passed, it is no the right for explorers to operate with its size in formulas of the relative conversions. In precisely the same way, all other events in two systems appear displaced (and variously!) in time, so that all comparisons and matching of spatial and time values used by writers of special relativity in this situation are simply improper.

What turns out? Formulas of Lorentz’s transformations are deduced contrary to, in damage with own consequence, with a phenomenon of relativity of a simultaneity! Thus, there are full bases to talk about the internal contradiction in special relativity or, as a minimum, about the incorrect "sophistical" trick resulting in reception of Lorentz’s transformations in this variant of "conclusion".

Let's dare to state some reasons concerning other versions of conclusion and submission STR.

2). From a phenomenon of a relativity of simultaneity, in particular, follows, that the moment at that an event occurs on a time scale (temporal coordinate) certain in special way depends on a position of a point in space (spatial coordinate), anyway, along a line of relative movement of two systems (routinely last combine with an axis x). Thus, x and t demonstrate a certain mutuality (it follows and from formulas of Lorentz’s transformations) that should stake under doubt possibility of using of them in the capacity of independent orthogonal axes of coordinates in four-dimensional pseudoeuclidean space. Applicability of a Minkowski universe in this case should produce doubts.

3). The fact of the mentioned dependence x and t must obviously to take into account and at an evaluation of possibility of using of a matrix form of record of the conforming vectors: in particular, they cannot be mapped orthogonal matrixes. So that artful simplifications for orthogonal matrixes practiced by writers of STR here do not fit.

4). The same phenomenon of dependence of coordinate on a time scale from coordinate in space does not allow to confine only gyration of a frame of reference at conclusion of conversions in a Minkowski space, here is strictly necessary as well a parallel displacement. Thus, routinely practiced simplification here again is impermissible, it is necessary to consider more a general case.