Though the technology achievements have been quite impressive in the elapsed century, the achievements of science should be recognized to be much more modest (contrary to "circumscientific" advertising). All these achievements can be attributed, most likely, to efforts of the experimenters, engineers and inventors, rather than to "breakthroughs" in the theoretical physics. The "value" of "post factum arguments" is well-known. Besides, it is desirable to evaluate substantially the "losses" from similar "breakthroughs" of the theorists. The major "loss" of the past century is the loss of unity and interdependence in physics as a whole, i.e. the unity in the scientific ideology and in the approach to various areas of physics. The modern physics obviously represents by itself a "raglish blanket", which is tried to be used for covering boundless "heaps" in separate investigations and unbound facts. Contrary to the artificially maintained judgement, that the modern physics rests upon some well-verified fundamental theories, too frequently the ad hoc hypotheses appear (for a certain particular phenomenon), as well as science-like adjustments of calculations to the "required result", similarly to students' peeping at an a priori known answer to the task. The predictive force of fundamental theories in applications occurs to be close to zero (contrary to allegations of "showman from science"). This relates, first of all, to the special relativity theory (SRT): all practically verifiable "its" results were obtained either prior to developing this theory or without using its ideas, and only afterwards, by the efforts of "SRT accumulators", these results have been "attributed" to achievements of this theory.
It may seem that the relativity theory (RT) has been firmly integrated into the modern physics, so that there is no need to "dig" in its basement, but it would be better to finish building "the upper stages of a structure". One can only "stuff the bumps" when criticizing RT (recall the resolution of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences, that equated the RT criticism to the invention of the Perpetuum Mobile). The solid scientific journals are ready to consider both the hypotheses, which can not be verified in the nearest billion of years, and those hypotheses, which can never be verified. However, anything but every scientific journal undertakes to consider the principal issues of RT. It would seem the situation has to be just opposite. Because RT is being teached not only in high schools, but also in a primary school, at arising even slightest doubts all issues should be seriously and thoroughly discussed by the scientific community (in order "not to spoil young hearts").
However, there exists (not numerous but very active and of high rank) part of scientific elite that behaves a strangely encoded manner. These scientists can seriously and condescendingly discuss "yellow elephants with pink tails" (superheavy particles inside the Moon that remained obligatory after Big Bang, or analogous fantasies), but an attempt to discuss the relativity theory leads to such active centralized acts, as if their underclothes would be taken off and some "birth-mark" would be discovered. Possibly, they received the "urgent order to inveigh" without reading. But any criticism, even most odious, can have some core of sense, which is able to improve their own theory.
RT claims to be not simply a theory (for example, as one of computational methods as applied to the theory of electromagnetism), but the first principle, even the "super-supreme" principle capable of canceling any other verified principles and concepts: of space, time, conservation laws, etc. Therefore, RT should be ready for more careful logical and experimental verifications. As it will be shown in this book, RT does not withstand logical verification.
Figuratively speaking, SRT is an example of what is called an "impossible
construction" (like the "impossible cube" from the book cover, etc.),
where each element is
non-contradictive locally, but the complete construction is a contradiction.
SRT does not contain local mathematical errors, but as soon as we say that
letter 
means the real time, then we immediately extend the construction,
and contradictions will be revealed. A similar situation takes place with
spatial characteristics, etc.
We have been learned for a long time to think, that we are able to live with paradoxes, though the primary "paradoxes" have been reduced by relativists rather truthfully to some conventional "strangenesses". In fact, however, every sane man understands that, if a real logical contradiction is present in the theory, then it is necessary to choose between the logic, on which all science is founded, and this particular theory. The choice can obviously not be made in favor of this particular theory. Just for this reason the given book begins with logical contradictions of RT, and the basic attention is given to logical problems here.
Any physical theory describing a real phenomenon can be experimentally verified according to the "yes - no" principle. RT is also supported by the approach: "what is experimentally unverifiable - it does not exist". Since RT must transfer to the classical physics at low velocities (for example, for the kinematics), and the classical result is unique (it does not depend on the observation system), the relativists often try to prove the absence of RT contradictions by reducing the paradoxes to a unique result, which coincides with classical one. Thereby, this is a recognition of the experimental indetectability of kinematic RT effects and, hence, of their actual absence (that is, of the primary Lorentz's viewpoint on the auxiliary character of the relativistic quantities introduced). Various theorists try to "explain" many disputable RT points in a completely different manner: everybody is allowed to think-over the nonexistent details of the "dress of a bare king" by himself. This fact is an indirect sign of the theory ambiguity as well. The relativists try to magnify the significance of their theory by co-ordinating with it as many theories as possible, including those in absolutely non-relativistic areas. The artificial character of such a globalistic "web" of interdependencies is obvious.
