2394 weitere kritische Veröffentlichungen - Kritische Stimmen zur ...

is by receiving and counting the time pulses transmitted
from it. At the receiving station there are two dials, one
recording the number of pulses from the distant clock
and the other the number from the local clock. The
prediction states that fewer pulses are received from the
distant clock than from the local clock. Since the clocks
are identical by definition it follows that fewer pulses
are received than are transmitted and the question arises,
what happens to the missing pulses? They cannot be
following behind in space because the effect is the
same whether the clocks are moving towards or away
from each other, since it is proportional to the square of
the velocity. There is no known explanation of the missing
pulses but it is inherent in the prediction. Being
unaware of this relativitists assume that all the transmitted
pulses are received and naturally arrive at paradoxical
results. Einstein himself in a later paper, states
that it is absurd to think that pulses can be lost, but does
not of course draw the corollary that the prediction is
absurd."
Analysiert weiterhin detailliert die angebliche Zeitdilatation
und kommt zu dem Ergebnis (S. 2): "The
complete result is clearly impossible and constitutes
the notorius "clock-paradox"." Gibt eine Übersicht der
zahlreichen verschiedenen Erklärungen der Relativisten,
die sich widersprechen und nichts befriedigend erklären
(S. 2):
"A careful and objective analysis of Einstein's paper
of 1905 shows that the socalled theory consists of a
number of assumptions, some of which are made
implicitly. The contraction of time, proposed earlier by
Lorentz, is first assumed to be a consequence of using
new units of measurement, it is then assumed to be an
apparent effect of uniform relative velocity, then, after
the clock paradox result, to be a real effect of uniform
motion, and finally to be due to acceleration or gravitation.
Each new assumption contradicts and replaces
the previous one but the theory is presented as though
they follow logically one from the other." � Eine der
kompaktesten Darstellungen über den wahren Zustand
der SRT und ihr inneres Funktionieren nach Art der
Relativisten. - Bewertet Albert Einsteins Arbeit "Dialog
über Einwände gegen die Relativitätstheorie" (in:
Die Naturwissenschaften. 6. 1918, S. 697-702): "Einstein
also admitted that the result contradicts the initial
postulates and in a most extraordinary paper he attributes
it to gravitational effects, by the help of another
thought-experiment, in which he makes further "experimental"
mistakes."
Essen, Louis 2008
[Brief an Carl A. Zapffe, 1984]: 25.3.1984 / Louis
Essen; [Hrsg.:] Harry H. Ricker III.
In: Ricker, Harry H., III.: Letter from Louis Essen
to Carl A. Zapffe. In: The General science journal =
http://wbabin.net/science/rickeressen.pdf - 5 S.
SRT. ZWP. ERK. SOZIO.
G. O. Mueller: SRT. Kap. 4-Erg.
116
S. 1-2: "The letter begins by thanking Dr. Zapffe for
sending a copy of his paper back book and proceeds to
give a summary statement of Essen's reasons for opposing
Einstein's theory. On March 25, 1984, Louis Essen
wrote Carl Zapffe as follows:
"Dear Dr. Zapffe,
"I have enjoyed reading your entertaining book and
appreciate your kindness in sending me a copy. You
obviously did an enormous amount of reading for its
preparation, and I have a feeling that you had a lot of
fun writing it and did not expect a rapturous reception. I
enjoyed writing my own little book (112 references),
although it was outside my field of work, and I was
warned that would do my reputation a lot of harm. My
experience was rather similar to yours in securing
publication, and I decided that the only way was to
avoid references. The booklet was invited, as was a
lecture I gave at the Royal Institution (Proceedings of
the Royal Institution of Great Britain, vol. 45, 1971, p.
141 ff.) My criticisms were, of course, purely destructive,
but I think the demolition job was fairly complete. I
concluded that the theory is not a theory at all, but
simply a number of contradictory assumptions together
with actual mistakes. The clock paradox, for example,
follows from a very obvious mistake in a thought experiment
(in spite of the nonsense written by relativists,
Einstein had no idea of the units and disciplines of
measurement). There is really no more to be said about
the paradox, but many thousands of words have been
written nevertheless. In my view, these tend to confuse
the issue.
"One aspect of this subject which you have not
dealt with is the accuracy and reliability of the experiments
claimed to support the theory. The effects are on
the border line of what can be measured. The authors
tend to get the result required by the manipulation and
selection of results. This was so with Eddington's eclipse
experiment, and also in the more resent results of Hafele
and Keating with atomic clocks. This result was published
in Nature, so I submitted a criticism to them. In spite
of the fact that I had more experience with atomic
clocks than anyone else, my criticism was rejected. It
was later published in the Creation Research Quarterly,
vol. 14, 1977, p. 46 ff. - "With best wishes, Sincerely
yours" - "L. Essen"
Carl wrote back on April 3, 1984, "Dear Dr. Essen:
Your letter of March 25 gave me the kind of reaction
that I would get from meeting royalty".
Estalella, J. 1923
[Rezension zu] Raschevsky (N. v.) : Investigaciones
críticas acerca de los fundamentos físicos de la teoría
de la relatividad / J. Estalella.
In: Sociedad Española de Fisica y Quimica. Madrid.
Anales. Año 21. T. 21. 1923, P. 2: Revistas, S.
115-116.
Textversion 1.2 - 2012