1. The Need of New Approaches - Kritische Stimmen zur ...

Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment
This raises many questions, e.g.: (1) why may these errors not be openly and freely discussed on the basis of
rational argumentation, (2) why may this discussion, despite a guarantee of scientific freedom contained in the
German constitution, continue to be prevented by the powers that be in the field of relativity through cynical misuse
of their positions of might, (3) why the supposedly best-confirmed theory of physics, as the special theory of
relativity is often claimed to be by its supporters, need fear a critical discussion.”
779 / 2005-02-03 - Wilhelm ACHELPÖHLER c/o Anwaltssozietät Meisterernst u.a., Münster.
CD-ROM 1.2 with printout of 93 sample pages, 2nd Progress Report.
Extract:
“Please find everything else, dear Mr. Achelpöhler, enclosed. We place our trust in you, as the known representative
of a citizens’ initiative, in a particular sense, since we regard our own research project and our attempt to
encourage public and free discussion on behalf of the so-far-suppressed criticism of the theory essentially as an
anonymously organized - though with the disclosure of 1300 named critics by no means anonymous - citizens’
initiative that can only fall back on fulfilment of the basic right to scientific freedom. We also claim on behalf of
our project that the critics are not interested in their personal advantage, but in the reappraisal of a wrong turn in the
development of our society, from which society as a whole would profit. Just as you, for example, are conducting a
lawsuit against a prohibition on demonstration, we are campaigning against a prohibition on criticism - for which,
however, we have no right to legal enforcement in the courts. We have therefore informed those responsible at the
federal governmental level for culture and science, as well as the ministries of education and cultural affairs of the
states and, at the political level, all of the parliamentary fractions in the Bundestag and in the state parliaments.”
780 / 2005-02-03 - Konrad ADAM c/o DIE WELT, Editorial Office. Berlin.
CD-ROM 1.2 with printout of 93 sample pages, 2nd Progress Report.
Extract:
“Article 5 of the German constitution says: science, research and teaching are free.
Why may 95 years of criticism of the special theory of relativity (1908-2003)
be suppressed?
The aim and objective of our project is to comprehensively document the criticism of the special theory of
relativity, which since 1922 has been suppressed and slandered in Germany (and in other countries too) by the
academic physics establishment, to inform the public about the suppression and defamation that has taken place up
to date and to demand free public discussion as a means of introducing scientific freedom in the field of theoretical
physics, to which the critics in Germany have a basic right (!) since 1949.
In view of the above-outlined public attitudes, our project will have to give rise to something like a minor
culture shock and must therefore also reckon with considerable resistance from all of those engaged in the present
and prevailing system of suppression of scientific freedom, who as worshipers of a physical theory have leaned so
far out of the window that they can no longer recognize the true state of affairs, determined by the criticism over a
period of decades, without losing face.
(...)
Please find everything else, dear Mr. Adam, enclosed. Your contribution “Jeder Mensch ein Forscher” [Everyone’s
a Scientist] in DIE WELT (2.8.04) gave us the idea to send you, too, our work results in the hope of winning
your interest for our topic
95 years of criticism of the special theory of relativity (1908-2003)
when you appreciate that this criticism has been consequently suppressed and slandered since 1922 - although
we supposedly live under the protection of a constitution that promises us scientific freedom. Our free press as the
“fourth power”, proud of its guardian duties, generally demonstrates high moral standards and should therefore
take up the issue, one would think. Our topic ought to - hopefully - attract as much attention as the doctorate of an
elderly lady on the topic of the „currywurst“, which we, like all other grilled-sausage eaters, can only applaud.
Moreover, how can “everyone be a scientist” under conditions that prohibit even slight deviations in one’s
research from the prescribed pathway, should this give rise to unwanted critical ideas? Who wants to research, only
to be banned for his or her findings?
In a democracy the first step to enforcing the constitution is to inform - as we have done - those responsible at
the federal governmental level for culture and science, as well as the ministries of education and cultural affairs of
the states and, at the political level, all of the parliamentary fractions in the Bundestag and in the state parliaments.
We are sending you the documents today with the courteous request that you check our work results and - in the
event of a positive result of this examination - that you help to inform the public about the existence of the
documentation and of the need for public discussion.”
104
G. O. Mueller: STR 2012