Philosophical Analysis of the Special Theory of Relativity on the Correspondence of its Content to the Necessary Condition of its Objectivity.

Popov Nikolai Andreevich PhD in Philosophy Materialist Philosopher LV-1057, Latviya, g. Riga, ul. Lokomotives, 64, kv. 10 n_popov@inbox.lv Other publications by this author

1.       Introduction.

More than a hundred years have passed since the creation of the special theory of relativity (SRT) by A. Einstein, and the disputes around it, both among physicists and among philosophers, do not stop, sometimes subsiding for a while, then flaring up with renewed vigor. At the same time, some consider it the greatest achievement of the human mind, while others consider it the main myth of the twentieth century (see, for example, ^{[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]}).

Moreover, the fact that the theory of relativity is not just a physical theory gives a special sharpness to this dispute. "...The theory of relativity has left a deep imprint on all other, present and future, physical theories: in the limiting region of high speeds, they must meet its formal requirements. Therefore, along with conventional quantum mechanics, relativistic quantum mechanics arises, along with classical cosmology, relativistic cosmology, etc." ^{[8, p. 250]}. Moreover, the opinion was confirmed that "the special theory of relativity, which was born in 1905, can fairly be considered the final moment of the classical period or the beginning of a new era in science. For, on the one hand, it proceeds from firmly established classical concepts of matter... and about causal, or, more precisely, deterministic, laws of nature. But, on the other hand, it introduces revolutionary ideas about space and time, strongly criticizing the traditional concepts formulated by Newton" ^{[9, p. 13]}. In addition, "... the theory of relativity claims to be the first principle, even the "topmost" principle, capable of canceling any other proven principles and concepts: space, time, conservation laws, etc." ^{[5, p. 7]}.

And in a situation where the same observations and experiments allow for different interpretations and explanations, the criterion of truth in this dispute is very often just self-confidence. For example, expressed by Academician E. B. Alexandrov: "...Any doubts about the correctness of early relativistic experiments cannot cast a shadow of doubt on the SRT, just as historians' doubts about the exact route of Magellan are unable to change the idea of the shape of the Earth... Only an ignoramus and a madman can argue about the truth of the multiplication table. For physics, SRT has become such a table." ^{[10, p. 109]}. But physics is represented not only by supporters of SRT, but also by its opponents, and the numerical superiority of the former over the latter is still not a decisive argument in the dispute about the truth of the theory. Therefore, at this stage, only philosophy as a science of the most general principles of the structure of the human-cognizable world can help resolve the dispute in the interests of both sides striving for the truth, according to the author of the article. At the same time, it seems that special attention should be paid to the concept of relativity as the cornerstone of SRT. Moreover, as many SRT researchers note, with the advent of this theory, "... the concept of relativity that existed in classical physics has largely changed its meaning. To penetrate into this meaning, to understand that Einstein's theory, which grew out of electrodynamics, has gone very far from the classical picture of the relative displacement of bodies – this is the task of science" ^{[11, p. 9]}. And since the theory of relativity finds a kind of continuation and development of the long-known thesis about the relativity of properties, it is with the evaluation of this thesis that we will begin our movement towards the evaluation of SRT.

2.       On the apparent relativity of properties and the necessary condition for the objectivity of scientific theories.

The thesis about the relativity of properties has long been a catch phrase and a kind of axiom of public consciousness, supported by official science, as can be seen from the following quotations from philosophical encyclopedias.

 "A property does not exist outside of a thing, but it does not exist outside of a relation and is therefore relative. The relativity of many properties was known in ancient times... After Locke, the division of properties into relative and absolute took root. Relativity theory has proved the relativity of a number of properties, including geometric shape and mass, which were previously considered absolute" ^{[12, p. 569]}.

 "Every property is relative: a property does not exist outside of relations to other properties and things" ^{[13, p. 598]}. Which, however, does not in the least prevent us from immediately asserting that "... the properties of things are inherent in them internally" [ibid.]. And no explanation is given as to how what is intrinsic to the thing itself can be determined by its environment.

Moreover, no one doubts that the thesis about the relativity of properties is filled with objective content. Indeed, who can be interested in what is possible only in human consciousness? But what requirements should theses and theories that claim the objectivity of their content and thus the status of scientific ones, which presupposes the objectivity of their content, meet? As Professor V. P. Bransky notes in the book "Philosophy of Physics of the twentieth Century", "... among the many possible worldviews there is one whose criterion of truth coincides with the criterion of truth in science. Such a worldview is usually called scientific" ^{[14, p. 14]}. The basis of this worldview, which was formed in the Renaissance and Enlightenment (XVI – XVIII centuries), "... was based on such a principle as objectivity (recognition of the existence before, outside and independently of both individual and collective human consciousness of some objective reality)" [ibid.]. And since the SRT also claims to be objective in its content, we will begin the research devoted to it by identifying the necessary condition for the objectivity of the content of scientific statements. And we will do this using the example of the thesis about the relativity of properties.

It is generally believed that the relativity of properties lies before everyone's eyes. So, for example, from the indisputable fact that a pencil is longer than a match, but shorter than a post, or that iron is harder than wood, but softer than diamond, it is concluded that the corresponding properties are relative. But is this really the case? Does the length of the pencil depend on what it is compared to? Of course not! The result of comparing quantities depends on the choice of the object of comparison, and not the compared quantities! At the same time, it should be borne in mind that it is possible to compare only what is determined – both qualitatively and quantitatively - BEFORE the comparison procedure (a special case of which is the measurement procedure) and thus regardless of the objects of comparison. And since the very possibility of such a comparison is not disputed by anyone, this means that IN FACT THERE is NO RELATIVITY of PROPERTIES IN the WORLD KNOWN BY MAN. I.e., the thesis about the relativity of properties does not have any objectivity of its content.

But the following interesting questions immediately arise: and what in the human-cognizable world provides the specified possibility of comparing properties and thereby their non-relative nature? What is the general structure of this world? And since the possibility of comparing properties is provided by the possibility of their detection, i.e., the cognizability of the world known by man, it is from the side of its cognizability that we will approach an in-depth consideration of its general structure and the consequences arising from its structure concerning the principle of objectivity.

Firstly, since it is possible to know with the help of sense organs and devices only that which is able to declare its existence through any interaction with its environment, this means that the WORLD KNOWN by MAN, BRIEFLY REFERRED to as "NATURE", OWES THIS COGNIZABILITY TO NOTHING OTHER THAN ITS MATERIALITY. I.e. such an existence of all its constituent elements, which manifests itself through interaction, mutual influence and thereby interchange. As we can see, the cognizability of the world is inseparable from its material essence. And on the other hand, since all its constituent elements manifest their properties by interacting with their environment completely independently of the subject, it owes its material essence to the objectivity of its existence.

Secondly, since it is possible to manifest in interactions only such properties that are determined – both from the quality side and from the quantity side - before interaction, before their manifestation, this means that ALL THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE WORLD KNOWN BY MAN ARE COMPREHENSIVELY DEFINED IN THEIR PROPERTIES BEFORE ANY MANIFESTATION OF THESE PROPERTIES.

Thirdly, from this comprehensive certainty of properties before their manifestation, it follows that NOT ONLY THE QUALITATIVE, BUT ALSO THE QUANTITATIVE SIDE OF ALL PROPERTIES HAS A NATURAL, MATERIALLY CONDITIONED FORM OF EXPRESSION DETERMINED BY THE CARRIERS OF THESE PROPERTIES THEMSELVES. The presence of a natural form of expression of the magnitude of properties allows a person to compare the values of the same type of properties without waiting for the numerical value of their magnitude to be revealed (based, for example, on the fact that the length of a pencil is expressed by the spatial distance of its ends from each other, and the degree of hardness of iron is its ability to maintain its existing shape under external influence. The ability given by the features of its internal structure). In addition, the procedure for measuring properties, the procedure for determining their numerical value is also possible only due to the presence of an "integer" form of expression of their magnitude.

Fourthly, from the presence of a natural, materially conditioned form of expression of properties, it follows that EVERY PROPERTY HAS AN INDEPENDENT CHARACTER, I.E. THE SAME FOR ALL REFLECTION SYSTEMS. Moreover, we are talking here primarily about the magnitude of properties, since there is no question of the relativity of the qualitative facet of properties anywhere. And on the other hand, this conclusion concerns not only properties, but also external characteristics (such as, for example, mutual location in space and time).

