Está en la página 1de 8

With this purpose let us recall our mental experiment, and for more obviousness present drawing for some moments of time t. See drawing 7.

vt 0 A U +V t U V 1+ 2 C
0

L M B (drawing 7)

L M B0

A0 Vt Ut

It is quite obvious (See drawing 7) that by those velocities, which is assigned to the body by the observers, we will not achieve the simultaneous allocation of the bodies on similar to each other points B and Bo (the end of the carriage for the first and the second observer is corresponding). It is obvious that if by the calculations of the second observer, point has allocated on the than, according to the calculations of the first observer, for point Bo in time t2 allocation on according point B, it will take time t> t2. See drawing 8 L Vt1 0 A U +V t U V 1 1+ 2 C
0

M B (drawing 8)

L M B0

0 Vt 2

A0 Ut2

It is quite obvious, as the first observer assigns to the body less resulting velocity than the other, thats why the first should somehow make the body to move for more time than the other in order to obtain the similar final result. From the drawing follows that, OB=OA+AB Let us take in consideration that

OB=

U +V t ; U V 1 1+ 2 C

OA=V t1

V2 C2

; AoBo=Ut2

## U +V V2 t1 = Vt1 + Ut2 1 2 U V C 1+ 2 C After the simple transformations we obtain

t2 + t1 = V X2 C2 V2 1 2 C

It is the second equation of transformation by Lorenzo. Looking at the present equation arises the question automatically, how one and the same experiment for the different observers possesses the different duration? What is the reason of such a strange ratio between the times? It turned out, that the reason of whole this confusion is the second moving observer. Any opponent may have objections. Why it is worth than the first immovable observer? By nothing, may be it is even better, but it possesses one serious lack (however as the first possesses, but this lack is not expressed in this experiment, because the first is in quiescent state). For the second one it is expressed completely, as a consequence of motion. Of course you have already understood that we are talking about that the second observer is unfounded to determine its true condition. It is obvious that in the present experiment may be it is moving, but does not possess any means to determine its own velocity and considers itself unmovable, what is followed by two principal mistakes: The first mistake is that it does not take into consideration decrease of the length of carriage in the motion. The second mistake is that it does not take into consideration so called effect of selfbraking. The first mistake made us to arrange co-ordinates by some strange manner, I will recall X2 =
X 1 Vt1 1 V2 C2

The second mistake makes us to carry out for every observer its time of motion. As a matter of fact not taking into consideration self braking the second observer assigns to the body the velocity U, equal to its initial velocity. But we know that real velocity is always less than the initial one. Assigning to the body high velocity, naturally it will have to move less time to reach the end of the carriage.

Thus assigning to every observer its time of motion, we automatically correct the second V X2 t2 + C2 t1 = mistake but the formula itself gives us possibility to V2 1 2 C find correlation between t and t2 , and introduce an according time scale for the observers, in order not to violate so called principle of simultaneity. Thus in transformations of Lorenzo one should not search for the wide physical sense, in style of decrease of space and slowing of time. Simply transformation of Lorenzo is a comfortable mathematical trick, for obtaining identical results in different systems of calculation, smoothing inevitable mistakes, resulted by our unavailability to determine real state of the body (system). You may have noticed that the time (likely the space) has not become relative, it remained absolute, and we are not introducing time fore every system separately. I would V X2 t2 + C 2 indicates not the link between like to recall that the formula t= V2 1 2 C labeling of the time in the different systems (existing interpretation), but liaison between the times of motion for the different observers. The fact that the time cannot be relative is easy to demonstrate. V X2 t2 + C2 as it is not difficult to replace, follows one Anyway, from the formula t= V2 1 2 C terrible consequence. The course of time in the immovable system depends on the co-ordinates of the body in the motioning system! It is some non-sense. If the course of time is a property of the system, then in which connection here is the body with its location in addition. Is not it seems to you strange? If for somebody it is in order, for them I want to put one simple question. If in the system is discussed some physical process, in which participates some number n of the particles, everyone with its determined location and co-ordinate Xi, then what will explain the course of time in system, and it is interesting which of these co-ordinates Xi will take respective place in formula for time? Of course I would like to hear some sensible answer, but I am in doubt of it. But if we hold on the interpretation, which I propose you, then it will be available to answer the questions by acceptable and natural answers. After all as a matter of fact, availability of the co-ordinates in the formula for time is not so strange, because: Firstly: t and t2 obtained in it the other physical sense. Secondly: presence of co-ordinates is confirmed by the fact, that difference between the real velocity and assigned velocity depends on U.C increase and (naturally coordinates) and this difference should be increasing what results the increase of difference between the times t and t2 . Concerning the above given question, the answer of it is also simple and obvious. So, in case when system consists of n interacting with each other particles the second

