Relativity and/or Symmetry

Transcription

1 International Journal of Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 014, 4(5): DOI: /j.ijtmp Relativity and/or Symmetry Branko Mišković Independent, Novi Sad, Serbia Abstract As the typical formalisms of contemporary physics, the principles of relativity and symmetry are here presented and reexamined on a sequence of the known wave effects and EM induction. The explanations take into account the obvious empirical facts, basic physical laws and elementary logic. The two principles are thus mutually related and confronted, with respective restrictions of their validities. The main roots of special relativity (SRT) are thus reexamined and their inconsistencies emphasized. Not only that this theory has neither the tenable logic nor a solid empirical basis, but it is controversial by itself. In accord to its time transformation, apart from the moving observers, the lapse of time would depend on the object position in the comparative frame!? Keywords Variable, Invariant, Relativity, Symmetry, Equivalence 1. Introduction Physical quantities, as the basic scientific notions, are related by adequate natural laws. Mutual comparisons of these laws reduce them to a basic set, usually expressing the interactions of the carriers and objects of physical fields, in the functions of some substantial quantities and their kinematical relations. In the differential field form of the laws, their kinematical quantities are substituted by the temporal and spatial derivatives. Some similarities of the carriers and object at their motion, noticed during this process of elaboration, are tried to generalize. This is expressed by a few formal principles, as the relativity and symmetry. At their application and mutual relation, they are restricted by various conditions. In the static law of gravitation the force is expressed by two masses and their distance, as the relative position. However, this relativity cannot be extended to the kinetic and dynamic mechanical forces. Namely, the mechanical resistance of material media imposes the kinetic forces, dependent on the object speeds with respect to the media. At a clear vacuum at least, inertia concerns only a single object, without relative relations. Overlooking a vacuum medium as the reference frame, some equivalence of the various frames, as their formal symmetry, is expected. With respect to additional inertial forces in accelerated frames, this equivalence has to be restricted to so called inertial (i.e. un-accelerated) frames. 1 * Corresponding author: aham.brami@gmail.com (Branko Mišković) Published online at Copyright 014 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved 1 However, strict determination of their motion again demands a unique, somehow preferred, reference frames. EM induction between a magnet and conductor, as the difference of electric and magnetic effects, also resemble the relativity. However, the effective ranges of these two effects are distinct, with respective restriction of their symmetry. Though some acceleration of one, influences all present electric charges, their mutual effects are not subtracted, but superimposed to each other. Moreover, in the magnetic interaction of two moving charges, their speeds are mutually multiplied. The negation of vacuum medium follows into new artificial symmetries calling in question even the two natural categories, space and time. In the final instance, the enforced symmetry is somehow confronted with the initial relativity. The final elaboration of EM theory, just completed in [1], [] & [3], overcomes these two principles, relativity and symmetry. All EM interactions are determined with respect to the vacuum medium or some its layer. The two pairs of Maxwell s equations are finally reduced to the trinity of the static, kinetic and dynamic interactions. Not only that the vacuum medium is thus reaffirmed, but all natural phenomena are finally reduced to the energetic disturbances of this medium. As the empirical support to this U-turn, some wave effects are here explained in the classical sense. Respective aspects of EM theory are also briefly presented. The logic and necessity of introduction of SRT are finally convincingly denied.. Wave Effects The registration and explanation of these effects is based on the motion of some devises of the technical equipment, plunged into the present medium of the wave propagation. One or more of such devises may be displaced through the medium. The continuous and conditionally resting medium,

