It is necessary to consider all remaining motions, which do not fall under the definition of absolute, as being relative or composite.
The institution of observers
Classical physics always uses one observer. The thought of the person has infinitely high "speed" and considers any phenomenon in its totality, as being simultaneous at its opposite ends. Distortion of this postulate by relativists, stating it as though Newton and his followers used an indefinitely high velocity of interaction, is a forgery.
Using this forgery, relativists have introduced the institution of observers, which evaluates any phenomenon with the help of signals. The signals should come to the observer from the opposite ends of a phenomenon with a certain constant velocity, which one does not add to the velocity of the observer. Use of this procedure for arrivals of signals at the observer results in apparent distortions of the length of a moving body, its mass and the rate of its local time referred to a reference frame moving with the observer. Depending on the location of the observer and his velocity relative to an observable body, it is possible to obtain an indefinitely great number of results from observations.
Light is adopted as a signal the velocity of which is adopted as an absolute invariant. However, direct experiments to verify that the velocity of light does not add with the velocity of the receiver are not conducted. For example, Sekerin offers to conduct such an experiment [18]. He maintains that it is possible to consider stellar aberration as proof that the velocity of light obeys a classical formula of addition of velocities with the velocity of the Earth.
The institution of observers is fideism (machism) in a refined form.
About the absence of general relativity
Galilean relativity has generated a problem for researchers: whether electromagnetic phenomena are subjected to this principle or not. It could be tested on the surface of the Earth, which in the given case plays the role of "cabin in the ship." Since the Earth is performing this role, it is necessary, that the medium, being the carrier of electromagnetic phenomena should completely be entrained by the earth, as it happens with air in the cabin.
Michelson, then Michelson and Morley, then Miller and other experimenters have taken check of an entrainment (or not entraining) of ether by the Earth [19].
But, at first, Michelson and following him all other experimenters, except Miller, have made a logical error. They took the speed of motion of the Earth in space concerning the Sun only, which is about 30 km / s. While the solar System itself moves around the center of the Galaxy with a speed ~400 km /s. It was easily possible to define a direction of motion of the solar system on a sidereal firmament by the direction of the Milky Way.
Secondly, having believed Lorentz that the Earth should not entrain ether, Michelson did not take into consideration Arago's experiments with lenses, on the refracting of light, and, in connection with them, Fresnel's theory about a partial entrainment of ether.
Arago observed stellar aberration, which indicates that the velocity of light from stars is summed with the velocity of the Earth' motion using a classical addition formula for velocities in space. He found out, that the orientation angle of lenses in relation to the direction of the Earth's motion does not influence their refracting properties.
Fresnel [20] interpreted the outcomes of the experiments of Arago as a partial entraining of ether by the Earth. Stellar aberration is simply explained by such a supposition. Fresnel made the hypothesis that "our terrestrial globe entrains some fraction of this medium to explain the absence of the effect of the motion of the Earth on the refraction of a prism. This refers to the part of ether, which is formed by itself with excess density in comparison with the ambient (or background) ether". Then the velocity of light (waves in ether) should be increased only with respect to the velocity of the barycenter of the two ethers and not strictly on the velocity of the Earth. Fresnel's hypothesis explained not only the facts of the existence of stellar aberration and the absence of the effect of the motion of the Earth on optical phenomena on its surface, but also all spectra of optical phenomena. It could mean only one thing: Fresnel's theory has an exact actual and logical basis.
Michelson's experiments could be considered only as a refinement of Arago's experiments: with respect to the hypothesis that ether is entrained at the surface of the Earth. Having found out, that the barycenter of the ethers, entrained and not entrained, moves with velocity about 3 km/s, it was possible to assert, that entrainment is practically complete (now almost precisely: ~99.3%).
From the experiments of Arago and Michelson the conclusion followed: yes, in the specific case of the Earth, it is possible to consider that there is a general principle of relativity, because at its surface the ether is practically completely entrained. But will this conclusion be correct for any inertial systems, as relativists consider them? Certainly it will not, because the value of entrainment of ether solely depends on the mass of the body. And, if now we consider the motion of the ship, a general principle does not exist any more in its cabin. This is proved by the interference experiments of Pogani and Sagnac on a rotating platform and also by Fizeau's experiment on an attempt to detect entrained ether by moving water. An entrainment of ether by a rotating platform and water in a background "of a dense atmosphere" of ether at the surface of the Earth (including the cabin of the ship) is so insignificant, that it can be neglected.
It means that it is impossible to use Galilean relativity for electromagnetic interactions, hence general relativity does not exist.
It is possible to assert that Hertz' reasoning [21] was the same, as he extended Maxwell's equations on the motion of electromagnetic phenomena concerning ether with velocity u.
