In the formulas of his theories of relativity, Einstein used the so-called Lorentz contraction 1 / sqrt (1 – v ^ 2 / c ^ 2), by which any parameter must be multiplied: time, mass, distance, in order to compare these parameters in two “relativistic inertial systems “moving at different speeds.
Mathematicians have been wondering with this formula for more than a hundred years, but they are absolutely unable to compare their results with reality, they have such a brain structure, they have formulas above all.
And here & nbsp; testing & nbsp; special theory of relativity by phenomena in the & nbsp; real world.
In 1973, the American physicist Thomas Phips used a rotating disk to test the special theory of relativity using Ehrenfest’s idea. Ehrenfest’s idea was that, since the speed of each element of the circle of a rotating disk is directed tangentially, its circumference should experience “Lorentz contraction”, that is, its size for an external observer should become smaller than that of a stationary disk. Thomas Phipps photographed the disk spinning at a speed of 150 kilometers per second on its edge. The dimensions of Phips’ disc have not changed at all! They made a lot of noise about this in the narrow circles of relativists and, of course … ignored in their usual way. That is, when an observation or experiment does not fit into relativistic theories, it is simply declared a paradox, in this case, not following the nature of the special theory of relativity was called the Ehrenfest paradox.
You can also compare the movement of “relativistic time” at two points of this rotating disk, moving relative to the selected frame of reference with noticeably different, but high speeds. According to the special theory of relativity, these points should be in “different times”. Let us choose the microwave background radiation as a reference frame. The disk relative to it moves with the Earth. It is well known that the orbital velocity of the Earth in the Solar System is 30 km / s, the Solar System moves in the Galaxy at a speed of 300 km / s, and the Galaxy moves at a speed of about 600 km / s, in relation to the microwave background radiation. The disk on one side with respect to the microwave background radiation will have a maximum speed of 1080 km / s, and on the other 780 km / s. In this case, the fast side will lag behind the slow side by a nanosecond per second from the slow side. That is, for an outside observer, the fast side should remain in the past, the slow side should go into the future, and the disk should disappear, being lost in the past and the future.
But we observe the entire rotating disk at the same time.
And here are & nbsp; observations:
Scientists from Finland observed two related objects, called “black holes”, located at a distance of 3.6 billion light years. The smaller object revolves around the larger one with a 12-year rotation period and, periodically passing through the accretion disk, gives a flare.
Predicting the next flare and observing it with the Swift telescope, scientists were able to figure out the rotation speed of this object with maximum accuracy. This speed was 100,000 km / s. But one side of this rotating object rotates in the direction of its orbital motion, and the other against this direction. The difference in the relativistic motion of “time” for the two sides of this object should be for an external observer, according to relativist formulas, not less than a second for every 10 seconds of his time. The object must also be torn between the past and the future …
This could not have been overlooked …
But the object is observed intact.
Now let’s consider the application of the general theory of relativity to natural phenomena.
Being at different heights on our Earth, according to relativistic formulas, we are also in zones with different speed of movement in time, and inevitably through any, even the most insignificant time, we should be at different times. As if the coincidence with the conclusions of general relativity is demonstrated by the clocks of the GPS satellite system, which move faster where the “space curvature tensor” is less, that is, in orbit. General relativity predicts for GPS satellites that the atomic clock at orbital altitudes of GPS satellites is faster by about 45,900 ns / day. Two-way communication between objects located at different times is impossible, but we communicate easily. The clocks on the satellites of the GPS system really go faster, but for some reason they do not go into the future in the “space-time continuum”, but are in the same time with us. Hence, we must assume that the reason for the difference in the course of the GPS system clocks on the Earth’s surface and in orbit is not in the formulas of the general theory of relativity, but in the fact that the atoms of these clocks
owls on Earth and in orbit have slightly different properties due to the different content of matter that determines gravity.
(Stupid nature, does not understand the “beauty” of relativistic formulas and does not want to follow them.)