2 166 Branko Mišković: Relativity and/or Symmetry as the wave substratum, just represents the most natural frame of reference. Possible its own motion is referred to the finer medium strata. The separate speed of a particular devise, or of the equipment in the whole, determines the parameters of the emitted and detected signals, including propagating wave. The cases of the fractional motion or own expansion of the medium are also here considered. As the variable and/or invariant quantities, the following parameters are observed: oscillating period ( ) the time taken for a full cycle, phase ( t/ ) the time expressed in the cycles, signal frequency ( f 1/ ) the cycle number in one second, with speed of propagation (c) and wave length ( c ) the path covered for a full cycle. The oscillating process, expressed through the phase, is copied by the wave lengths along the path of propagation. The propagation speed, determined by the two medium features (elasticity & density), is directly referred to the medium itself. We here restrict to the uniform, mainly rectilinear motion of the devises, in the direction of propagation, along the line emitter-detector, or in very small angle with respect to this line. Approximately or in respective limiting process, the last case can be reduced to the circular motion and wave propagation along a circle perimeter. In one particular case, the phases of the longitudinal and transverse light beams, with respect to a direction, are compared. A sequence of such effects, obtained by their investigators in respective years, just accords to the logic of the exposition. Though this need not be ever the scientific case, the simplest of these effects was also primarily registered, described and rationally interpreted. It is successively followed by the other similar effects, each succeeding for a little complicated than the preceding of them: Doppler's 184, Fizeau's 1851, Michelson-Morley's 1881/87 and Sagnac's The exposition thus gradually develops, with a very convincing logic of presentation of the full sequence. 3. Simple Doppler's Effects The wave propagation through respective medium carries the alternating signal, from the emitter to detector. However, the signal frequency can be changed by motion of each of these two or some other devises. Though the final results may be symmetric in the range of their usual observation, the wider functions and respective physical processes are in fact essentially distinct. In this our methodical exposition of the sequence of following explanations, we distinguish a few distinct causes of various Doppler's effects Moving Detector Though the detector motion (at some speed v) does not influence the propagating wave, it changes the frequency of the detected signal. This effect results from the new relative speed by which the wave approaches the detector. The ratio of the two frequencies just accords to the ratio of the new and old relative (wave-detector) speeds: f " c v. (1) f ' c Here f"represents the detected frequency, and f' that of the wave, possibly different from its generated value ( f ). This function is presented by the strait line (1) on Fig. 1. At v c the detector would escape the wave. However, at EM waves and light this case is impossible c 0 c 3.. Moving Emitter Figure 1. Simple Doppler's effects Let us now observe the moving emitter, generating and emitting the wave. With respect to its motion at a speed u in direction of wave propagation, each next signal phase starts from the point a little displaced forward, than the former phase. This fact causes some squeeze of the wave along the path, with respective diminution of the wave lengths. In fact, the path covered by the emitter is thus subtracted from that covered by the wave. This simple logic points to the strict determination of the new wave length: c u ' c u ( c u). () f The opposite motion stretches the wave and its length. In the homogeneous and non-dispersive media, the speed of propagation is invariant. The signal frequency is inversely proportional to the wave length, with the full conservation of their invariant product ( f / c) : c u ' f ' f ' c, f f ' c. (3) f c u The function (3b) is presented by the hyperbola on Fig. 1. The frequency is increased at a positive speed with respect to the propagation, and vice versa. If this speed tends to c, the (3) (1) (4)