motioning observer is obliged to introduce for every particle so called own time of motion, in order to adjust its indications with the indications of the first observer. Consequently time becomes individual characteristic of the particle, as a total, charge, coordinate, velocity and etc. But at the same time, we should always remember that it is only mathematical trick, and there is no physics behind it. Naturally, you have noticed, that interpretation given by me in its roots differs from the one, which exists in physics to present day. Incorrect understanding of given transformation involved with it incorrect discussion of some questions, particularly in connection with light. As a matter of fact from the formula for storage of the velocities, follows that the velocity of light does not depend on anything and in every system equals C ! It is obvious that this result in every case does not contradict the experience of Michelson Marley, that is why we believed in universality of transformation of Lorenzo and as a consequence the physicists obtained evident series of crude mistakes and reason of all this is summarizing of the given transformations for light. After all arises natural question if we were entitled to make such summarizing of course not. I will recall that transformation of Lorenzo and also the rule of storage of the velocities are correct by lapping two motions. But no lapping during the emanation light does not and may not exist, that is why to the resolutions made above we should approach very carefully. In order to gain an understanding of the given situation, let us discuss two new mental experiments. In the first experiment in the immovable carriage pulse of the light from the beginning to the end of the carriage and it is observed by some observer A, which moves away from the carriage with the velocity V. See drawing 9 A V c (Drawing 9)

In the second experiment in the motioning with the velocity V carriage also pulse of light from the beginning to the end of the carriage and it is observed by immovable observer B. See drawing 10. B (drawing 10) C V The task is to find resulting velocity and compare the indications of the both observers. In the first experiment light is emitted by the immovable source, but it is followed by the observer, which has no relation with the source and thereby cannot influence the process of light emitting, that is why the resulting velocity will equal (C+V). Here one should not object because it turned out to be more than C, by the reason that (C+V) is a relative velocity, and it can be changed in interval (O 2c). But concerning the velocity of light in relation with the source itself it obviously remains strictly constant and equal to C. Consequently there is no necessity to use transformations of Lorenzo in the given example. Concerning the second experiment, there case is more difficult, because in the present matter the source of light is moving itself, and it would have been quite logical to suppose that moving source could somehow affect the process of light emitting. In order to determine this influence somehow, it is necessary to gain an understanding of those changes, which may be carried out in the source itself. So, it is quiet obvious that any

source of light is also some wavy density distribution, it is clear that not so nice as separately taken particle, but it is not very important, important is the following: when the source starts moving, then its components are deformed and compacted, that is why, with more assurance we may confirm that motioning source is some more compacted environment than resting source. Thus by the immovable source the light have to distribute in less compacted environment. By the movable source the light have to distribute in more compacted environment.

It is necessary to recall here that every source is the environment itself for spreading of light. As a matter of fact if any particle (body) presents itself some resilient distribution of the density then it is not clear why this environment is worse than far-fetched ether? We cannot imagine the particles as material points, or as the spheres of little size, in order to search for the environment than in which some disturbance may spread. What has followed such approach is well known for everybody. In my understanding the particle is already some environment, in which because of its resiliency it is possible to send disturbance where desired. It is obvious that the light is also a disturbance. Not knowing the nature of these disturbances one should not be afflicted, as we have already obtained the environment in which they may spread. For the beginning it is not so bad. Now, we should know one important experimental fact, essence of which is concluded in that the velocity of light does not depend upon its emitting source. In other words, whichever source emits the light; it will be moved away from it always with one and the same velocity. It is not difficult to realize, that this fact simply means independence of the velocity of light from the density substance, of which consists the source itself. If it is really so, then the velocity of light should not depend upon if it is emitted by the movable or immovable source, as we have disclosed that because of the motion of the source its density is changed, which does not affect velocity of the light emitting. So we obtained such an interesting drawing: Concerning immovable source (less dense environment) the light is spread with the velocity C. See drawing 11
C

V=O

(Drawing 11)

Concerning movable source (denser environment) the light spreads also with the velocity C. See drawing 12.
C

V (Drawing 12)

Here it would have been reasonable to ask: if because of some unknown reason the velocity of light is not changed because of dense environment, then may be some other characteristic of it is changing. After all it would have been quite fondly to suppose that dense of environment does not affect anything. With this purpose, let us recall formula (14)

V C E1 = E2 V2 1 2 C 1+ Then I made a little remark and pointed out universality of the present formula, expressed in that it can be utilized not only for the particles, but for disturbance too, which may arise in them. If we recall that for the energy of disturbance (particularly for the light) we have already got ready formula E=h v , then (14 ) may be copied by the following way
V C hv1 = hv 2 V2 1 2 C 1+

