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

2012
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment
185 / 2002-10-28 - ZENTRUM F. PHILOSOPHIE U. GRUNDLAGEN D. WISSENSCHAFT, Management. Giessen.
CD-ROM 1.1 (Copy No.: 160)
186 / 2002-10-29 - Prof. Arnulf BARING. Berlin.
CD-ROM 1.1 (Copy No.: 163)
Extract:
“Dear Professor Baring
We hereby allow ourselves to draw your attention to our above-mentioned documentation in which we prove
several circumstances that have not previously been made known to the public:
1. For the first time it is proven that since 1922, in the field of theoretical physics in Germany, freedom of
science has been done away with by suppression and defamation of the criticism of the special theory of relativity
by the field of academic physics, a situation that has lasted up to the present day. This represents a break by physics
with tradition in that it no longer informs the public objectively, but hoodwinks it as to the true status of the theory.
Until now - strangely enough - this occurrence and the resulting state of affairs has not been noticed by any science
sociologist or science historian or scientific journalist and has therefore not been reported to the public.
2. The representatives of relativity maintain that there is no such criticism of the theory. This claim is disproved
by our documentation of approx. 2900 critical publications. And these represent only the first part of the sources
dealt with in our research project, the presentation of which will be extended in future text versions.
3. Our documentation proves for the first time that the strong tradition of criticism of the theory since 1908,
right up to the present day, has not become known to the public due to the consequent suppression and defamation
of every bit of criticism, and that the criticism made has not been refuted. For this reason the special theory of
relativity is unfoundedly presented to the public as a best-proven theory, which could obviously only be claimed
after the successful refutation of the criticism made of it. Our documentation shows, in Chapter 2, approx. 130
theoretical errors that have not even been discussed by the relativists because they have prevented the reception of
the critical publications. What has not been discussed cannot be regarded as refuted.
4. The official history of theoretical physics presented to date, as a triumphant victory of the theories of
relativity, particularly the special theory of relativity, stands in blatant contradiction to the findings of our
documentation:
The supposed “zero result” of the Michelson-Morley experiment on ether drift and its repetitions had never
happened, according to the sources, which makes the fundamental assumption of the theory invalid;
- the conclusions of the theory lead to internal contradictions;
- the alleged experimental proofs have no significance whatsoever, because (1) in the Hafele/Keating atomicclock
transportation the clocks were subsequently adjusted by hand by the experimenters, according to their own
report, because (2) the famous equation on the mass-energy relationship (e=mc²) has no relativistic significance
whatsoever and had already been found by other researchers before 1905, which means that it stands independent
of the special theory of relativity and can prove nothing for this theory, and because (3) for the supposed length
contraction not even the relativists themselves claim to have experimental confirmation.
If the relativists are unable to dispel these objections, all farther-reaching speculations are invalid. An important
line of development in the history of physics must then be newly written.
5. Our documentation shows that in the field of academic teaching, in popular-science publications and in the
schoolbooks, a completely uncritical adoption of the propaganda of relativity has been organized; a pure personality
cult with trading in devotional trinketry and triumphal rejoicing. If it must seem to an unprejudiced reader fairly
unlikely that a theory should have survived for a hundred years without being seriously criticized, this is all the
more reason for a supposedly critically oriented field such as that of science history that should have long-since
examined the clearly uncritical behaviour of the supposedly objective natural sciences. Now the examination would
have to be extended in order to determine what forces in the field of science history have so far prevented it from
discharging its own duties.
We respectfully request that you check the soundness of our documentation and, in the event of a positive result
of this examination, that you make the problems brought to light in our documentation available to a wider public in
the context of your journalistic possibilities. Our documentation possibly has news value for the public, so that the
present first version of the documentation may already constitute legitimate subject matter for reporting. We
57
G. O. Mueller: STR