3 International Journal of Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 014, 4(5): emitter follows the wave, and the frequency strives into infinity. The wall of dense wave energy is thus formed in the emitter front, obstructing its motion. By sufficient force, however, the emitter can break this wall. The break of such sound wall, predicted and elaborated by Ernst Mach, is followed by a strong shot. Though the speed of light cannot be reached by massive bodies, Cherenkov practically realized also the break of light wall. Instead of the particle acceleration, this effect arises at sudden diminution of the speed of propagation, on the boundary between two distinct media. Of course, the particle speed must be between the speeds of light propagation through the two media. The negative speed difference (3b) is manifest by the sparkling, discharging the excess of particle energy. The two diagrams enable the obvious comparison of the two functions (1) & (3). Though mathematically inverse, they are not symmetric with respect to the central point of the zero speeds. The approximate local symmetry with the strait line concerns the tangent of the crossing hyperbola Read Shift Cosmic expansion extends vacuum medium, including the wave lengths. Although the emitter and detector rest in the medium, they move away from each other, at a mutual speed v'. The ratio of the emitted and detected frequencies, inverse to the wave lengths, equals to that of the paths covered for a time t, in the resting and expanding medium: f ' ct c. (4) f ' ct v't/ c v' / After light leaving the emitter, the path is increased by the detector motion only, at the speed v' /. Respective diagram (4) asymptotically approaches the zero at infinity, without possible signal escape at any mutual speed. The horizon of cosmic events is thus certainly excluded. Apart from the mutual speed, the light propagation may be variable in time due to expanding medium. At an instant, the propagation is invariant in space. The relative speed of light at the two devices, as being referred to the medium, may be thus treated as the same invariant quantity, with symmetric roles of the two devices. These facts might be some of the pretexts for the known relativistic views. 4. Complex Doppler's Effects At simultaneous motion of more such devises, their simple effects are combined. In the case of the emitter and detector, the functions (1) & (3) are multiplied, expressing the ratio of the detected and generated frequencies: f " f " f ' c v. (5) f f ' f c u This function of the two variables (v & u) is expressed by the crosswise diagrams (1) & (3). The wave parameters on the path depend only on the emitter motion. At the same speeds of these two devises, the two effects cancel each other. The effect of the squeezed wave is annulled by the slower signal detection. At the common speed v u c, the result (5) is reduced into the undetermined ratio 0/0: with the wall of the emitted wave, the detector escapes the signal. Doppler's radar represents the two joined technical devises. It generates and emits the wave along the path, and detects the wave signals reflected from the objects. At motion of this complex device, the functions (1) & (3) are multiplied, but with the opposite common speed ( v u) in relation to the course of the reflected wave beam: f " f " f ' c u. (6) f f ' f c u This function is presented by the diagram (6) on Fig.. Unlike two mathematically inverse effects (1) & (3), these two support each other by the increased denominator and decreased nominator. The frequency is enlarged twice, by the wave squeeze and faster signal detection c 0 c Figure. Complex Doppler's effects A reflecting object, as the independent devise, may be also moved at a speed v. It plays the roles of the detector of the direct, and emitter of reflected waves, with the opposite speed ( v u) with respect to the wave propagation. At the speed v c the object escapes the wave and its reflection, but at v c it reflects the double wave frequency, with the wall in its front, formed of the reflected wave. At simultaneous independent motion of the radar and its object, as the two complex devises, the two combined effects in the form (6) are thus also multiplied: f "' f "' f " c u c v c v'. (7) f f " f c u c v c v' Of course, the reflector plays its two opposite roles. The latter fraction and final result, formally symmetric with (6), (7) (6) (7' )

4 168 Branko Mišković: Relativity and/or Symmetry are presented on Fig.. In the case of the two small speeds their product may be neglected, and the two variables are substituted by the mutual speed: v' = v u. The approximate diagram is thus valid in its central region. In the case of the common motion of the two devises, the two pairs of the effects mutually annul. Of course, this is the final ratio of the detected and generated signals, with the squeezed direct, and stretched reverse waves. At least in SRT, the square root of (7), as the geometric average of the distinct effects, is used for the read shift. Its diagram (7') is here presented. With respect to its central validity, for greater speeds it is distinct from the function (4). Its zero ( v' c ) allows the signal escaping, with respective horizon of the cosmic events, still not noticed in astronomy. Apart from theoretical inconsistency of (7'), this fact may be the empirical argument against this function. 