But what prompted a person to think about the relativity of properties, if all the properties reflected by him, as we have seen, are of an independent nature? And here we pay attention to the fact that a person can reflect the value of the detected property only by comparing it with the value of another property, and of the same type. There is simply no other way to reflect it, to transfer it into human consciousness. And as a result, a person in his cognitive activity deals not only with a natural form of expression of quantities independent of him, but also with such a form of their expression that arises in his consciousness as a result of comparing quantities in the natural form of their expression and therefore represents a secondary, comparative, subjective (verbal or numerical) form of expression values that depend on what is compared with what (including the choice of units of measurement according to their scale), and therefore having a relative character. Due to the delay in realizing the natural form of expressing the magnitude of properties, it was the comparative form that appeared in the foreground of human consciousness and began to be perceived as the only possible form of expressing their magnitude. Hence the confidence in the relativity of properties. But this means that in fact there is only an illusion of the relativity of properties, which arises in the absence of a clear idea of the presence of a natural form of expression of their magnitude and is a consequence of the unlawful identification of the magnitude of the property with the result of its comparison, correlation.

This, according to the author, is the origin of the thesis about the relativity of properties. Speaking of it, it should also be borne in mind that, thanks to the rules of comparison and measurement of properties developed in the course of practical activity, which fully correspond to the presence of a natural form of expression of quantities, this thesis still did not have any real impact on human practical activity. This, however, does not detract from the importance of realizing that in fact, in the properties of a thing, it is not the relation to other properties and things that finds expression, but this thing itself, its internal structure, its content that manifests itself when it interacts with other things. And being an expression of the internal structure of a thing, no property can be determined by its relation to other things, either from the qualitative or quantitative side. Moreover, this general principle of the interrelation of properties and relations was formulated by K. Marx: "...The properties of a given thing do not arise from its relation to other things, but are only found in such a relation..." ^{[15, p. 67]}. But modern researchers of the category of properties also point to this, emphasizing that "... the properties of objects, i.e. their ability to detect certain sides and characteristics in the processes of interconnection and interaction, are determined by their internal nature, structure, structure" ^{[16, p. 69]}. However, such statements did not have any effect on the survivability of the thesis about the relativity of properties. And with the advent of the SRT, he penetrated into the very foundation of science. And also under the flag of objectivity. But we are not interested in the flag, but in the necessary condition of objectivity. We have come to his realization.

Objectivity, as we know, means independence from the subject. But how is this independence ensured? And the answer here, as we have seen, is one – the presence of a natural, materially conditioned form of expression. Only that which can have such a form of expression, and can exist as something objective. But after all, any scientific statement can be objective in content only if everything that is discussed in it is compatible with the presence of a natural form of expression, i.e. it can be represented not only in human consciousness, but also in nature itself. Such is the indissoluble connection of the objective with the material, from which it follows that A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE CONTENT OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES WITH THE OBJECTIVITY OF THEIR CONTENT IS ITS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE MATERIAL CONDITIONALITY OF EVERYTHING THAT IS DISCUSSED IN IT.From the position of this requirement for scientific theories, reflecting, in the author's opinion, the deepest essence of the world known by man, inaccessible to any measurements, we will proceed to the analysis of SRT as a physical theory offering such relativity of properties, which supposedly follows from observations, experiments and measurements and therefore takes place in nature itself.

3.       Does the theory of relativity satisfy the necessary condition for the objectivity of scientific theories?

In the book of the active propagandist of the SRT M. Gardner, The Theory of Relativity for Millions, an assessment of this theory is given by the famous scientist William Macmillan, expressed by him in 1927: "... In the forty years that have passed since Michelson's attempt to detect the expected movement of the Earth relative to the ether, we have abandoned everything we were taught before, created a postulate, the most meaningless of all that we could only come up with, and created a non-Newtonian mechanics consistent with this postulate. The success achieved is an excellent tribute to our mental activity and our wit, but there is no certainty that our common sense" ^{[18, p. 111]}. At the same time, it is noted in the book that "he directly said that the theory of relativity is a sad misunderstanding" [ibid.]. Moreover, the fact is also noted in the book that "Michelson himself... he never recognized the theory of relativity, although his great experiment paved the way for the special theory of relativity" [ibid.]. Nevertheless, today SRT occupies not just a dominant position in physics, but has become a kind of sacred cow that requires unquestioning worship. We, having set ourselves the goal of conducting a philosophical analysis of this theory, will begin it with a brief history of its appearance.

As Einstein notes in his memoirs, already in his younger years he was obsessed with the desire to discover some general principle of nature. But since the discovery of such laws is not an easy matter, at some point he "began to despair of the possibility of getting to the true laws by constructive generalizations of known facts" ^{[19, p. 150]}. And yet, Einstein continues, "I got this principle after ten years of thinking from a paradox that I stumbled upon at the age of 16. The paradox is as follows. If I were to move after a ray of light at a speed of C..., then I would have to perceive such a ray of light as a stationary, space-variable electromagnetic field. But nothing like this exists; this can be seen both on the basis of experience and from Maxwell's equations" [ibid., pp. 150-151]. It was from this principle, proclaiming that "the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all coordinate systems moving rectilinearly and uniformly relative to each other" [ibid., p. 275], that relativistic physics began. "We are used to the fact that in the laws of the "old", Newtonian physics, everything is simple and familiar, that these laws reign supreme around us. And suddenly – the theory of relativity. We are told that the speed of light is always constant, no matter how the light source or the observer moves. And a new, relativistic physics arises" ^{[20, p. 6]}.

As we can see, Einstein's memories push us to think that the new physics owes its appearance ultimately to the logical paradox to which the assumption of the possibility of catching up with a ray of light supposedly leads. But did anyone have or have experience of moving at the speed of light, which allows us to speak with complete confidence about how a "stationary" beam of light will behave and be perceived at the same time? But the experience, for example, of a water skier who is able to stay on the crest of a wave from a towboat for a long time, feeling the elasticity of this wave motionless relative to him - which, like an electromagnetic wave, cannot be stopped without destroying it – suggests that the wave as an objective, material process remains itself and becomes stationary relative to the observer with its frame of reference. The limitation of the speed of light indicated by Einstein does not follow from Maxwell's equations, as indicated by theoretical physicists themselves (see, for example, ^{[5, pp. 143-146]}), who put the physics of phenomena at the forefront of their research, and not their mathematical constructions, which are very often subject to very far from physics requirements.

And on the other hand, when getting acquainted with the postulate stating that the speed of light in all inertial reference systems (ISO) is equal to C (300,000 km/sec), it is puzzling that when assessing the speed of light (which, like any motion in general, is relative), it says about the speed of its movements are not relative to ISO, but in ISO. I.e., in this postulate, the preposition "relatively" is replaced by the preposition "in". Is such a replacement accidental?

It turns out that it is not accidental at all. The fact is that the proclamation of the universal principle of the constancy of the speed of light in a form corresponding to the relative nature of any movement was hindered by such an obvious law of nature, not only for physicists, as the inability to move at the same speed relative to all other objects in a state of mutual motion at once. The world is so arranged that any moving object at any moment of its existence moves at different speeds relative to other objects. Therefore, for example, if a person moves relative to the deck of a floating ship at a speed of V, then relative to the shore his speed will necessarily be different, not equal to V. So, replacing the preposition "relatively" with the preposition "b" allowed Einstein to find such a principle, such a form of constancy of the speed of light, which does not contradict the specified regularity of nature. It allowed the idea of the incognitability of a ray of light to be embodied in a physical theory. But what is the price of compatibility of the form of constancy of the speed of light found by Einstein with the impossibility of moving at the same speed relative to all other objects at once?

