Interactions

Carriers of energy and, therefore, of interactions can only be matter. Different mechanisms of transferring energy [8] means different kinds of interactions. There are special mechanisms of interactions at each level of the organization of matter.

So, the internal structure of fundamental particles [9] implies interactions between units within their composition (they can be particles of ether). Further there are nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions. The electromagnetic interaction concerns charge, as the attraction and repulsion forces depend on the signs of the charges. For the nuclear and gravitational interactions there are no charge forces.

The existence of a "space lattice" in the observable universe indicates a charge interaction between galaxies. On the basis of an hypothesis in work [8] the charge interaction is connected with its transference by waves of matter. It is possible to suspect, that the mechanism of transference of interaction between galaxies is also waves of ether, the length of which should be comparable to the dimensions of galaxies.

Interaction of inertia

There is an inertial interaction, which is necessary to delineate especially, because it is distinct from all other interactions. It is present in the laws of motion of matter and all other known interactions and it is responsible for the existence of classical (Galilean) relativity. Furthermore, it is only due to inertia that the orbital motions of bodies in central force fields are possible. Therefore, without inertia there would be no fundamental particles, atoms, planetary systems, or galaxies...

The necessity of force for the occurrence of the acceleration of a body (positive or negative), by virtue of the irrelativity (absoluteness) of space, we must call the interaction of the body with other matter. But what is the other matter?

Citing the example of a rotating bucket of water, Newton draws a conclusion about the true motion of water with reference to its center of rotation and about the relative movement of the water in relation to the bucket. However, when speaking about the true motion (the rotation) of the water, Newton never mentions the concept of space and he does not make any suppositions (inventions) concerning the interaction of the water either with space, or with other bodies. This is also true, in general, when he speaks about inertia.

He simply points out the fact of absolute (sufficient) identification of acceleration. When there is acceleration – there is force. When there is no acceleration – there is no force. And, on the contrary, when there is a force – there is acceleration. When there is no force – there is no acceleration. Newton's diplomatic silence about the uncertain parentage of the force of inertia, in connection with acceleration, has been used against him by relativists. Here is how it happened.

Insinuation #1. We read [10]: "...the statement that acceleration does not require indications on a measuring body, the acceleration has absolute character. But if the translation of a body from one place to another, in the case where the accelerated motion has an absolute sense, it means that these places are parts of absolute space".

Having declared the non-relation of space to anything external, Newton could not suspect that his descendants could so dexterously impute to him the declaration of absolute space through the acceleration of bodies (including rotary motion).

Yes, the concept of nature, where all combinations of phenomena are explained solely by the motions and interactions of bodies (through their contact) was the ideal of Newton's science. But he did not begin to search "other bodies" for the interactions of inertia, as well as he did not begin to search for them in the transfer of gravitational interaction at a distance. How it is possible to blame him for that?

Insinuation #2. We read ([10], page 169): "...absolute time is a time that is not dependent on the velocity of the system in which it is measured (in accordance with Newton – N.N.).

In Newtonian mechanics the instantaneous propagation of interactions serves as the warranty of independence of time from motion, the warranty of the existence of a unified time for the whole universe (My emphasis – N.N.). If the basis of Newtonian absolute space consists in the force of inertia (We have devised this ourselves and we elaborate also! – N.N.), the origin of forces not connected to mutually interacting bodies, then the basis of Newtonian absolute time is an instantaneous remote action. Instantaneous propagation of interactions is a more general and fundamental idea of classical physics, than remote action in an ordinary spatial sense, i.e. the resistance of a medium transmitting the interaction of bodies".

It is possible to find all things in this quotation.

And there is a double standard, when, accusing Newton of "rejecting a medium transmitting interaction", relativists "forget" that they themselves did not simply skip it, but got rid of it in general.

The connection of the concept of time with instantaneous propagation of interactions is an obvious mystification.

It is a forgery when it is pretended that the creators of classical mechanics considered the velocity of interactions as infinitely fast (instantaneous). Earlier Laplace had made attempts to define the speed of the gravitational interaction.