5. Fizeau's Effect 5.1. Technical Procedure The motion of the medium, as the physical substratum and reference of propagation, is fully equivalent with the same opposite motion of the complete equipment (7). Depending on the motion course with respect to the direct and reverse beams, there appears the squeeze and/or stretch of the wave lengths. The detected, equals to generated frequencies, as if being the invariant quantity. Instead, some of the variable parameters, as the phase, can be observed. Irrespective of the reference frame, phase represents the ratio of the distance covered and wave length: d /. The final phase variation can be obtained by comparison of such two phases. With the convenient technical solution, Fizeau compared the phases of two equal signals passing through the same running water, but in the two opposite courses (8), with the final subtraction of their effects (9): d fd ' ', c v d fd " " ; (8) c v fdv fdv δ ' ". (9) c v c The opposite speed signs in the pair (8) concern the two opposite beams. Neglecting the square of the small speed, (9) appears as the linear function of speed. The measurement gave less than a half of this value. This result, between the two extreme cases (the resting frame or its full draw by the moving medium), was obtained. Its following interpretation just relies on the moving media theory [1]. 5.. Physical Interpretation The above consideration understood some motion of the complete medium, its material and vacuum layers. However, there is the separate motion of water, as the material stratum. The corrective factor (j) in dielectric media thus equals to the ratio of respective electric disturbances: P DoE 1 j 1. (10) D D Here P represents the polarization of the moving material fraction, and D P εoe of the total medium, including the vacuum layer. Though being pervaded by the vacuum medium, the water is running independently. The corrective factor (j) of the frame draw is here obtained as the function of the relative electric constant ( r ). At water, as the dielectric medium, the refraction factor (n), relative electric constant and the correction (j) are mutually related: n /3, r n 16/9, j 19/16 7/16. Formerly used Fresnel's factor, f 1 1/n 1 1/ r, just turns into this one at relatively non-magnetic media 6. Michelson's Effect 6.1. Longitudinal Beam r (μr 1). The resting vacuum medium has so far been related to the ground, and this implicit fact was out of the consideration. However, there aroused the question of its relation with the orbital motion of Earth, as the moving frame. The former such experiment also used Fizeau's principle. Instead of the medium of propagation, the device was moving with Earth. There was the dilemma between two extreme expectations: the full draw of the medium or its absolute rest. The measurement observed the two light beams, sent from a common point into both the longitudinal and transverse directions with respect to the orbit. After reflections from the equally distant mirrors, their phases were compared at the starting point. The times taken expressed in the phases on the direct and reverse paths of the longitudinal beam are given by (8). Therefore, there follows their sum: fdc fd l ' ", c v cg r g 1 ( v/ c). (11) The transverse beam phase was considered invariant, thus playing the role of the comparative phase. However, any phase difference was then not noticed. 6.. Transverse Beam This result stimulated further theoretical considerations. H. A. Lorentz thus noticed that the transverse beam phase was also variable. When the orbital motion covers the basis (vt) of the triangle, the light covers its two legs (ct). The solution of the rectangular triangle half thus gives: ct vt fd cg d, d t ; (1) cg fd 1 g. (13) c g t ft, δ l t The transverse phase (13a), distinct from longitudinal one (11a), just gives their difference (13b). Irrespective of this

5 International Journal of Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 014, 4(5): explanation and further advanced device, the result was zero again and again: 0, g 1, v 0. It just pointed to the full frame draw by the Earth. Instead, in SRT this result is ascribed to the invariant relative speed of light, irrespective of the moving observers and their frames. The additional improvements of the device, made during 0 th century, gave some phase difference, a few percents of the expected value. Not only that the mentioned relativistic interpretation was already widely accepted, but nobody had any new intermediate explanation. Similarly to (10), some stratification of the vacuum medium, between more nearby celestial bodies, is offered in [3]. Instead of the subjective orientation to the passive observer, the objective one concern Earth, as the predominant mass, and cannot be generalized to arbitrary formal frames. The obtained phase difference may be ascribed to the other nearby celestial bodies. 