If we translate the phrase "the speed of light is equal to C in all ISO" into the language of relativity of all motion, then we will find that it means that the numerical value of the speed of light relative to any ISO is equal to C according to the clocks and rulers of this ISO. I.e. Einstein's postulate about the speed of light binds a certain numerical value this speed belongs to a certain belonging of the units of measurement in which it is expressed. And we will also find (since the impossibility of moving at the same speed relative to "everything at once" is not canceled by anyone) that according to the clocks and rulers of any ISO, the speed of the same beam of light should be different relative to different ISO. If, for example, the speed of movement of a ray of light relative to ISO-1 is equal to C, then the speed of its movement relative to ISO-2 will be (according to the same clocks and rulers!) necessarily not equal to C. But what then is the universality, the universality of the proposed SRT constancy of the speed of light? A strange kind of constancy, even ugly, because it does not prevent this speed from having a very different value. It all depends on the clock and the rulers of which ISO it is expressed. However, all the oddities of such constancy of the speed of light lie, as it were, outside the field of view of relativists, they try not to pay any attention to them.

In the case of the theory of relativity, we are faced with a one-sided, selective approach to estimating the speed of light, embedded in the very basis of this theory. As we have seen, thanks to this replacement of prepositions, the SRT postulate about the constancy of the speed of light contains an implicit requirement to express the speed of light relative to any ISO only by its own clocks and rulers of this ISO. Which leads the supporters of SRT, who are under the hypnosis of this postulate, to a kind of voluntary-forced blink when assessing the speed of light relative to different ISO, which, in turn, leads to the fact that there is no other speed of light (except that which is expressed in its own units of measurement for the ISO under consideration and therefore, by definition, is equal to C) they, looking only at the front, highlighted and protruding side of the complex and multifaceted design of the service station, simply do not notice. Which allows them to talk about some kind of speed limit of mutual movement. Including the maximum speed of mutual movement of spacecraft. But here, too, there are unafishable oddities. For example, supporters of the SRT, forced to admit that ships flying past the Earth towards each other at a speed of 0.75 S relative to the Earth will have, according to the Earth clock, a speed relative to each other equal to 1.5 S, while saying the following: "Nothing in the theory of relativity forbids this. However, SRT claims that if you are flying in one of the ships, then calculating the relative speed of these ships, you should get a value less than the speed of light" ^{[18, p. 59]}. That is, from the various permissible SRT options for calculating the speed of mutual movement of ships, you simply have to choose the one at which it turns out to be less than C. These are relativistic recommendations for the "correct" assessment of the speed of any mutual movement.

And yet the main thing for the evaluation of SRT is not hidden in the oddities of the constancy of the speed of light and the limiting speed of any mutual movement proposed by it. Special attention should be paid to the fact that the flip side of the constancy of the speed of movement of light in all ISO is the dependence of the speed of its movement relative to any ISO on the choice of reference systems, which are essentially reflection systems. So, if the speed of light relative to ISO-1 is equal to C according to the clocks and rulers of this ISO, then according to the clocks and rulers of other ISO, this speed will no longer be equal to C. Moreover, the virus of such dependence is transmitted to SRT and to other quantities considered in this theory. We are talking about the same dependence of lengths and durations, mathematically represented in SRT by Lorentz transformations. The dependence of all these values on the choice of reflection systems is the basis of the entire building of the SRT, built on the idea of the incompleteness of the light beam. But what does this dependence that permeates the whole theory of relativity say?

And she says, firstly, about the incompatibility of this theory with the recognition of a natural, "numerical", materially conditioned and therefore the same for all reference systems form of expression of the magnitude of all properties available in nature. Secondly, it speaks of the incompatibility of this theory with the idea of reference systems as systems of mere reflection. That is, with such a representation, based on which it should be recognized that different numerical values of the magnitude of the same property are possible only in the case of a distorted reflection of this magnitude, represented by the corresponding natural form of its expression. In order to understand the essence of SRT, it is very important to come to a clear realization that all the reference systems discussed in this theory are essentially systems of just reflection. This is also said by other researchers of the theory of relativity, who emphasize that "any frame of reference is only a way of describing a phenomenon that cannot affect the phenomenon itself" ^{[21, p. 63]}. In the SRT, reference systems with their inherent units of measurement turn out to be systems that determine, set all the quantities affected by it, and ultimately adjust these quantities to the Procrustean bed of the requirements of its postulate about the constant numerical value of the speed of light relative to any ISO according to its own clocks and rulers. The unlawful endowment of reference systems with this role allows SRT to manipulate values in accordance with the constancy of the speed of light proclaimed by it in all ISO.

Thus, having highlighted the shaded sides of SRT, we inevitably come to the following conclusion: in the theory of relativity, we are implicitly talking about such dependence, about such relativity of the quantities considered by it, which is incompatible with the presence of a natural form of their expression and thereby with the recognition of the objectivity of their existence. And this means that THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY DOES NOT POSSESS ANY OBJECTIVITY OF CONTENT. The relativity of quantities proposed by it is possible only in human consciousness. This is the price of compatibility of the form of constancy of the speed of light found by Einstein (by replacing prepositions) with the impossibility of moving at the same speed relative to the entire environment at once. But this is also the price of turning the idea of the incomprehensibility of a ray of light into a physical theory.

But the supporters of SRT constantly emphasize the special contribution of this theory to the development of scientific ideas about relativity. However, a closer look reveals that they are talking about relativity in some specific understanding of it. It is identified by them with equality, equivalence of various ISO in relation to the laws of nature. For example, the SRT postulate, which extends the equality of ISO to electrodynamic and optical phenomena, is presented by them as "Einstein's principle of relativity, extending Galileo's principle of relativity" ^{[22, p. 302]}. At the same time, in the new physics, the principle of relativity is also interpreted as a requirement to preserve the uniform appearance of the equation of motion in all ISO (which, according to the physicists themselves, is "more aesthetic than physical in nature" ^{[21, p. 63]}). However, we found out that in fact, the essence of the theory of relativity is expressed not at all by the "showcase" relativity, which is understood as the equality of all ISO and which was introduced by Einstein in the name of the theory, but by the relativity hidden from the surface view, which is contained in the SRT postulate, which puts the speed of light in direct dependence on reflection systems and thereby depriving this theory of any chance of the objectivity of its content. Therefore, this main, essential relativity for SRT turns out to be its Achilles heel.

And only without noticing this main relativity for SRT, it could be argued that "the special theory of relativity does not violate the well-founded laws of classical mechanics and the foundations of technology based on them repeatedly proven by experience... It is nothing but a direct continuation of classical mechanics for the case of motion with very high speeds" ^{[20, p. 37]}. The question is, what kind of "direct continuation of classical mechanics" can we talk about if this theory is fundamentally incompatible with the recognition of the natural form of expression of the magnitude of properties and with the idea of measurement and calculation procedures as procedures for the entire reflection of quantities given in the natural form of their expression? How can it be a continuation of the physics in which both are complementary axioms of cognition of the world, even if not fully realized?

And to what has been said, we add that no results of observations, experiments and measurements, which are the universally recognized basis of all physical knowledge, could lead to the discovery of such constancy of the speed of light, which is represented by the postulate of SRT. This could not be for the reason that before the advent of SRT, all measurements were carried out according to the rules developed in the course of practical activity and therefore taking into account just the existence of a natural form of expression of the magnitude of all properties. I.e., according to rules that in no way allow for the possibility of different numerical values of the reflected quantities for different reference systems. Therefore, only free fiction could lead to the appearance of this postulate. Which is what happened. And only after its appearance, physicists in their judgments began to attribute the speed of light relative to one or another ISO a different value for different ISO, i.e. they began to assume that it depends on the choice of the reflection system. Moreover, this dependence was presented as a kind of a priori, not based on the results of observations and measurements of knowledge, which, however, requires mandatory accounting. This is also pointed out by other SRT researchers: "It is necessary to emphasize the very important role of the Einstein clock synchronization rule and the actual clock synchronization according to this rule in each reference frame. This rule is arbitrary and even metaphysical. It cannot be proved or disproved experimentally; it asserts that signals propagating from east to west and from west to east have equal velocities, whereas Michelson's experience allows us to measure only the arithmetic mean of these two velocities. Obviously, we are dealing here with an unexpected and unverifiable hypothesis. Our analysis of the problem as a whole using the Doppler effect shows that actual physical facts do not directly confirm Einstein's hypothesis" ^{[23, p. 100]}. At the same time, the author of this hypothesis himself was not concerned about the problem of its non-deducibility from the available measurement results. Having asked the question: "If experience is the beginning and the end of all our knowledge, then what is the role of reason in science?" ^{[19, p. 62]}, he answered it by searching for general principles of physics based on just the "free creation of the human mind" [ibid., p. 63]. He simply did not notice that the freedom of scientific creativity consists only in the freedom of the most accurate reflection of what is inherent in nature itself. Nor did I notice that all free creations of the mind are divided into what corresponds to the general principles that guide nature in her work, and thus has every chance of being objective in its content, and what does not correspond to them and thus represents a creation doomed to the bias of its content with any subjective attitude towards him.