Relativistic transformations
The Galilean transformations for inertial systems proceed from Euclid's geometry (and an orthogonal coordinate system). In consequence, the requirement of a postulate about the non-relativity of space to something external by means of the geometry of the operating forces is implemented, as the direction of acceleration precisely corresponds to the direction of the force, and the counteraction is precisely opposite to the operation.
In opposition to Hertz, relativists (Lorentz, etc.) searched for a certain transformation of coordinates, by which Maxwell's equations would remain invariant in a transition to another inertial system moving with respect to the first. This was possible for them due to the "Lorentz' factor," which followed from Fresnel's coefficient of light entrainment (dragging) by ether as a limiting case of full entrainment [22].
Thus, the relativistic transformations already follow from full entrainment of ether by bodies as result of an application by them of the "Lorentz factor," whether relativists want it or not. But, as experiments have shown, only massive bodies can fully entrain ether. Planets and stars are such bodies. Therefore, the use of such transformations for any inertial systems is not legitimate. If we consider the motion of an electromagnetic system with reference to the Earth' surface (considering ether as immovable with respect to the Earth's surface), its laws should be described by Hertz' equations, instead of Maxwell's.
However the main consequences of the introduction of general relativity were that the introduction of the new transformations were without casualty, without any basis. The initial principles of physics were dismissed. Namely, space and time became not irrespective to motion of matter and to each other. As a result, another reason was entered "over those, which one are true and are sufficient for the explanation of phenomena", a new conception – "space-time." The new conception was introduced artificially by using an arbitrary method: by multiplying the speed of light by the duration of time that the light is in motion from an observable phenomenon to the observer.
"Invariance" of the length of a segment under relativistic transformations and its "contact" with a retarded potential
The analysis of extending the principle relativity for an electromagnetic system for any inertial systems displays that each time a transition is made to a new inertial system, it is as though a full entrainment of ether by it is implied. It was made with the help of a final case of Fresnel's coefficient "of the Lorentz' factor". But, as relativists have refused to consider ether in general, it was necessary to invent a new essence – curvature of space-time and, thus, to declare a connection between space, time and mass (any observations, facts and experiments for this purpose did not exist and can not be).
It was made with the help of the introduction of the observer and procedure of measurement of a segment in another coordinate system moving relative to the first (connected with the observer) with the help of a light signal, to which one relativists have imputed a fanciful unreal property. This property is that the velocity of light does not add with the velocity of the receiver. However this property would turn out to be real only in the case where we recognize ether and by considering the entrainment of it by [ ] the coordinate system (of the receiver) as being complete. Actually, when the velocity of light relative to the immovable ether is constant and the ether is immovable relative to the receiver, the velocity of light will be the same in relation to the receiver independently from the velocity of the light before it became entrained by the ether. But, on the other hand, where can we now put that segment of the light path, where there is no entrainment of the ether? You see, the velocity of light and that of the receiver are added based on a classical addition formula of velocities (stellar aberration) for this path segment!
All this nonsense about the curvature of space-time would have been immediately rejected by the researchers of the planet, if it had not made "contact" with reality through an incorrect interpretation of Kaufman's experiments.
As it is shown in reference [17], the reason for the abnormal deviation of fast electrons in a transversal magnetic field is the reduction of the force of their interaction with a magnetic field dependent on velocity related to the retarded potential, not with the increase of their mass. When electrons attain a velocity equal to the velocity of electrodynamic interactions it should result in a full absence of their interaction with a magnetic field. Therefore the electrons will move rectilinearly without deviation.
But this argument appeared insufficient for the rejection of relativistic views, as in this case it is necessary to explain "abnormal" increasing of energy of electrons, which one appears to be much more than mV2/2. This fact has appeared decisive for the recognition of relativistic views.
And this fact always resulted in a defeat of the critics of relativism, as none of them could put forward explanations for the abnormal increasing of energy of electrons (as well as other particles) as a function of velocity. The author of this article presented a reason for the abnormal increasing of energy depending on velocity [17]. It was revealed that the researchers could find this reason at once after experiments of Germer and Davisson on the confirmation of the views of de Broglie [23]. From these experiments followed: that the greater the velocity of particles, nuclei, atoms and molecules, the greater the frequency of their de Broglie's waves. It was necessary only to relate this frequency to energy through the formula E = Hν, and all would be "OK". However nobody has made this step (or did not change his mind).
The full inconsistency of relativistic physics becomes obvious after the finding of the true reasons for the abnormal deviations of a trajectory of an electron in a transverse magnetic field and abnormal (in relation to classical dynamics) energy of accelerated particles in accelerators. It is true not only in philosophical sense (though it should be the main argument), but also actually, i.e. it is proved experimentally.