Thus it is necessary to remind the reader, that the introduced lines were written already for a long time after the arising of electrodynamics (Gauss, Weber, Clausius...) and graviodynamics (Gerber) [11]. In these works the laws of interactions were generalized on the velocity of interaction, which is related to the properties of the transmitting medium.

Truly, "when they want to kill a dog, they say that it is mad!"

In childhood we asked each other riddles. One of them was "What is the fastest thing in the world?" The answer was – "Thought". Thought really has instantaneous "speed." We imagine two bodies, separated by millions kilometers, and then we model the process of their interaction in our minds. We model the temporary process of action transfer, the motion of bodies, the delay of potential, etc. An intermediate observer is not necessary for this purpose. The signals from interacting bodies to the observer are also unnecessary.

Natural phenomena should be considered at an imaginary instantaneity of events irrespective of distance. Only so the independence of natural phenomena from our consciousness, from the observer, from God will be observed. And so they (the phenomena) were considered in classical mechanics.

Relativists have made a gross error in that they have introduced the observer and the time of arrival of a signal to him from the point of the event. Furthermore, they have accepted light as a signal, having imputed to it monstrous unreal properties. Its velocity does not add with the velocity of the receiver. And light is not the oscillation of a medium (the ether), but it is a particle having wave properties (how it is composed, nobody can explain) and, therefore, its properties do not depend on the properties of this medium, i.e. they do not change over distance (and with time).

However the irony at the moment is that, that all measuring of distances and segments are done by relativists mentally by adding the effects of the procedures of their measurements to the considered phenomena. Certainly, that is invalid.

But we shall return to a problem about inertia again.

E. Mach, the idealist, positivist and fideist, also omitted mention of a medium, when he considered inertia as the interaction of a body with other bodies of the universe. It is exactly the same invention of hypothesis about which Newton spoke.

At first, all known laws of interaction between bodies have the appearance of inverse squares. Having interconnected all bodies, Mach obtains inertia, which acts instantly and is not bound by an inverse square relation even in the immediate proximity to the body of interaction – for example, the Earth.

Secondly, to what interactions did Mach refer? Are there nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitational or unknown interactions which take place between galaxies? You see "having united" the whole universe, he integrates all interactions also, including those, that he does not even consider or imagine.

However, we can read from J. Narlikar [12]: "In the past many physicists attempted to formulate a Mach principle quantitatively. Personally, Einstein, in developing his general theory of relativity, hoped to include a Mach principle. But his attempts appear to have been unsuccessful, and he even began to doubt the truth of Mach's principle in general. One of the last attempts to include Mach's principle in the theory of gravitation was undertaken by Shama, Dicke, Linden-Bell, Bartotty, Hoyle and the author of the present book. The chain of our reasoning starts with the formula connecting the mass of a typical particle to the existence of all remaining particles in the universe. Therefore, our initial formula gives a direct quantitative expression for Mach's principle..."

When we read this passage, we remember A.P. Chekhov's joke: "approaching the station, my hat has flown from me". As "the chain of our reasoning (Shama, Dicke, Linden-Bell, Bartotty, Hoyle and author of the present book) began from the formula, connecting the mass of a typical particle to the existence of all remaining particles in the universe". It is that the hat went, not the head, and the formula arose earlier of a thought. Yes, it is eventually possible to hide even the most delirious idea in mathematics, caring neither about common sense, nor about physical sense in general. The appeal of Dr. O. Oesterly [13] that physics should be created on a causal physical basis, instead of on mathematics, is especially important.

Newton, in considering the example of a rotating bucket with water, came to the conclusion that the definition of absolute (true) and relative motions with the help of a choice of origin coordinates is possible. Having declared the non-relativity of space, he could not, and did not connect the concepts of absolute accelerated motion and space.

And, if he applied the concept of explaining all combinations of phenomena only by the motion and interaction of bodies, he by all means would have come to the concept of a world medium (the ether) all the same. Ether is more than substance. Bodies interact with ether (in the case of inertia) and through it (in the case of gravitation). And subsequent generations of researchers would have had no chance to distort his doctrine.