4.       About hypothetical relativistic "abbreviations" and relativistic interpretation of some natural phenomena.

But the appearance of the SRT caused a dispute among the supporters of this theory. And the reason for it was the question of the reality of those reductions in lengths and durations that are mathematically represented by Lorentz transformations and are associated with the transition from one ISO to another. Without doubting the very dependence of the numerical value of the magnitude of these properties on the choice of reference systems by whose units of measurement these values are expressed, they argue about what exactly this dependence is due to: either a reduction in the length and duration of the bodies and processes themselves, or the procedure for giving their lengths and durations their numerical value in various ISO. At the same time, the former consider these abbreviations, presented as "relativistic effects", real, and the latter – unreal, seeming. So, for example, the popularizing physicist STO Ugarov V. A. writes: "First of all, it is clear that no real reduction in the length of the ruler can happen. This follows from the basic principle underlying the SRT - the principle of equality of all ISO. In all ISO, the physical condition of the ruler is the same. Therefore, there can be no question of the occurrence of any stresses and deformations leading to a reduction in the ruler. The “shortening” of the ruler occurs solely due to the different ways of measuring length in two reference frames. Therefore, there is really no shortening" ^{[24, p. 68]}. He says the same thing about time dilation: "...It is often said that moving clocks go slower than stationary ones. It is impossible not to recognize this phraseology as extremely unsuccessful. The fact is that the clocks in all ISO go exactly the same" [ibid., p. 71]. The same position on this issue is taken by M. Born, who claims that "... all relativistic abbreviations are only a consequence of our way of considering material objects, and not some kind of change in physical reality" ^{[9, p. 258]}.

But their opponents are equally categorical: "Due to the relativity of the concepts of "stationary" and "moving" systems, the ratios for t and t are reversible. However, this does not mean that time dilation is an apparent phenomenon. The reality of time dilation lies in the relativity of simultaneity, which is why “moving” and “stationary” clocks (but not reference frames!) unequal: moving clocks (one) are compared with several, at least two, stationary clocks" ^{[22, p. 306]}. Moreover, some of them see the proof of the reality of relativistic reductions already in the Lorentz transformations themselves. For example, academician V. L. Ginsburg claims that "according to the Lorentz transformations, time flows differently in different reference frames" ^{[25, p. 54]}.

But at its core, this is a dispute about the physical explanation of what is physically inexplicable, since, as we have seen, the dependence of the magnitude of a property on the choice of a system of reflection of quantities is possible only in human consciousness. I.e. physics is powerless here, "out of the game". At the same time, supporters of the recognition of the reality of relativistic contractions, who explain these contractions by the deformation of the bodies themselves and the change in the duration of the processes themselves, do not see that all these changes can only be the same for all reflection systems. Those who explain the numerical value of the length of the same body and the duration of the same process, which is different for different ISO, by the procedure of giving these quantities their numerical value, do not see that a different result of reflecting the same properties by different reflection systems is possible only in the case of their distorted reflection. But they also do not notice that by associating these reductions with the speed of movement of the corresponding material structures (bodies, processes, measuring instruments), they thereby contradict the SRT postulate of full equality of all ISO, which does not allow any dependence of their properties on the speed of their movement, i.e. any of their "sensitivity"to their speed.

At the same time, it is customary in relativistic literature to emphasize that "Einstein, having abandoned the ether, made the concept of absolute length meaningless. Only the length obtained as a result of the measurement remained, and it turned out that it depends on the relative velocity of the object and the observer" ^{[18, p. 47]}. However, in the light of this awareness of the fact of the existence of a natural form of expression of the magnitudes of all properties, the relationship of SRT with ether as a kind of luminiferous medium and absolute – i.e., independent of reference systems – lengths seem somewhat different. And first of all, because the absolute nature of the magnitude of all properties is predetermined by the presence of a natural form of expression of these quantities, and not by anything else. I.e., the absolute nature of the quantities is in no way connected with any ether as a kind of absolute reference system. Moreover, after physicists at the end of the nineteenth century recognized the electromagnetic field as a self-sufficient physical object that does not need an additional carrier, the need for ether as a light-bearing medium disappeared as if by itself, and not at all because of Einstein's theory, which, due to its incompatibility with the natural form of expression of quantities, itself turns out to be meaningless., scientific.

But the SRT is really involved in the rejection of physics from the absolute truth, which is the same for all reference systems. The denial of such a truth unites all supporters of the SRT. "The fact that these confusing changes in length and time are called "apparent" does not mean that there are "true" lengths or times that simply "seem" different to different observers. Length and time are relative concepts. They have no meaning outside of the connection of the object with the observer. The question is not that one measurement system is “true” and the other is “false". Each system is true relative to the observer making the measurements - relative to his own frame of reference. One dimension cannot be considered more correct than another. At the same time, all these are not optical illusions, which must be explained by a psychologist. Measurements can be recorded by instruments. They do not require the presence of a living observer" [ibid., p. 51].

However, as shown in the previous part of the article, the postulate about the constancy of the speed of light in all ISO did not appear at all on the basis of measurements. Rather, on the contrary – despite them, since optical phenomena such as light aberration and the Doppler effect, detected on the basis of measurements, unequivocally testified to the dependence of the speed of light on the motion of both the source and receiver of this light. Therefore, to assert that the results of measurements led to the rejection of absolute lengths, durations and absolute truth, and that in general "the private theory of relativity arose when it became impossible to do without it under the pressure of facts" ^{[26, p. 70]}, means to give a distorted idea of what actually happened. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the independence of the speed of light proclaimed by relativists from the movement of the source and receiver, firstly, is very conditional (since this speed of light relative to both depends largely on the choice of its reflection system and therefore can be very different), and secondly, it is possible only in human consciousness (in view of just this dependence).

Nevertheless, in relativistic explanations of relativistic abbreviations, one can also find peculiar revelations, unexpected "staggers" towards the truth: "You ask: how is it possible for each ship to be shorter than the other? You will ask the wrong question. The theory does not say that each ship is shorter than the other. She says that an astronaut on each of the ships will find when measuring that the other ship is shorter. These are completely different things. If two people stand on opposite sides of a huge biconcave lens, then each of them will see the other less than himself; but this is not the same if we say that each of them is smaller than the other. In addition to the apparent changes in length, there are also apparent changes in time" ^{[18, pp. 47-48]}. As we can see, relativists are forced to show miracles of logical resourcefulness, saying on one page that "all this is not optical illusions" (see above), and on the other that it all just seems. However, this comparison of SRT with a refractive (i.e., distorting the true dimensions) lens, caused by the desire to show the illusory inconsistency of SRT conclusions, is noteworthy precisely because it reflects just the true role of this theory in human cognitive activity. After all, to put the SRT on a par with the lens means to implicitly admit that the SRT also gives a distorted idea of what takes place in nature itself. What is missing here is the awareness of this hidden recognition and the corresponding attitude to this theory.

But it should also be noted that Einstein is credited with the physical interpretation of the Lorentz transformations: "All three – Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein – found independently of each other a mathematical structure expressing the special principle of relativity (Lorentz transformations). But to discover the special principle of relativity meant to find the correct physical interpretation of this structure. The question arises: why, out of the many possible interpretations of the Lorentz transformations, only Einstein chose the correct one based on the idea of changing the properties of space and time in moving reference frames?" ^{[14, p. 217]}.