7. Sagnac's Effect In this case, Fizeau's effect is observed on the perimeter of a polygon or circle, rotating in its own plain. The two beams sent in the opposite directions meet each other at the starting point. The phase difference depends on the peripheral speed, according to (9). This device is successfully applied to the registration of very slow angular airplane deflection. Even in this case, the phase difference is sufficient. Not only that this device is the effective technical solution, but it explicitly denies the invariance of the relative speed of light propagation, as the main opinion of SRT mentioned above. In fact, the phase difference follows from the two different relative speeds of propagation with respect to the rotating perimeter. In other words, the two beams equally propagate through the same medium, but the device rotation increases one and decreases the opposite path. The known relativistic objection, of the restriction of SRT to the rectilinear motion, may be expected. However, this restriction is introduced in mechanics, where the centrifugal forces disturb the frame equivalence. Even if the light were influenced by these forces, the two beams would be equally influenced. Moreover, the majority of the effects is based on the variable relative speed of light propagation. 8. EM Theory 8.1. Differential Equations EM theory is founded [1] by the three relevant Maxwell's differential equations: static (14a), kinetic (14b) and dynamic (15b). By respective fields, first of them expresses the forces dependent on presence, second on motion, and third on acceleration of electricity. In the sense of expected formal symmetry of the electric and magnetic phenomena, this set is supplemented by the trivial equation (15a): D Q, HD/ t J ; (14) B 0, EB/ t 0. (15) The two constitutive equations, relating rational and force fields, are understood: DE & HB /. Apart from the rational fields, the pair (14) operates by the electricity and its current, as the field carriers. In the absence of free magnetic carriers, the pair (15) is homogeneous. As if, all EM fields are determined and bounded by their carriers. However, this set can be essentially reinterpreted. In fact, the carriers are nothing else than the formal features of the fields, without their own separate substantial essences. Unlike apparent electricity and current, the absent magnetic carriers may be considered as transparent. In its componential form, the above set turns into the two subsets, by the four equations in each. As such, it may be substituted by the two tensor equations: R J, F 0 ; (16) n n mn m R F mn mn n n mn 0 Dx Dy Dz Dx 0 H z H y Dy H z 0 H, (17) x D z H y H x 0 0 Bx By Bz Bx 0 Ez Ey. (18) By Ez 0 E x Bz Ey Ex 0 The terms R mn represent the rational, and F mn force fields. The electricity moving along t-axis forms the fourth current component. These tensors concern the electric and magnetic levels of structure, with the apparent and transparent carriers, respectively. In the former more relevant tensor, electric field occupies the longitudinal (tx, ty, tz), and magnetic transverse planes (xy, yz, zx) of 4D space. 8.. Algebraic Relations As the pandanus of Maxwell's differential set, there is the simple algebraic pair of J. J. Thomson: H VD, E BU. (19) Here V is the speed of electric, and U that of magnetic fields. Instead of their variations, transverse motion of one produces the other EM field. Thus reaffirmed symmetry is restricted by the distinct validity ranges. By convective derivatives of the two moving fields, this algebraic pair is interrelated with the kinetic and dynamic Maxwell's equations, respectively: VD ( V) D D/ t J H, (0) UB ( U) B B/ t E. (1) Only the motion along the field gradient of one, produces the other EM field. Unlike the non-vortical fields, generally inhomogeneous in all 3D directions, the gradients of vortical fields are usually restricted to the planes of their field lines. The effective speed U thus concerns the transverse direction

6 170 Branko Mišković: Relativity and/or Symmetry of the current causing magnetic field. The dynamic electric field in vortical form is thus produced. The static field and its electricity (14a) may be ascribed to the expected motion of material existence along temporal axis Field Transformations In analogy with convective algebraic relations (19), the relative algebraic pair may be introduced: E vb, H e Du. () e The carriers of their own fields (19) are here treated as the objects moving through the dissimilar EM fields. The former relation represents magnetic interaction of a moving charge with the present magnetic field. The equivalent electric field expresses the magnetic forces. By these forces, the moving charge is compelled to the circular motion around a tube of