V C v1 = v2 V2 1 2 C 1+

(16)

Where v1 is the frequency of light in relation with the first observer; v2 is the frequency of light in relation with the second observer. From the given formula follows one interesting consequence, that immovable source emits the light always of less frequency than moving source. Thus it turned out those changes of the density of environment even if it does not affect velocity of the spread of the light, but affects the energy of emitting light. So, it turned out, that the energy of light is increased not on the expense of increase of its velocity (as in case of the particles), but on the expense of increase of the oscillation frequency. It is obvious that such action of the light is not its property, but is reflection of those changes, which happen in the source itself because of the motion. Attentive reader would have noticed that the formula (16) is nothing else than the rule of Doppler. Of course it is pleasant to acknowledge that in order to obtain it, we did not have to invent something in addition, simply everything turned out to be the consequence of the approach, on which is hold the present work. In the end I would like to make one little but important remark concerning consistence of the velocity of light! If we today perceive this fact as something paradoxical, than tomorrow, it seems strange though, but may become the key on the way of understanding of internal structure of ultimate particle. That is why it is obvious that velocity of light should have been depended on density and compactness of the environment itself. It seems that deformations, which are arising in motioning source, consequence such changes of density and compactness, that they are compensated simultaneously and as a consequence the velocity stays not changed. Of course it would have been desirable to gain an understanding in the present question in the future and confirm all said by the reliable, mathematical calculations, but it is in future, but in present we will have to after long preparatory works return to the second mental experiment and at last give some sensible answer on the given task.

I will recall that during experiment we had to find the velocity of light, emitting to the movable resources relatively of the immovable observer B. As we established that from the motion of the source the velocity of light is not changed, i.e. the light is emitted with the velocity C relatively to the source, then it is obvious that in relation with the observer U +V B resulting velocity will equal (C+V), but not C, as follows from formula VR = U V 1+ 2 C Thus the light submits to the ordinary rule of the velocities storage, but at the same time one should remember that relatively to the source the light is always emitted by the velocity C, independently from the type and condition of the source. Now I would like to strike sum total of two mental experiments and formulate basic rules concerning the lights. U +V 1. The formula VR = is not applied to the light. U V 1+ 2 C 2. The light in relation with immovable (or movable) source is always emitted with the velocity C independently from the source. 3. Concerning any other point of calculation, the velocity of light is calculated by the ordinary formula for storing the velocities. 4. Any source of light is itself environment for it. 5. Movable source is a movable environment! Accordingly while emitting of light by the movable source is involved the environment in which it is spread. 6. The velocity of light does not depend on the direction of emanation (consequence of the second rule) 7. Changes of the frequency of emanation are consequence of density of the environment but not the property of light. I hope that these rules will assist us to look at the outward things otherwise, there is much non standard and unusual, not only to look but also to gain an understanding of it better. Particularly negative result of the experience of Michelson Marley is the consequence of the second and fifth rules and does not request any additional confirmation. With this I am completing this overview of the first part of this work and will try to formulate the main assumptions and conclusions: 1. ASSUMPTION: particle is a resilient wave distribution 0f mass with density: h sin 4 k0 r 0 = 3 c r4
2. CONCUSION: for any particle: h M = C 3.CONCLUSION: for energy and impulse:

E = h

C V

h V p= C

4. CONCLUSION: The complete conformance with the conclusions of the special theory of relativity, tailoring the formula:

V2 - to the particle and revealing of the mechanism of the mass increase. c2 5. CONCLUSION: Refinement of the so called Lorentz's conversions and revealing of their essence.

= 0 1

6.CONCLUSION: Abandonment of the relativity of space and time. 7.CONCLUSION: Obtaining of the Dopler's law. As a conclusion, I would like to mention that in this part, nothing was said about particle types (positive, negative ) and about their interactions. If the above idea is supported in the world of science , than I will have the right to publish the second part, where on the same basis, in the same simple and illustrative manner, it will be possible to explain: 1. The so called Coulomb's law as an extreme case of particle interaction, at the formal transfer 0 , in the general formula of interaction. 1. The so called law of magnetic interaction as a result of deformation of particles at motion. 2. A good prospect to understand the essence of the quantization in atoms opens up since the wavy distribution of the density is a fertile ground for quantization. 3. 4. A good opportunity to consider many types of interactions from the unified point of view opens up. 4. 5. Spin can transfer from the domains of fantastic to the reality, etc., etc. At the end I would like to note that may be this model does not embrace all the spectrum of the internal state of particles. But I am sure that it can and should serve as a basis for the new knowledge and understanding of the world.