But then counter-questions immediately arise, mostly rhetorical. First of all, isn't the "physical" something that manifests itself through interaction with its environment and therefore is equivalent to the material? This means that the correct interpretation of the Lorentz transformations presupposes reliance on the properties of representatives of the material world, which space and time are not. And not being something material, they do not even have properties. Has anyone observed and measured the properties of space and time itself directly, and not the spatial and temporal properties and relations of material bodies and processes (which, due to their physicality, material conditionality, have an absolute character)? But what kind of "physical", "correct" Einstein interpretation can we talk about, if the whole physics of this interpretation is far-fetched? As shown by Cheshev V. V., "... the Lorentz transformation appeared from the general mathematical requirement of invariance, and not from the analysis of the physical essence of the process... And both in its content and in the situation to which it is applied, it has nothing to do with the physical meaning of the principle of relativity. Therefore, the attempt to consider the Lorentz transformation as a generalization of the relativity principle of classical mechanics is a strange curiosity of science" ^{[27, p. 13]}. And from the fact that supposedly Einstein "... this reduction is not explained dynamically, as in the Lorentzian concept of reduction... Einstein's contraction is a purely kinematic effect, it is explained only by movement, the dimensions of the body are one in one frame of reference and another in another, because these systems move one relative to the other. A change in the frame of reference causes bodies to contract longitudinally, because the metric of space changes ..." ^{[11, p. 103]}, the essence of the matter does not change. And it lies in the fact that the dependence of body size on the choice of a system reflecting these dimensions is incompatible with the presence of a natural form of expression of these dimensions and thereby with any objectivity of their existence.

And it is not surprising that the conclusions of the SRT are opposed by the common sense of even the supporters of this theory themselves. This, for example, is clearly seen in the example of the so-called "twin paradox", which M. Born describes as follows: "The paradox of this result lies in the fact that every internal process in system B must occur slower than the same process in system A. All atomic processes–even, of course, life itself–must behave exactly like a clock. Thus, if A and B were twins, then B should be younger than A upon returning from a trip. This is indeed a strange conclusion, but it, however, cannot be avoided by any tricks of logic. Before that, we have to give up, just as a few centuries ago we had to admit that creatures like us in the land of the antipodes are upside down" ^{[9, pp. 250-251]}. And this, mind you, is written by a physicist who, as noted, stands on the positions of "apparent" relativistic decelerations-contractions! And on the other hand, in fact, the "strangeness" of the conclusions of the SRT does not end with the fact that one of the twins should be younger than the other. The fact is that the postulate of equivalence, equality of all ISO requires us to recognize that all relativistic decelerations must be symmetrical. I.e., not only processes B must proceed slower than processes A, but also processes A – slower than processes B. Which makes the conclusions of the SRT no longer just strange, but absurd, because when the twins meet, each of them must be younger than his counterpart. And no tricks with acceleration and deceleration of some reference systems (which allegedly puts these systems in special conditions of movement and thereby "neutralizes" the requirement of symmetry of decelerations) do not allow to avoid this absurdity, since theoretically nothing prevents to provide absolutely equal conditions for acceleration and deceleration of various reference systems. And therefore, references are already being made to the fact that "the theory is absurd because nature is absurd" ^{[28, pp. 8-13]}, although by "absurd" it is customary to understand just what does not happen in nature itself.

Moreover, the supporters of SRT are forced to silently ignore the requirement of this theory for the symmetry of relativistic slowdowns-contractions not only in their mental experiments, but also in explaining real phenomena. For example, such as the behavior of mesons formed in the upper atmosphere and reaching the circumference of the Earth, despite the fact that the estimated time of their existence does not allow them to do so at a speed equal to or less than the speed of light. And here, too, for the sake of creating the appearance of a consistent relativistic explanation of the discovered phenomenon, a reduction in time and distance is indicated only for one of the mutually moving reference frames (see, for example, the corresponding judgments of M. Born ^{[9, pp. 253-254]}).

Nevertheless, no relativistic paradoxes prevented the supporters of SRT from declaring everything that somehow contradicted this theory as a prejudice requiring speedy elimination. As Einstein emphasizes in his reflections on the relationship between physics and reality, "in classical physics, it has always been assumed that clocks in motion and at rest have the same rhythm, that scales in motion and at rest have the same length. If the speed of light is the same in all coordinate systems, if the theory of relativity is valid, then we must sacrifice this position. It is difficult to get rid of deep-rooted prejudices, but there is no other way. From the point of view of relativity theory, the old concepts seem arbitrary. Why should we believe, as we did before, in absolute time, which is the same for all observers in all systems? Why should we believe in an unchangeable distance? Time is determined by clocks, spatial coordinates are determined by scales, and the result of these definitions may depend on the behavior of these clocks and scales when they are in motion. There is no reason to believe that they will behave as we would like" ^{[19, p. 281]}.

All this is really not a matter of faith at all. This is a question of understanding whether the relativistic innovations listed by Einstein are compatible with the fundamental property of the world known by man, which ensures its cognizability. And at the same time, it is not necessary to link the recognition by classical physics of the independence of the magnitudes of reflected lengths and durations from the choice of their reflection systems with the mandatory recognition of some entities detached from moving matter in the face of absolute space and absolute time. From the fact that "the classical principle of relativity does not raise the question at all about how descriptions of the same phenomenon made in different reference frames will correlate" ^{[27, p. 7]} and that classical physics is alien to the idea that the spatial and temporal properties of the reflected phenomenon may somehow depend on there should be no choice of a reflection system, no recognition of the independence of space and time as some independent entities by it.

At the same time, no one disputes that the erroneous idea of space and time as some independent entities really dominated in the physics of Newton's time. However, this view is easily corrected within the framework of classical physics by recognizing that the concepts of space and time hide only the spatial and temporal properties and relationships of material bodies and processes. Supporters of SRT see getting rid of this erroneous idea of Newtonian physics not in refusing to recognize the very fact of the existence of such entities, but in limiting their independence to dependence on the motion of matter (despite the fact that in fact, SRT is talking about the dependence of spatial and temporal properties of bodies and processes on the choice of reflection systems according to the speed of their relative movement). Consequently, it is the new, and not the old, physics that is inseparable from the recognition of entities that have absolutely no physicality of their existence, i.e. inaccessible to either sense organs or instruments.

5.       On the relativity of simultaneity and a single space-time.

But from the SRT postulate about the constancy of the speed of light in all ISO, such a relativistic "discovery" as the relativity of simultaneity follows. At the same time, relativists demonstrate the inevitability of such relativity in their mental experiments with remote clocks of some ISO synchronized with a beam of light (see, for example, ^{[9, pp. 223-224]}). Proceeding at the same time from the proclaimed constancy of the speed of light, at which its speed relative to any ISO turns out to be different for observers of different ISO, they come to the conclusion that clocks that go "in step" with each other for an observer of one ISO turn out to be "out of step" with each other for observers of other ISO, and, consequently, that events that are simultaneous by the clock of one ISO turn out to be non-simultaneous by the clock of other ISO. However, their conclusion does not take into account the important fact that in nature itself all temporal connections and relationships between events arise completely independently of any reflection systems with their clocks and ways of synchronizing them. They arise only due to the very fact of the occurrence of events and therefore are exactly the same for all reflection systems. From which it follows, firstly, that in fact the simultaneity of events is absolute, independent of any reflection systems, and secondly, that the postulate about the speed of light is erroneous, on the basis of which the synchronicity of the clock is estimated and the conclusion is made about the relativity of simultaneity.

An important addition to the relativity of simultaneity in the picture of the world drawn by relativists is such an element of this picture as a single space-time, the existence of which is allegedly indicated by two factors: the relationship of changes in the spatial and temporal coordinates of events present in SRT during the transition from one ISO to another (which allows us to talk about a certain "mutual compensation" of these characteristics) and the alleged ability to measure time in meters. "...People who studied physics measured time in sacred units – seconds, other than the units in which they measured space. It never occurred to anyone to apply the same units here and there or to try to combine squared spatial and temporal coordinates expressed in meters with each other" ^{[29, p. 13]}. By such a "combination", the result of which was predetermined by the same postulate about the immutability of the speed of light in all ISO, a completely new reality was "discovered": "This invariance of the interval (its independence from the choice of the reference frame) forces us to admit that time cannot be separated from space. Space and time are parts of a single whole, which is called space–time" [ibid., p. 14]. In addition, according to relativists, the qualitative difference between space and time is also taken into account in the space-time interval: "There is a minus sign in this formula, and no tricks can expel it from there. The minus sign reflects the different nature of space and time" [ibid., p. 54]. At such a purely mathematical level of understanding of the qualitative difference between the spatial and temporal characteristics of events, the conclusion is made about the existence of a single space-time. However, even in this case, the mathematically flawless calculations of the SRT are ultimately crossed out by the intractability of the natural form of expression of those quantities that are presented in these calculations.