The relativity theory (as a field of activity) is defended, except the relativists, also by mathematicians, who forget that physics possesses its own laws. First, the confirmability of some final conclusions does not prove truth of the theory (as well as the validity of the Fermat theorem in no way implies the correctness of all "proofs" presented for 350 years; or, the existence of crystal spheres does not follow from the visible planet and stars motion). Second, even in mathematics there exist the conditions, which can hardly be expressed in formulas and, thus, complicate searching for solutions (as, for example, the condition: to find the solutions in natural numbers). In physics this fact is expressed by the notion termed "the physical sense of quantities". Third, whereas mathematics can study any objects (both really existing and unreal ones), physics deals only with searching for interrelations between really measurable physical quantities. Certainly, a real physical quantity can either be decomposed into the combination of some functions or substituted into some complex function, and then we can "invent" the sense of these combinations. But this is nothing more than the scholar mathematical exercises on substitutions, which have nothing in common with physics irrespective of their degree of complication.
We shall leave for conscience of "showman from science" their intention to deceive or to be deceived (to their personal interests) and shall try to impartially analyze some doubtful aspects of RT.
Note that during the RT life time the papers have repeatedly appeared, which contained some paradoxes and criticism of relativistic experiments; the attempts were undertaken to correct RT and to revive the theory of ether. However, the criticism of RT had only partial character, as a rule, and affected only separate aspects of this theory. The current of the criticism and its quality was considerably increased in the end of the last century only (the article and book titles from the bibliography speak for themselves).
It should be recognized that, as against the criticism, there exists the professional fundamental apologetics of RT [3,17,19,26,30,31,33-35,37-41]. Therefore, the main purpose of the author was to present a successive, systematic criticism of RT just resting upon a fine apologetics of this theory. Following to the "conventional private tradition", the basic part of the given book was tested in international scientific journals (GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS, SPACETIME & SUBSTANCE). As a result this task has been fulfilled step-by-step beginning with the works [48-55], in which the author considered in detail the RT underlying experiments, the baseline kinematic concepts of the special relativity theory and of the general relativity theory, the notions of relativistic dynamics and some consequences of relativistic dynamics. The critical works contain, virtually, no papers on the relativistic dynamics. This fact was one of the main incentives for writing this book.
The present book represents by itself some generalization of published papers from the single standpoint. (Besides, the logical subtleties can always be better grasped in own native language.) To see the most complete "picture of nonsense" we shall, whenever possible, try to discuss each doubtful point of relativity theory irrespective of remaining ones. However, due to the limited scope, the book does not contain the citing from textbooks. Therefore, it is presupposed some reader's knowledge of relativity theory. Besides, often the book considers both the conventional interpretations of relativity theory and possible "relativistic alternatives". This is made to prevent the temptation of rescue of relativity theory with other relativistic choices in disputable points. "Monster" is dead for a long time, and it is not worth to revive it - this is the author's opinion.
It is rather difficult to choose the successive logic of presentation: for any problem there arises the desire for presentation of all attendant nuances in the same place of the book, but it is impossible. The author believe that if a reader can read to the end, majority of impromptu questions and doubts will be consecutively elucidated. The structure of the book is the following. Chapter 1 critically analyzes relativistic notions, like time, space, and many other aspects of relativistic kinematics. Chapter 2 presents the criticism of the basis for general relativity theory (GRT) and for relativistic cosmology. The experimental substantiation of RT will be criticized in Chapter 3. In so doing we shall not consider in detail the experiments pertinent only to electromagnetism or various particular hypotheses of ether (this theme is huge in itself). Instead, we shall analyze exclusively some general experiments affecting the essence of RT kinematics and dynamics. Chapter 4 contains the criticism of notions of special relativity theory (SRT), results and interpretations of relativistic dynamics. Conclusions are made for each chapter. Some particular hypotheses are considered in Appendixes.