However, it is necessary to note that for the first time in global practice a work has appeared, in which an attempt to explain the mechanism of inertia by the interaction of a moving body with the medium through which it moves is made [14].

Relativity of Galileo. Absolute and relative movements

After we have settled with invariants and with the interaction of inertia, we can start the consideration of one of the complicated philosophical problems that are connected with the abnormal deviations in the development of physics in the 20th century.

From the law of inertia the conclusion follows: that for zero acceleration there corresponds zero force (and vice-versa). In accordance with Newton's third law, an action is always accompanied by a counteraction, equal and opposite to it. This results in the formulation of a relativity: "the relative movements of bodies, enclosed in any space, are identical, whether this space is in a rest or moves uniformly and rectilinearly without rotation" (Newton).

From the position of initial principles this definition, given by Newton, is not correct. Space is absolute and its motion is undefined. Therefore, Newton meant something else: i.e., a system of bodies (including molecules of air) having received the same acceleration and moving along uniformly and rectilinearly without rotation. Now, inside this system the laws of mechanics and dynamics are indistinguishable from the same laws of the system before it was accelerated.

The definition of relativity given by Galileo we should consider as more correct [15]. "In a cabin of a ship moving uniformly and without tossing, you will not detect (judging by any surrounding interior phenomena, or from anything co-moving with you), whether the ship moves or is at rest".

This definition, given by Galileo, was revolutionary at that time, as it contradicted the dominant doctrine of Ptolemy, explaining geocentrism using the idea that "the Earth is immobile, otherwise clouds and birds would lag behind its motion".

From the point of view of empiricism and observations of nature, the law of inertia and relativity, which arises from it, do not cause doubts. But, if we look more widely and generalize these phenomena for causes, mechanisms and for a finiteness of the velocity of interactions, it is possible to come to a conclusion about their incompleteness and insufficiency.

In the frameworks of empiricism there was an idealization of both inertia and relativity, as it is implied, that the form of these laws is saved for any velocity of bodies relative to the ether. It is impossible to impute blame to Galileo, Newton, Euler, Laplace or to other researchers who worked prior to the appearance of the works of Gauss, Weber and Gerber on the phenomenon of retarded potential. [16].

But, as soon as the work of Gerber appeared, researchers were obliged to revise all classical mechanics, having entered into it the dynamics of interactions as the result of the finiteness of the velocity of propagation and the retardation of potential. This has not taken place for the subjective reasons listed in [17].

Naturally, the delay of potential should exert an influence on the law of inertia of bodies (where ether is concerned), approaching the velocity of the interaction itself, and, therefore, to result in a non-observance of Galilean relativity. This problem has not been investigated sufficiently. But, on the other hand, Galileo and Newton (and their followers) have not fully used the relativity, discovered by Galileo.

Newton, having come to a conclusion about the absolute motion of water in a rotating bucket (more correctly – to absolute acceleration), did not begin to consider the motions inside inertial systems.

As a matter of fact Galilean relativity allows us to distinguish absolute and relative motions. This is possible only within the framework of definite interaction in a system consisting of two bodies. If strange interactions do not interfere in an isolated (or quasi-isolated) system of two bodies interacting between themselves, (or there are interactions, which can be neglected), it is possible to consider their motions as absolute with respect to their center of gravity. It is possible to consider such systems as the Sun – planet, the Earth – moon etc. And, moreover, if a barycenter of interacting bodies practically coincides with the center of one of bodies, it is possible to consider motion of the second body as being absolute relative to the first. So, it is possible to accept the center of the Sun as a tentative absolute reference system for the solar System and the motion of the planets can be considered as absolute. Then: the Earth rotates around the Sun, but not the Sun around the Earth (recall G. Bruno), the stone drops to the Earth, but not the Earth to the stone etc.

For absolute motions it is necessary to consider the motion of bodies in an inertial system, for example, Galileo's ship cabin, as if the reference system is fixed with respect to it.