Firstly, what kind of objective relationship of changes in the spatial and temporal coordinates of an event can we talk about, if changes in these coordinates themselves (during the transition from one ISO to another) are possible only in human consciousness, since in nature itself both the spatial and temporal location of an event is determined by the very fact of the event and therefore is absolutely the same for everyone reflection systems? However, there was no awareness of such sameness, and for mathematics, as just a means of calculation, it is completely indifferent what the natural nature of the quantities calculated by it is, whether they agree to this or that dependence. And on the other hand, showing the unnaturalness of the relativistic relationship of the spatial and temporal characteristics of events, it is necessary to point out that their really inextricable relationship, which follows from the foundations of the universe, and not from the idea of the incomprehensibility of a ray of light. So, the roots of all spatial characteristics are hidden in the qualitative heterogeneity of the world known by man, which generates relationships of mutual arrangement in it, and the question "where?" for a person. The roots of all temporal characteristics are hidden in the universal variability of this world (predetermined, by the way, by its materiality, manifested in universal interaction), which generates in it the relations of the order of occurrence of events and states, and for a person - the question "when?". It is thanks to the variability of the world known by man that everything in it happens not only somewhere, but also at some time (about which in more detail - in ^[30]). And what is important, any change in spatial relations leads to a change in temporal relations, since any new spatial relationship forms by its appearance a new place in the order of appearance common to all that is happening, perceived by man as a new moment in time in the existence of the nature that generates all changes. Hence the truly objective and inextricable interrelation of spatial and temporal relations, with all their qualitative differences. Relations generated by the material carriers of these relations, and not by some entities (space and time) that appeared in physics at the initial stage of its development as a kind of ideological misunderstanding, picked up, however, and developed by SRT, which makes these entities dependent on each other and proclaims them to be sides of a more general dual entity, allegedly existing along with moving matter and dependent on its motion.

And secondly, there is also no such basis for recognizing the "inner kinship" of space and time and thus a single space-time, as the alleged possibility of measuring time in meters. "Isn't time measured in meters, just like distance?" ^{[29, p. 54]}, relativistic physicists exclaim with pathos, who wrote a book for physics students, but never explained in it how, for example, one meter can be compared with two seconds to answer a child's question the question is which one is bigger. But the procedure for measuring any property is nothing more than just a kind of procedure for comparing properties. At the same time, only the same type of properties can be compared in magnitude. Which is proved by all the available experience of reflecting quantities by comparing them.

Moreover, the accumulated experience of mankind in reflecting the values of various properties also indicates that time is not actually measured with the help of meters, but is only calculated. Which is far from the same thing. Calculations differ from measurements in that they allow reflecting the magnitude of one property by reflecting the magnitude of another property. For example, knowing at what speed a certain movement is carried out, it is possible to calculate the amount of time spent on it by the value of the path overcome during this time. And knowing the rate of change in the volume or weight of a substance or liquid, it is possible to judge the value of the elapsed time also by the changed volume or weight of this substance or liquid. But it does not follow from this that time can be measured not only in seconds, but also in liters and kilograms! And this means that in relativistic physics textbooks there is such a sad fact as the substitution of concepts: the calculation procedure is passed off as a measurement procedure and far-reaching conclusions are made on this basis.

Nevertheless, it is also a fact that the relativistic space-time centaur (which preserves the immutability of its numerical value during the transition from one ISO to another with the variability of its component parts) has become a reality for modern physics, has become a concrete embodiment of that "more refined reality of our external world" ^{[8, p. 240]}, which According to Einstein, theoretical physicists create. Moreover, he believed that it was necessary to create an even more refined reality: "... We must abandon the description of atomic phenomena as phenomena in space and time, we must retreat even further from the old mechanistic view" [ibid., p. 242]. Having convinced himself that the general principles of nature are invented by physicists, it could not have occurred to him that his "more refined reality of the external world" by these "refinements" does not correspond to the external world, and the rejection of the spatial and temporal description of phenomena is not a rejection of some kind of "inventions" of classical physics for the sake of a more perfect invention of new physics, and from taking into account the most fundamental and integral aspects of the existence of the external world.

And on the other hand, the desire that arose on the wave of relativistic euphoria to "play along" with theories that supposedly open qualitatively new horizons of science, permeates virtually all the scientific activities of the apologists of the SRT. As the physicists themselves point out: "...There is a philosophical statement clearly applicable to SRT: “we see in the experiment what we want to see there.” Such an attitude is prepared and the situation is aggravated by theorists who “cook in their own juice” and in any experiment are ready to see only confirmation of their manipulations with mathematical symbols (although the author also belongs to theorists). The existing uncertainties of the theory (by the way, carefully masked in SRT) allow varying the interpretation of experiments to a considerable extent. And then the incompleteness of the experiments is masked by the "necessary" statistical "fitting" of the data ("cropping" of the data to the desired result)" ^{[5, p. 133]}. 

6.       About the subjective and objective factors that served as a favorable ground for the emergence and spread of a "revolutionary theory that contradicts common sense."

As M. Gardner, the propagandist of the theory of relativity already mentioned by us, states in his book, "Einstein's theory is so revolutionary, so contrary to "common sense" that even today there are thousands of scientists (including physicists) for whom understanding its basic provisions is fraught with the same difficulties that a child faces trying to understand why people in the southern hemisphere do not fall from the Ground" ^{[18, p. 15]}. It turns out that the ongoing dispute over the SRT is caused only by the fact that everyone who is against it simply cannot understand it in any way, and those who are for it simply cannot convey this understanding to the supposedly childish mind of their opponents, unable to break away from common sense. However, the results we have obtained suggest that the root of this dispute lies not at all in the field of perception of this theory and not in various interpretations of the concept of common sense. Its root goes into the ideological component of SRT, namely, in the area of the question of whether there can be in nature itself what is being discussed in this theory. Having answered this question in the negative, I would like to trace what other factors, besides those already identified, allowed this erroneous theory to be at the top of scientific triumph.

The first factor is connected with the crisis in physics that arose at the turn of the XIX – XX centuries, expressed in the words "matter has disappeared". V. I. Lenin, speaking about the causes of this crisis, which gave rise to "physical" idealism, emphasized: "...The crisis of physics consists in the conquest of physics by the spirit of mathematics... Theoretical physics has become mathematical physics... The elements, as real, objective data, i.e. as physical elements, have disappeared completely. Only formal relations represented by differential equations remain..." ^{[31, pp. 300-301]}. The "cause" began to be understood as a purely mathematical connection, dependence. And as a result, as modern researchers have already noted, "... what is appropriate in mathematics turned out to be counter-productive in physics. After all, physical laws are not postulated, but discovered in numerous, often very subtle experiments. And this, in ignoring this provision, is one of the main reasons that led the new physics to the crisis" ^{[32, p. 121]}. But he also pushed to physical idealism "... the principle of relativism, the relativity of our knowledge, a principle that is imposed on physicists with special force during the period of the abrupt breaking of old theories... All the old truths of physics, up to those that were considered indisputable and unshakable, turn out to be relative truths, which means there can be no objective truth that does not depend on humanity. This is the reasoning not only of all Machism, but of all "physical" idealism in general" ^{[31, p. 302]}. In such conditions, the appearance of SRT was perceived by many as convincing evidence that relativity lies precisely in the very foundation of the universe.

The second important factor that played into the hands of the SRT are those inaccuracies and shortcomings of the foundations of materialism that remained after the appearance in 1909 of Lenin's fundamental work "Materialism and Empiriocriticism". After all, the spread of SRT took place even after the appearance of this philosophical work, which clarified the most important ideological issues. And this means that favorable conditions for it have still been preserved.

Firstly, we are talking about some one-sidedness and inaccuracy of Lenin's anthropocentric definition of matter (which quite deservedly became the most important milestone in the development of the materialist worldview), according to which "matter is that which, acting on our sense organs, produces sensation" [ibid., p. 141]. After all, in fact, everything material acts not only on the senses, and therefore the essence of matter is more fully expressed in words that everything is material whose existence manifests itself through interaction, mutual influence and thereby interchange. In addition, such an understanding of matter makes the principle of materialistic monism much more obvious, according to which only that which is material can be the basis of the cognizable world (since it cannot be based on that which is unable to declare its own existence by any influence on its environment).

