Afterword

The given book was constructed as a critical review of the fine professional apologetics of the relativity theory. It was rather hard to write a successive criticism of the theory that had been repeatedly "knocking into our head" from different points of view during our studies (starting from school): beginning with anything, the finished stock phrases arise in the head ("beforehand prepared impromptus"). Besides, it is impossible to find the logic of presentation which would be habitual for anybody (nonuniqueness of variants) or to locate the discussion of all nuances at one and the same place of the book. By this reason, the author hoped for reader's patience and benevolence. The reader which read to this afterword will most likely agree that majority of "marginal notes extempore" was further explained. Trying to administratively stop even the slightest doubts in the relativity theory, one of academicians compares it with the multiplication table. Apparently, if somebody wrote a frank rubbish, but placed some examples from the multiplication table between paragraphs, then this academician would recognize "the theory" to be true with "good conscience" and would call doubting mens to check "mathematical calculations". However, physics presents itself not "flourishs" (independently on their truth), but the matter "round the flourishs" and its relation with the Reality. Just the physics was broached in the book. The result can be summarized as following. Many methodical and logical problems of the relativity theory was demonstrated in the book. The presence of methodical "problems of explanation" leads to the "blowing the theory at an empty place". But the presence of logical contradictions puts the final point in the development of any physical theory. In Chapter 1 of the book the logical inconsistency of SRT kinematics was proved on the basis of mental experiments. Chapter 2 was dedicated to logical contradictions of GRT. The absolute experimental inconsistency of the relativity theory was shown in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 proved the contradictoriness of relativistic dynamical notions and analyzed a possibility of the classical interpretation of relativistic dynamics. The ultimate conclusion of the book consists in the necessity of returning to classical notions of space, time and all derivative values, to the classical interpretation of all dynamical concepts, in the possibility of the classical interpretation of relativistic dynamics, and in necessity of closer examination of some phenomena in the field of great velocities. If the author succeeded already "to remove the RT delusion", the local purpose of the book has been achieved. Some additional criticism of RT and accompanying theories can be found in papers and books (their titles speak for themselves) from the bibliography at the end of the book.

If we look intently at the known human history, an impression arises that somebody "beted on one cent" on the following. Is it possible to deceive all the mankind (first of all, the "skilled specialists")? And it turned out as possible case even for such a comparatively exact science as physics. You know, A. Einstein was wondered that journalese boom arises (but not gold as in the fairy-tale) when he "touch" anything. And he doubted in the rightness of his creation all the time. A quite different matter is the case of modern scientists "near" the relativity theory. They try to consolidate their status by administrative means for ever. We take, for example, the creation of "The Commission for Fight with Pseudo-Science". Simingly, the declared purpose is "rather noble": to protect our land from charlatans. However, analogous organizations are absent in majority of other countries and nothing happens to their purses. In our country the practice of examination before financial decisions was also present always. From ideas viewpoint, the scientific association itself has abilities to separate incorrect ideas, and, especially as immunity to charlatanism. The situation becomes more clear, when the following opinion is scored for sound: someone having doubt as to relativity theory is not physicist. Different opinions, theories, schools can exist on any other question. But suddenly "the hub of the universe" is discovered - it cannot be discussed. And how must we treat physicists before 1905: whether they are not physicists? And how must we treat physicists from 20th century (including some Nobel Prize winners), since they were opponents to the relativity theory? Are they all not physicists? How can science be generally progressing without free discussion of ideas and their gradual understanding? The statement is well known that no one, including the creator of RT, understood the relativity theory. But relativists declare with pride that understanding and clearness are primitive and are beneath their dignity (it is need to repeat some fixed procedure). Factually, the regular idol is created from the idea (and there exist inviolable priests near it).

Unfortunately, the situation with the relativity theory cannot be remedied with the help of separate publications. Even if most scientist will understand the error of the relativity theory, it will be rather difficult to "blow off this soap-bubble". By the way, it will be interesting to question people having the physical education: whether they believe the relativity theory to be valid or incorrect. Possibly, the result can be predicted for the anonymous poll (since even recently "there organized" the expulsion of SRT opponents from Academy of Sciences). But even this can be yet insufficient. The culture of scientific relations itself must be changed to have the possibility of expression of a free opinion for any scientists ("truth is dearer" than 100-dollar salary - it is modern remake of Aristotel's history as Platon's friend). The final point to SRT would be put with change of the teaching program in schools and institutes (including examinations) only.

