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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

282 - Laura Conaway 283 William T. Vollmann, New York 284 Kurt Vonnegut, New York 285 David Foster Wallace, Claremont, CA 286 THE WASHINGTON POST, Washington, DC 287 - Leonard Downie Jr. 288 - Michael Kinsley 289 - Robert O‘Harrow, Jr. 290 - Bob Woodward Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment 291 WEEKLY STANDARD, Washington, DC 292 - David Brooks 293 - William Kristol 294 WIRED, San Francisco 295 - Chris Anderson 296 Alan Wolfe, Chestnut Hill, MA 297 Stephen Wolfram, Champaign, IL 298 Howard Zinn, Boston, MA. E-Mail Sent to Katja Kipping, Member of the German Bundestag 2699 / 2006-07-28 In response to the e-mail enquiry sent by Ms. Lopez to all members of the German Bundestag Ms. Kipping confirmed receipt, expressed her support for scientific freedom, but preferred to make no comment, due to her lack of insight into the physical topic addressed. - Ms. Lopez thanked Ms. Kipping for her reply and drew attention to the fact that the conditions (suppression, discrimination) described could be checked and evaluated without any knowledge of the physical science. Ms. Lopez asked the member of the German Bundestag to examine the “Open Letter” again. The text of the e-mail is published in the Internet: http://www.jocelyne-lopez.de/blog/2007/11/juli-2006-jocelyne-lopez-antwortet-frau-katja-kippingbundestagsabgeordnete/ E-Mail Sent to Federal Minister Schavan 2700 / 2006-08-27 In response to her e-mail enquiry sent to the members of the German Bundestag of July 2006 (see above) Jocelyne Lopez had received a reply from the member of the Bundestag and federal minister, Dr. A. Schavan, in which Ms. Schavan ordered an employee of her ministry, Prof. Dr. Jürgen Richter, to reply. Ms. Lopez thanked the minister for the answer received from Prof. Richter, but criticized the fact that answers had not been given on two important points: (1) The “discussion amongst experts” recommended by Prof. Richter is prevented by the documented exclusion of the critics from the field of theoretical physics, a point on which Prof. Richter makes no comment. (2) Prof. Richter’s remark that the freedom of expression of the critics is “not violated”, is no appraisal of the demand for scientific freedom in keeping with Art. 5, paragraph 3 of Grundgesetz [German Constitution], which is suppressed in the field of theoretical physics. The text of the e-mail is published in the Internet: http://www.jocelyne-lopez.de/blog/2007/11/august-2006-antwort-von-jocelyne-lopez-an-frau- dr-annetteschavan-bundestagsabgeordnete-und-bundesministerin-fur-bildung-und-forschung/ 130 G. O. Mueller: STR 2012
2012 Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment Open Letter Sent to Federal Minister Schavan 2701 / 2006-09-21 G. O. Mueller thanked the minister for the answer to the “Open Letter” of 28. October 2005 sent by Prof. Richter to Ms. Lopez, but regretted that the answer did not address the problems put forward. Extract: “We respectfully request the honour of an answer to our work results which, since December 2001, we have continuously sent to more and more representatives of the public in Germany and, now too, in other countries. The questions of our “Open Letter” of 28.10.05 can be summarized in a few lines and permit clear answers to be given: 1. Is there a tradition of criticism of the theory that has lasted 95 years? Yes or no? 2. Has this criticism of the theory been suppressed and slandered for 80 years? Yes or no? 3. Has this criticism of the theory been argumentatively dispelled in scientific discussions? Yes or no? 4. Is there - as is usually the custom in science - professional and public discussion of minority viewpoints in the scientific discussion of theoretical physics on the special theory of relativity? Yes or no? 5. Have those in office in the field of theoretical physics, with the discrimination and the boycott of critical minority viewpoints by way of exclusion from the scientific discussion and thereby the exclusion of the critics from the basic rights, broken their oaths of office taken on the Constitution in a vast number of cases? Yes or no? 6. Have the scientific editorials of the German daily press, the magazines and the electronic mass media been successfully brought into line for purposes of suppression of the criticism of the theory? Yes or no? 7. Is there, in all areas of our society (with a single exception: the Internet) - in other words, in the universities, the mass media, the schools, the general and professional magazines and journals, and the publishing programs - a deathly stillness with respect to this particular theory brought about an illegal censorship? Yes or no? 8. Is a commitment to the theory already demanded in the schools, even if the expression of commitment is hypocritical, enforced by the teachers of the subject by means of the marking system, and implemented because anyone who criticises is declared to be stupid? Yes or no? 9. Are doubts expressed by the pupils immediately met with a good dressing-down and is thereby moral cowardice and opportunism cultivated in the pupils (and, by the way, in the teaching colleagues of the other subjects)? Yes or no? 10. Has the public been deceived by the decades-long concealment of the existence of a tradition of criticism? Yes or no? We answer questions 3 and 4 with “no”, all other questions with “yes”. We believe that, with a little effort, the proof in favour of our answers can be given with great certainty, because our documentation provides the most important material.” The text of the “Open Letter” has been published in the Internet: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/060921gom_schavan.pdf 131 G. O. Mueller: STR
Page 1 and 2:
G. O. Mueller On the Absolute Magni
Page 3 and 4:
2012 Chapter 9: The Thought Experim
Page 5 and 6:
2012 Preface Chapter 9: The Thought
Page 7 and 8:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment 4
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment T
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment (
Page 23 and 24:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment W
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment h
Page 33 and 34:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment t
Page 35 and 36:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment F
Page 37 and 38:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment c
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment I
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment r
Page 61 and 62:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment f
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment
Page 69 and 70:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment p
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment I
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88: 2012 Chapter 9: The Thought Experim
Page 89 and 90: Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment v
Page 93 and 94: Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment 6
Page 101 and 102: Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment d
Page 103 and 104: Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment s
Page 105 and 106: Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment O
Page 107 and 108: Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment a
Page 117 and 118: Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment t
Page 119 and 120: Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment O
Page 121 and 122: Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment -
Page 123 and 124: Werner Dreibus Dr. Carl-Christian D
Page 125 and 126: Johannes Röring René Röspel Dr.
Page 129 and 130: Albrecht, Jörg - FAZ - Science Alt
Page 131 and 132: Stoldt, Hans-Ulrich - SPIEGEL - Ger
Page 135 and 136: 2012 The text of the letter is publ
Page 137: 168 Ted Chiang, London 169 CHICAGO
Page 141 and 142: 2012 Serial Numbers 2925-3124 / 200
Page 149 and 150: to 2012 Chapter 9: The Thought Expe
Page 151 and 152: Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment c
Page 155 and 156: German Constitution.) Chapter 9: Th
Page 175 and 176: Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment
Page 177 and 178: Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment (
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment N
Page 199 and 200:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment a
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment c
Page 207 and 208:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment F
Page 209 and 210:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment H
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment P
Page 221 and 222:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment S
Page 223 and 224:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment R
Page 225 and 226:
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment a
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?