Secondly, we are talking about the unresolved issue of the nature of time and space, which allowed Einstein to state that "we come to a strange conclusion: now it begins to seem to us that space plays a primary role, but matter should be obtained from space, so to speak, at the next stage. Space absorbs matter. We have always considered matter primary and space secondary. Space, figuratively speaking, is taking revenge now and "eats" matter" ^{[33, p. 243]}. Moreover, this statement of his has not been challenged by materialists. And how could it be challenged, not based on a clear realization that the basis of the world known by man can only be that which is material? However, there was no such awareness. After all, even Lenin's very definition of the principle of materialistic monism, which states that "there is nothing in the world but moving matter, and moving matter cannot move except in space and time" ^{[31, p. 171]}, implicitly assumed that the basis of the world is not only matter, but also something for her movements. Something that is by no means derived from the moving matter itself, which generates spatial and temporal relations by its qualitative heterogeneity and quantitative variability and does not need such disembodied entities as space and time at all.  As a result, the inexhaustible heuristic potential of this principle, incomparably greater than the potential of the main question of philosophy, remained virtually unclaimed.

And thirdly, there is still a lack of awareness that matter is not a material, not a substrate, not some faceless substance for building the universe. The concept of matter hides the carriers of the most general property of everything that is accessible to the senses and devices and that is generally able to declare its presence, existence. And such a common property of all this is the property of interaction, mutual influence and interchange. Thanks to the concept of matter, a person has the opportunity to see (with his mind) and take into account this property in its various manifestations, i.e. in all the diversity of the concrete, singular and unique. But it should be borne in mind that matter as a carrier of the ability to interact is not what all the elements of the universe consist of, but what they are, what everything that manifests itself through interaction is.

The third factor is the ambiguity of understanding what reality is and how it relates to what is commonly called nature. And this is despite the prevailing opinion that "... epistemological and methodological principles of scientific thinking find concentrated expression in generalized representations of reality created in science, since the central problem of any cognitive activity is connected with the representation of reality – the problem of the objectivity of theoretical knowledge" ^{[34, p. 4]}. In addition, as the SRT researchers emphasize, it is precisely the "opposition" of reality in itself to "classical physics" to reality in relation to"relativity theory that seems to us the main alternative, which is associated with the methodological attitude that has found expression in modern theoretical physics" [ibid., p. 5].

As for Einstein, as can be seen from his book Physics and Reality, he did not see any difference between reality and nature. And since the reality of a person finds expression in his feelings, images and representations and therefore does not exist by itself, it is not surprising that by the word "nature" he also understood something not self-sufficient, something closely related to the cognitive activity of the subject. So, in one place of this book, he claims that "all our previous experience leads to the belief that nature is the realization of what is mathematically easiest to imagine" ^{[19, p. 64]}, and in another - that "... nature is arranged in such a way that its laws are determined by purely logical requirements. that the expressions of these laws include only constants that admit a theoretical definition" ^{[35, p. 287]}.

But in fact, there is no identity between reality and nature. Nature is everything that has its own, independent of man, materially conditioned form of expression, reflected by man in the course of his cognitive activity. Reality, in the most general case, is the result of the reflective and denoting activity of the brain of living beings, which allows it to control taking into account external factors and their properties (for more details, see ^[17]). At the same time, in humans, it is represented not only by sensations and sensually given images, but also by verbal images (including ideas and theories) that expand and deepen the picture of the reflected world obtained with the help of sensory organs and devices. And since in the reality created by the brain there is both what depends on it and what does not depend (corresponding to external factors, copying them), the reality of human consciousness is usually divided into subjective and objective. Proceeding from the above, it should be recognized, firstly, that there are no "realities in relation". And this is despite the fact that every living being and every reflection system in general has its own reality. Moreover, the proper realities of different reflection systems may differ from each other (as is the case in the theory of relativity), but this does not indicate the relative nature of the reflected properties, but their distorted reflection. Secondly, from a clear understanding of what reality is, it follows that the highest achievement of the scientific reality created by a theorist can only be the maximum correspondence to everything that is reflected by him. It is only through this correspondence that the objectivity and thereby the truth of the content of the scientific realities created by scientists is ensured. However, Einstein, not seeing the difference between reality and nature and being far from understanding the process of cognition as a process of mere reflection, thought somewhat differently on this score: "To the one who creates, the fruits of his own imagination seem so necessary and natural that he himself considers them not ways of thinking, but given realities and wants, so that everyone thinks so" ^{[19, p. 61]}.

The fourth factor consists in the lack of sufficient clarity in such a question as the question of the nature of physical concepts and principles, which allowed Einstein to consider them a kind of product of free creativity and from this position to criticize representatives of classical physics: "Most physicists of that time were imbued with the idea that the basic concepts and principles of physics in the logical sense are not free creations of the human mind, but are derived from experience by means of "abstraction", i.e., in a logical way. Only the general theory of relativity actually gave a clear understanding of the incorrectness of such a representation; it showed that, relying on a foundation significantly different from Newtonian, it is possible to explain the corresponding range of experimental data in an even more satisfactory and complete way than relying on the foundation taken by Newton" [ibid., p. 63].

One can only agree with Einstein here that concepts really are not deduced from observations in a purely logical way. From the fact, for example, that apples fall to the ground, it is indeed impossible to deduce the concept of gravity. However, it still does not follow that it appeared as a result of free fiction. In fact, it appeared only after a person discovered in the course of observations that there is something that causes apples to fall to the ground. To designate this "something", a new concept was needed, supplemented later by a new principle - the law of universal gravitation. But it was by discovering and designating new properties and patterns - and not by purely logical means - that the basic concepts and principles of classical physics were developed! And only this way of their appearance guarantees their compatibility with the objectivity of their content.

The fifth factor consists in Einstein's style of scientific thinking, which is not at all focused on the reflective function of the thought process. The author of SRT states his creative credo as follows: "Physics is a developing logical system of thinking, the foundations of which can be obtained not by isolating them by any inductive methods from the experiences experienced, but only by free fiction" [ibid., p. 59]. At the same time, according to Einstein, evolution in physics "... takes place in the direction of increasing simplicity of logical foundations" [ibid., p. 59]. As we can see, Einstein, instead of striving to reflect natural laws, openly claimed to be co-author with nature itself in the matter of these laws (proceeding from the fact that "... the main goal of any theory is to make the basic elements of the theory simple and few" [ibid., p. 63]). This idealistic tendency of his physical style of thinking turned out to be embodied in the theory, incompatible with the material conditionality of what it is about. But this is an example of just physical idealism, i.e. idealism, covered with physical terms and declarations of recognition of the outside world. This is the philosophical implication of SRT highlighted by us, predetermined by its postulate about the constancy of the speed of light in (!) all ISO.

The sixth factor consists in the spread of Machism and positivism, i.e., teachings that deny the scientific significance of worldview concepts. A thorough criticism of these teachings, as is known, was given by V. I. Lenin in the book "Materialism and Empirio-criticism". But it should also be borne in mind that the Machists themselves, who urge not to look beyond sensations and images, in their entire daily practical life look just beyond sensations, reflexively reacting to sensations and images as the results of labeling and copying external factors affecting the senses, from the recognition of which at the level of human consciousness they are urged to refuse. That is, they do not "just feel" at all, but use sensations as a means of communicating with the outside world. But isn't this a self-refutation of the "ideological attitudes" they proclaim? Let it be unconscious, silent and carried out under the invisible dictate of natural selection with its simple, but very weighty and intelligible arguments, accessible even to unintelligent beings.

As for positivism as a teaching that considers reliable only the knowledge that is obtained through observations, experiments and measurements, and everything else is fiction, a game of the mind, empty philosophizing, then this teaching does not take into account the fact that philosophy and physics complement each other: physics studies and generalizes quantitative characteristics and patterns of the cognizable a person of the world (such, for example, as the laws of conservation), and philosophy – its qualitative, "immeasurable" characteristics, no less significant for everything that happens in it than quantitative. Therefore, the rejection of philosophy in its essence means nothing more than the refusal to take into account the influence of its qualitative side on everything that happens in it. What makes science one-sided, flawed. Therefore, the only question is which philosophy should be followed, proceeding from the fact that the heuristic role of philosophical principles is not deductive, but selective. I.e., given that the principles of natural science theory are not deduced purely logically from philosophical principles, but are selected from a variety of possible natural science principles found on the basis of creative intuition. And here, as V. P. Bransky notes, "the selective function of philosophical principles can, generally speaking, be both heuristic (the "positive" role of philosophy) and anti-heuristic (the "negative" role of philosophy). It all depends on what philosophical principles we are talking about" ^{[14, p. 216]}. So machism and positivism are precisely anti-heuristic philosophy.