The author felt some inner dissatisfaction with the relativity theory in my time as a student, since SRT brought a conflict with the disposition that was primarily laid into man by God. However, there arose no objections at that time and I had to learn the lecture material from program. Probably, many scientists and engineers remember the similar dissatisfaction (the author knows the same opinion of several scientists). It leads often to a loss of the interest by scientists in the fundamental physical problems and to retreating scientists into a research field with clear basis, methods and results.

Although the Russian education gives the many-sided knowledge (but not "mosaic"), nevertheless, both the Russian and west education have the common defect. They aim students at memorizing the huge flow of information (to move inside a "rut"), but they do not aim at the independent thinking (however, most of existing theories cannot answer all questions in their fields). But learning all lessons (all verisimilar answers) and passing all appropriate examinations in expected manner, one's power for giving back the studied material and wish for a verification of the learnt theories can disappear.

It is strange that in textbooks it is impossible to find mentions of disagreements and a great number of problems in any section of physics (the Feynman Lectures on Physics are the pleasant exception to the rule). They do not be problems of type "to count up anything or to prove the existence of a solution" (these are mathematical rather than physical problems). The problems of physics are the following: what the matter "stands behind equations", what is the physical sense of values and laws, how an appropriate model can be constructed, how experiments and theoretical solutions can be interpreted?

Some famous scientists try to suppress the interest for physics. From time to time, there appear their statements on the "imminent end of science". The situation looks in such a manner that they will determine a "strategy of the end", but we must faster fuss and "go without a moment's thought to count 108th item in some third approximation". The author believes that the independent thought is the most important matter of studies for anybody. By this reason the author does not propose own alternative theories to the relativity theory in the book (only gives the brief mention of some known hypotheses without criticism - the "lash" must be adequate to pretensions of the theory).

In the end we would like to dream. Can anything change for the better in physical association? At first, we indicate existing problems. Unfortunately, the past century led to considerable deterioration of the culture of scientific relations. Formerly scientists were unhurried and could thoroughly investigate separate phenomena, leaving unsolved problems to progeny (recall Newton's phrase "I do not contrive any hypotheses"). But the past century "amended". There appeared some haughty relation to notions, methods and ideas from the past. They say, since we "dive" into such a depth of microcosm and fly in space, almost all phenomena are well-known. Although a majority problems of type "under foots and around" are really left at the same level as one century ago (simply at the other fields real results can be harder differentiated from declarative interpretations, since there exist few "witnesses"). A number of publications became the basic criterion for scientist (can ten dried-up peels replace the juicy orange?). The Nobel Prizes played a considerable part in this "hurry", since their criterion included illusory "novelty" instead of the eternal TRUTH. For the sake of justice it must be emphasized that the healthy conservatism of the Nobel Committee in the early 20th century can allow awarding neither SRT nor GRT. Nevertheless, the politics of type "to separate and to rule" penetrated into the scientific community little by little. And the scientific community, which searched the TRUTH, was transformed to a collection of some competing clan organizations for making a lot of money (even references at the same theme have no common citation).

What would we like to see as some ideal? We would like that on seminars the main goal were to understand the idea of a lecturer (does not splash out a "baby together with water") rather than to ask an own question. We would like that scientists were having the courage to admit own mistakes (both mistakes and their admission have no fatal at all) and were searching the truth in science rather than were fighting for the own name at science. We would like that scientific schools (and reviewers) were adopting leader's better but not bad outward manners (fatal guessing "right": "all this is false" $\rightarrow$ "all this is well-known long ago" $\rightarrow$ "all this is necessary for nobody"). We would like that authors do not seek quantity and do not "dilute" new work with previously published results. We would like that reviewers were more responsibly (otherwise, it is impossible to find useful information among the large flow of "got sodden information"). Possibly, it is worth to depart from a collective irresponsibility of the "friend's group" and to publish who reviews an article, who from editors recommend it, and (as an appendix at last journal pages) what manuscripts were rejected and by who (and extracts from the review). We would like that scientific journals present the really broad spectrum of opinions on scientific topics rather than the particular opinion of editor-in-chief (and controlled by him collective). We would like that the basic criterion to any scientific article were the following: the absence of logical contradictions, mathematical error and the agreement with experiments (as it is accepted in GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS, for example). The presence of the other conventional (at the given time instant) theory must be no influencing the consideration of an article. We would like that all above mentioned dreams could be realized in real actions of people. If we would dream, then we must dream of the something "BIG".