the present magnetic field. In the absence of free magnetic poles, the latter relation is out of use. The two moving EM objects are substituted by a unique observer, with its reference frame and technical equipment. Moreover, these equivalent EM fields are formally added to the proper, nominally similar fields: E' E v B, H' H D v. (3) The right sums express the fields in the moving reference frame at left. These equations represent the classical field transformations. Owing to the two vector products, they are restricted to the transverse field components. By substitution of (19), this pair would be generalized to the two relative speeds: v' = v U & u' = u V, concerning the motion of electric object in magnetic field, and vice versa. Electric field, located in the longitudinal, distinguishes from magnetic, located in transverse planes. Their subtraction is thus restricted to the common spatial axis. This restriction has not been noticed and considered so far. With respect to the set determinant of (3), g 1 v, the inverse transformations are obtained: E ( E' v B ' )/ g, H ( H' D' v )/ g. (4) They express the fields in the resting, in relation to those from moving frames. The factor g calls in question mutual symmetry of the two frames. For the sake of such symmetry, this factor is distributed, by g 1 in each set: E' ( E vb )/ g, H' ( H D v )/ g. (5) These equations are well-known as the direct relativistic field transformations. The arbitrary scaling of the transverse fields calls in question Maxwell's equations, as the general field distributions. With respect to their authority, their form is conserved by the complementary formal transformations of the longitudinal and temporal axes (9). 9. Special Relativity This motion just determines the common lapse of time. Apart from the read shift and EM theory, SRT is probably influenced by the simple kinematical relations, mediated by the speed of propagation. At the present time (t) we observe the former position (r') and speed (v) of a distant object. The accessible data are delayed by the time taken (r/c), where r is the former distance, and c the speed of light. The former and present quantities are thus mutually related: r' r v r/ c, t' t r/ c. (6) From the former position and present time, the present position (r) and former time (t') of the object existence can be calculated. At least approximately, the uniform object speed is understood. If it considerably varies during the time r/c, this fact should be taken into account. Pretending to its philosophical essence, SRT is nowadays introduced speculatively, starting from two mutually related formal postulates. Namely, the equivalence of inertial frames finally includes the invariant speed of propagation in these frames. Not only that this conclusion cannot be interpreted, but it contradicts to the elementary logic. The direct introduction of SRT can start from the classical position transformation (7a) only: r' r v t, t' t c vr /. 3 (7) Here r denotes the position in the comparative frame, r' in the frame moving at the speed v with respect to this one; t is the time taken by this motion, starting from the common position. The comparative object position (r) is conditioned by the arbitrary location of respective frame. In spite of the phenomenal distinctions of space and time, the semi-classical transformation of time (7b) is assumed. 4 Apart from the dimensional harmony of the related quantities, here c points to the boundary case: at relatively small speeds, the lapse of time is nearly invariant: t' t. Apart from the mutual motion of the two frames, the time would depend on object position in the comparative frame. Not only that these two variables cannot be causally related with the lapse of time, but with respect to (7b), this lapse could be accelerated or decelerated. Moreover, it would be invariant at the transverse mutual motion, as well as in the beginning of the comparative frame (r = 0). 5 Overlooking these objections, the relativistic speculation goes on. With respect to the value g 1 ( v/ c) 1, as the set determinant of (7), the inverse pair (8) calls in question the pleasurable frame equivalence: 6 r ( r' v t' )/ g, t ( t' '/ c )/ g vr. (8) For the sake of such equivalence, this value is arbitrarily 1 distributed between the two sets, by g in each of them. With formal conservation of the mutual inversion, the direct pair turns into the final relativistic form: 3 The two collinear vectors (r & v ) are usually considered. 4 It is the analogy of respective field transformation (3b). 5 With respect to the indirect EM approach, these formal facts have not been noticed for more than a century of SRT. 6 Otherwise, at the invariant time (t' = t) instead of the arbitrary transformation (7b), the set determinant equals to unit.