The seventh factor consists in the purely external attractiveness of such a generally accepted form of designation of the SRT postulate about the speed of light as "C = const". The constancy of the speed of light, ugly in its physical essence, hiding behind the words about the constancy of this speed in all ISO (at which a ray of light can move relative to any ISO at very different speeds), through the efforts of relativists appeared in a dazzling, shiny wrapper. This "packaging" of Einstein's principle of the constancy of the speed of light, which does not give the slightest idea of the essence of the constancy proposed by him, nevertheless literally fascinates many. It has become a symbol of the exquisite simplicity and depth of the SRT itself. As the Nobel Prize-winning physicist L. Cooper notes, "the whole brilliance of the theory of relativity lies in its strict simplicity" ^{[36, p. 62]}. But if this beautiful "wrapper" of the SRT postulate is accepted by many as the quintessence of this theory, it means that at this level of understanding of the essence of SRT, they support this theory.

The eighth factor is the unprecedented advertising of the SRT. And we are talking not only about its widest popularization (which is indicated by the very name of the book "Relativity Theory for Millions" that we have repeatedly quoted ^[18]). Here is what, for example, a physicist writes who has not succumbed to the general euphoria of relativism: «...The apologetic advertising of the service station is also surprising. For example, the pretentious statement that “the ratio between mass and energy is the basis of all nuclear energy” has no basis in either historical or practical terms. This ratio has nothing to do with the discovery of elementary particles and radioactivity, nor with the study of spontaneous and forced decay of uranium nuclei, nor with the determination of the stability of nuclei, nor with the establishment of possible channels of nuclear reactions and the possibility of a practical choice between them, nor with the technology of isotope separation, nor with the practical use of the released energy, etc. Thus, the ratio between mass and energy has nothing to do with any key stage in the development of nuclear energy. Even to the determination of the released energy in a specific known reaction, this ratio has nothing to do (paradoxically). Because historically, everything happened in a different sequence: at first, some reaction was detected, which was detected precisely by the release of energy. And then you can enter calculation functions in various ways – combinations of mathematical symbols... Thus, the ratio between mass and energy plays in practical terms the role of school mathematical exercises for reverse substitutions, since the desired result will certainly come from the calculated data tabulated post factum" ^{[5, pp. 133-134]}. And as a result, the criticism of the SRT simply drowned in a stream of laudatory odes, and the critics themselves began to be treated as inventors of perpetual motion machines.

7. Conclusion.

This world was shrouded in deep darkness.Let there be light.

And then Newton appeared...But Satan did not wait long for revenge.

Einstein came, and everything became as before.

As stated in the "Address" of the participants of the 2nd International Scientific Conference "Problems of Space and Time in Natural Science" to scientists and educators (St. Petersburg, 1991, September, 16-21), confirmed in the materials of the IX International Conference "Space, Time, Gravity" (St. Petersburg, 2006, August, 07-11), "...the spread of relativistic mechanics (special relativity theory) contributed to the distorted interpretation of the results of many studies and slowed down the development of classical directions in astronomy and celestial mechanics, geophysics and cosmology, quantum mechanics and electrodynamics" ^{[37, p. 756]}. And in support of this appeal, I would very much like to cite several statements directly by astronomers themselves who oppose such a distorting interpretation of the results of their research.

"When the desire at any cost to achieve a coincidence of what astronomers predict (calculate) with what they observe (observe) became predominant, there was no time left to think about where the truth is. In addition, prize-winning physicists say that everything is relative and conditional, and “the deep thinker of the twentieth century is a great philosopher” ^{[38, pp. 30-34]} Karl Popper, also a laureate, agrees with them in everything, writes as follows: “Every observation involves interpretation in the light of our theoretical knowledge. Knowledge based only on observations and not distorted by theory, if at all possible, would be completely fruitless and useless “ ^{[39, pp. 23-24]}. If we agree with this, then not only the question of truth, but even more simple – what is a fact? – it remains unanswered, because, as the philosopher said, the observed fact is necessarily distorted by theory" ^{[40, p. 405]}.

"We invite astrometrists to reflect on Popper's words and at the same time compare their observations with those of the first astronomers to whom we owe so much. We still refer to the results of their observations, therefore, they remain useful to us. Meanwhile, the possibility of their distortion by theory is excluded for a simple reason – due to the lack of theoretical predecessors. Modern astronomers are deprived of this "advantage"" [ibid.].

 «...None of the astronomers have taken the trouble yet... to explain what physicists did not understand when they began to talk about determining the simultaneity of events, then about the constancy of the speed of light in any inertial coordinate system, then about the equality of the Ptolemy and Copernicus models of the world, and then about the need to build a coordinate system based on the photon world line" [ibid., p. 404].

It was this kind of work to explain what relativistic physicists did not understand that we took upon ourselves when we started the philosophical analysis of A. Einstein's SRT. And as a result, we have good reasons to assert that these physicists did not understand that the main difference between relativistic physics and classical physics consists in its separation from the objectivity of content, which manifests itself in the incompatibility of the relativity of quantities proposed by it with their material conditionality. However, it also turned out that philosophers had a hand in spreading her erroneous ideas. After all, they were the ones who convinced everyone from the high stands that the relative space and time of relativistic physics are objective, because, they say, "this relativity does not depend on the observer's point of view and is not a consequence of conventional freedom in choosing the definition of simultaneity, but follows from the structure of the world postulated by the theory of relativity" ^{[41, p. 94]}, that is, they proved the objectivity of the conclusions of the theory, based on the implicit assumption of its... objectivity. Therefore, it is necessary to say a few words about what, in the author's opinion, the philosophers engaged in understanding SRT did not understand either. And, to put it briefly, they did not understand that the world known by man is one for all who know it (and that, therefore, there can be no equality between the Ptolemy and Copernicus systems, since this one world for all is arranged either according to Ptolemy or according to Copernicus).

But Einstein has repeatedly expressed himself in the sense that "the belief in the existence of an external world, independent of the perceiving subject, lies at the heart of all natural science" ^{[35, p. 136]}. However, in fact, as we have seen, his style of thinking was based, as he himself noted, on "free fiction", allegedly filled with objective content. This blind faith in the objectivity of the foundations and all the conclusions of the SRT paved the way for the recognition of this theory and for the subsequent change of the scientific paradigm. Moreover, this applies not only to Einstein and his theory. After all, other "revolutionary" theories appeared after it, filled with only pseudo-objective content. Theories in which possibilities, accidents, probabilities, bifurcation points, information, and many other phenomena are proclaimed as natural, objective phenomena (which in fact have only a subjective, only verbal form of their expression (for more details, see ^[29],[17] and ^[42]). Theories that ascribe to nature what can actually take place only in human consciousness, and thus inherently represent different versions of the same physical idealism. Therefore, the question of what the world, which is cognizable by man, owes this cognizability to, and how this is related to both its objectivity and the objectivity of the content of scientific theories, is very, very topical.

Describing the complex path of the development of physics, its spontaneous search for the correct philosophical theory, V. I. Lenin wrote: "Modern physics... he goes to the only true method and the only true philosophy of natural science not directly, but in zigzags, not consciously, but spontaneously, not clearly seeing his "ultimate goal", but approaching it by touch, staggering, sometimes even backwards" ^{[31, p. 306]}. However, there is also a reason for clarification here, because even a cursory analysis of a fairly long period of the domination of materialism indicates that the main thing that physicists lacked was a clearly expressed criterion for the conformity of their physical theories with this philosophy and thereby the necessary condition for the objectivity of the content of these theories. In the author's opinion, it is not physics that is to blame for the delay in identifying this criterion, but the only true philosophy of natural science, which has lost sight of this long overdue problem.