We can describe another paradox. Let the circle be cut off the plate and begin rotating around its center. Due to length shortening, an observer on the plate should see a clear space and the objects behind the plate. At the same time, the observer of the circle should see, how the plate runs over the circle. The noninertial character of the system does not matter, since the acceleration for can be smaller than any prescribed value due to large . The geometry of a circle will be considered in detail in Chapter 2 devoted to the general relativity theory. Similar contradictions demonstrate logical inconsistency of the habitual relativity theory (predictability - the foundation of science - is lost in this theory).
Note one more "strange thing" (the paradox of distances). Since the shortening of lengths of objects is associated with properties of space itself, the distance to objects must also be shortened (regardless of whether we approach the object or move away from it!). Therefore, if the velocity of a rocket is high enough (), we can not only look at distant stars, but also "touch" them, because in our own reference system our own dimensions do not change. Besides, when flying away from the Earth for a long time (the value of acceleration is not limited by SRT), we will eventually be at the distance of just "one meter" from it. At which time instant will the observer at this distance in "one meter" see the reverse motion of the spacecraft (contrary to the action of rocket engines)?
The possibility of introducing the absolute time refutes logically paradoxical SRT conclusions about time slowing, relativity of simultaneity, and, besides, about distances shortening, because now the method of simultaneous measurement of distances does not depend on the motion of objects. Let an thin object (a contour portrait cut out a paper, for example) slide with an arbitrary velocity over the photographic film, for example. If a momentary lighting is made by the infinitely remote flashlight, the length of the shadow photograph as well as the length of the object will the same. We can use an usual distant source (on a middle perpendicular to a plane) in the following case: the flash front will reach the plane in a moment of flight the middle perpendicular by the object (see Section "Additional criticism of relativistic kinematics" below - about a "seeming turn" of the wave front).
The distances to the objects are also contradictory for other reason. Even in motion at pedestrian speed, the distance to far galaxies must be noticeably contracted. However, the direction of such a contraction is indeterminate. If someone (moving) casts a look at galaxies, will he fly away beyond Earth limits? Or, on the contrary, will he (moving) attract another galaxy by his glance? Any result is real mysticism!
A strange thing, related to length contraction in SRT, occurs with a belt-driven transmission (Fig. 1.16).
From the viewpoint of the observers, on each of two free halves of a belt the cylindrical shafts should be transformed into ellipsoidal drums and then be turned as follows. The points of semimajor axes of ellipses, which are opposite to each observer, should approach each other (we obtain the non-objective description again). In SRT lengths of upper and lower half of the belt is found to be biassed, for instance. The contradiction takes place from the viewpoint of the third observer situated on a fixed stand. On one hand, the shafts should approach each other. On the other hand, however, the fixed bearing, which retains the spindles of shafts, should remain at the same place. But what is the thing, on which shafts' spindles will be kept? So, whether the real space is contracted or not? What must be artificially postulated for urgent "saving" SRT: various inserted spaces for shafts and bearing and the change of objective characteristics (the extensitivity) of a belt?
The attempt to hide from explaining the length contraction mechanisms behind the common phrase of type: "this is a kinematic effect of space itself" is unsuccessful because of uncertainty of the "contraction direction" (toward which point of space?). Really, the point of reference (the observer) can be placed at any point of the infinite space - inside, to the left or to the right side from an object; and then the object as a whole will not only contract, but also move toward the given arbitrary point. This fact immediately proves the inconsistency or unreality of the given effect. It is not clear, toward which end the segment will contract, if the moving system with two (moving) observers at segment's ends was made impulsively. The situation can not also be saved by the phrase about the "mutual uniqueness of Lorentz's transformations". This condition is quite insufficient. The mutual uniqueness of some mathematical transformation allows one to use it for convenience of calculations, but this does not imply in any way, that any mutually unique mathematical transformation has physical sense. Also strange is the process of stopping of contracted bodies. The questions arise: toward what side do their dimensions restore? Where has the contraction of space gone, if various remote observers could observe this body?