2394 weitere kritische Veröffentlichungen - Kritische Stimmen zur ...

the motion, and not as an analysis of its CAUSES,
which not even DYNAMICS is in my opinion able to
do ENTIRELY! Is the concept of "Newtonian force" a
really satisfactory explanation for the causes of some
motion? After all, we must not forget that there are in
Newtonian mechanics "motions", with respect to some
coordinate system of the Newtonian space-time, which
have not CAUSE at all!"
Des weiteren beklagt Bartocci, daß manche Physiker
sich weigern, auf ihren "common sense" zu verzichten,
gibt aber zu, daß die Theorie wirklich absurd ist (S.
40-41): "This is not a challenge between ME and YOU,
but between a precise mathematical theory and its
common misinterpretations, which all arise from the
fact that the mathematical theory is "absurd" from the
ordinary rationality point of view (a statement about
which EVERYBODY agree, in this case we have no
question of majority and minority), exactly absurd from
the point of view of that "common sense" which some
physicists seem unable to let apart, even when discussing
phenomena in the relativistic space-time (they are continuing
to use even in the new set-up the "ordinary
Physics" language)."
Zum Schluß erklärt Bartocci, daß die mathematisch
fehlerfreie Theorie experimentell widerlegt werden
könnte: (S. 41): "I repeat once more that the only point
which would be PHYSICALLY interesting to discuss
is whether SR is correct or wrong from the experimental
point of view. As far as this question is concerning,
ALMOST NOBODY today would bet on an experimental
failure of SR (the so-called breakdown of Lorentzinvariance)
in its field of competence. Now I belong to
the MINORITY side, since I believe that SR could be
shown indeed experimentally wrong (it is not an entirely
conventional theory, as somebody, like Max Jammer
for instance, is asserting), and much more that it is very
likely wrong, all its experimental "confirmations" until
now notwithstanding." � Während Percival durchgängig
kritisch bleibt, bietet Bartocci eine widersprüchliche
Position und kommt - entgegen aller behaupteten
mathematischen Perfektion der Theorie - doch zu
unerwartet kritischen Aussagen über die Theorie. Man
fragt sich, was die mathematische Perfektion wert sein
könnte, wenn die Theorie absurd ist.
Bartocci, Umberto 2000
Most common misunderstandings about Special Relativity
(SR) [Teil 1] / Umberto Bartocci. - [Italien]:
WWW 2000. 26 S.
URL: www.cartesio-episteme.net/ERRORSVF.htm.
SRT. RP. C-K. MAXWELL. ROEMER BRADLEY.
SAGNAC. ERK.
Inhalt: (S. 1) "1 - Introduction / 2 - What does "special"
means? / 3 - Sagnac effect / 4 - The light's speed for
non-inertial observers / 5 - The Principle of (Special)
Relativity and the "twins paradox" / 6 - Roemer
observations / 7 - Bradley aberration / 8 - Is it true that
G. O. Mueller: SRT. Kap. 4-Erg.
62
electromagnetism is relativistic? That "Classical
Physics" is the "limit" of SR for low speeds?" - Diskutiert
die wichtigsten Aspekte der Theorie und die Argumente
der Kritiker und kommt überwiegend zu dem
Schluß, daß viele Argumente der Kritiker nicht überzeugend
begründet sind. So könnte der Eindruck entstehen,
der Autor sei ein Anhänger der Theorie; er stellt
jedoch auf S. 2 klar: "Thus this paper is born, with the
purpose to collect the most common errors of antirelativistic
physicists - in matters which are sometimes
misunderstood even by relativity supporters!, as we
shall see - and with the hope to contribute in such a way
to make criticism against SR grow stronger, and respected,
with the purpose to finally restore the dominion of
(ordinary) rationality in science, but not only in it..."
Sieht die entscheidenden kritischen Argumente gegen
die SRT in Punkt 8 (S. 20): "Is it true that electromagnetism
is relativistic? That "Classical Physics" is
the "limit" of SR for low speeds?" Verweist hierin auf
das Zentrum der Theorie, "the very heart of relativity,
the only one which anti-relativistic physicists (or philosophers)
should try to "attack"" (S. 21). - Argumentiert
im Schlußkapitel auf S. 21-22: Die Theorie hat
einen wichtigen erkenntnistheoretischen Aspekt in der
Konventionalität ihrer Prinzipien. Das 2. Prinzip, die
C-Konstanz, wird angenommen, bevor man überhaupt
Geschwindigkeiten messen kann. Eigentlich sollte aber
das 1. Prinzip, das Relativitätsprinzip, der Hauptangriffspunkt
der Kritiker sein, weil es bisher experimentell
nicht bewiesen worden ist. Ein solcher Beweis sei
jedoch möglich, weil die behaupteten relativistischen
Effekte - entgegen allgemeiner Annahme - auch bei
niedrigen Geschwindigkeiten experimentell beobachtet
werden können; verweist hierzu auf einen eigenen Aufsatz,
zusammen mit M. Mamone Capria, in dem diese
Möglichkeit nachgewiesen wird (U. Bartocci, M.
Mamone Capria: Some remarks on classical electromagnetism
and the principle of relativity. - In: American
journal of physics. 59. 1991, No. 11, S. 1030-1032). A.
Einsteins Annahme der Identität der elektromagnetischen
induktiven Effekte (bewegter Magnet, bewegter
Leiter) ist nur ein Beispiel aufgrund der Maxwell-Theorie
(S. 20): "Apart the fact, ignored by most textboks,
that there exist different electromagnetic theories
challenging each other, and that it is not so clear that
Maxwell's approach will definitively prevail against all
the others, even in M[axwell] T[heory], classically
interpreted (namely, without introducing a priori length
contractions and time dilations) symmetry is not the
norm, and that of the induction is more an exception,
than a rule. This "classically interpreted" MT is not
relativistic in essence, and relativity can spring up in it
only when relativistic ingredients are inserted in it in
advance." In seinem genannten Aufsatz (S. 21) "it is
clearly shown also that the validity of the Principle of
Relativity in electromagnetism could be checked with
low-speed experiments, and this is once again in
disagreement with which one generally believes." Die
Textversion 1.2 - 2012