7 International Journal of Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 014, 4(5): r' ( r v t)/ g, t' ( t / c )/ g vr. (9) The object position and time of mutual motion, including their variations, are thus enlarged. In spite of the remaining asymmetry in the opposite signs of the variable terms, this symmetric scaling is manifest as twin paradox. Though containing the same factor g, the equations (9) cannot be anyhow related with the mass function: m m / g. o Unlike the two speculative transformations, there is the real physical function, strictly determined and interpreted in [1]. Dependent only on the speed square, mass is minimal when is resting in the preferred reference frame, irrespective of the moving observers and their formal frames. 7 The relative time is supported by the longer life of some moving, with respect to the same resting particles. Though being the statistical average, the life time is here used as the comparative quantity. 8 It just expresses the particle stability, conditioned by the balance of some internal forces, possibly dependent on motion. In the final instance, separate time of a moving body would mean its invisibility. 9 In the next step of this speculation, mutual division of (9) gives the artificial speed transformation: ' ' r t' u v u 1 uv / c. (30) Here u r /t is the object speed in the former, and u ' in latter frames, and v their mutual motion. Applied to the light propagation, (30) turns into the identity: c' c. As the result of all the artificial symmetries already imposed, this particular speed appears the invariant quantity. In the final instance, this absolute quantity slightly calls in question the relativity, and the main name part of SRT. The name and scientific sense of general relativity (GRT) are more controversial. In the aim to overcome the restriction of SRT to inertial frames, GRT reduces some physical forces to the spatial geometry. The evident physical quantities are substituted by uncertain and indefinite spatial curvatures. The starting scientific aim, to overcome the frame restriction, is implicitly ignored or fully forgotten. With respect to the noticed inconsistencies of the simple algebraic relations of SRT, the very complex tensor relations of GRT carry the risk of much more such inconsistencies. These two theories are related by the two inadequate names only. 10. Conclusions Convincing and verifiable explanations of a sequence of wave effects are here founded on the relative speed of light propagation. Thus affirmed relativity is restricted at EM induction by the asymmetric limitations of the two effects. Though referred to EM theory, SRT is founded by the 7 The preferred frame is related to predominant celestial bodies. 8 There is the hesitation: what would be here variable, the lapse of time or the comparative units for its expression? 9 Light needed for its perception would propagate along temporal axis, thus making visible the past and future. generalizations of some formal symmetries with the confused roles of variable and invariant quantities. Space, time and medium are called in question by the invariant relative speed of light propagation. Not only that such substitution of the common time by the invariance of a particular speed, cannot be rationally interpreted nor understood, but it is denied by empirical facts from the wave effects. Moreover, the two vectors in (9b) cannot be physically related with the lapse of time, but are arbitrarily defined. The initial restriction of SRT to the inertial frames has never been overcome, but must be additionally narrowed by the mass function to the unique, locally preferred reference frame. The two separate relativistic theories just resemble the emperor's new dress from Andersen's story. Though the observers admire for this dress, no one truly believes in it. Even if be convinced by the emperor's authority, they do neither perceive any dress nor understand its essence. Unwilling to be inferior amongst all the other observers, nobody dares to notice the emperor's nakedness. Once uncritically accepted formal views turn by the time into extremely rigid personal convictions. The emperor's role is here played by A. Einstein. If we reject a possibility that he made a rough joke on account of scientific public, his discontent with his own theories must be kept in view. Never mind which of these theories is concerned by the following his sentence: Maybe that I initially proposed this theory, however, I could not expect that the others would accept it much more seriously than me alone. Some his contemporaries partook at least in the promotion and popularization of SRT. 10 Without sufficient vision of physical processes and the laws describing them, the modern physicists artificially generalize some particular formal relations, as relativity and symmetry. The known fantastic speculations are thus obtained, separated from the physical reality or opposite to it. The elementary logic and obvious empirical facts are thus arbitrarily ignored. Unlike the classical rational science, the modern physics consists of some unfounded believing in the supernatural miracles. Symptomatic intolerance towards any criticism of the widely accepted views blocks the scientific thoughts and suppresses all the alternative ideas. The reviews in the leading scientific journals are preceded by the rigorous censorship. Even though conscious of this deviation, the scientists are interesting to conserve it. Not only that the alternative ideas provoke their personalities and disturb mental tranquilities, but call in question their academic titles and the established social status. REFERENCES 10 Lorentz transformations (9), thus named by Poincaré, are historically ascribed to a few other physicists.

8 17 Branko Mišković: Relativity and/or Symmetry [1] B. Mišković, Systematic Foundation of EM Theory, Int. Jour. of Electromagnetics and Applications, Vol. 4, No. 1, 014, [3] B. Mišković, Medium of Natural Phenomena, Int. Jour. of Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, Vol. 4, No. 4, 014, [] B. Mišković, Boundary Questions of EM Theory, Int. Jour. of Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, Vol. 4, No. 3, 014,