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

2012
Chapter 9: The Thought Experiment
677 / 2004-09-21 - Frank SCHIRRMACHER c/o Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Frankfurt a. M.
CD-ROM 1.2
678 / 2004-09-25 - Prof. Hans Herbert VON ARNIM c/o Forschungsinstitut für öffentliche,Verwaltung. Speyer.
CD-ROM 1.2
679 / 2004-09-25 - Prof. Ulrich BECK c/o Institut für Soziologie der Universität München.
CD-ROM 1.2
Extract:
“If now the press, on the occasion of the “Caroline” judgement, has rediscovered its noble self-image as the
“fourth power” and passionately invokes its guardian duties within the democracy, it must first admit to itself and to
the public its shameful role in the suppression of criticism of the theory, and must give up this role.
If one surveys the development of the criticism since the first critical work of Max Abraham in 1908, and since
the effective date of suppression in Germany in 1922, i.e. over 8 decades, and seeks to evaluate the role of the press
in this connection, it is not possible to ignore the bringing-into-line of the entire serious press over a period of 8
decades in Germany (as for the epoch 1933-45, see below). This diagnosis appears to us to be unavoidable and
irrefutable. Must not every serious journalist at least concern himself or herself with this diagnosis at least until he
or she has found a plausible explanation for it?
How could this bringing-into-line - however partial - take place in all serious editorial staffs in the country? And
what is it that keeps this staying-in-line intact, even today? Why do all journalists in Germany seem to regard this
conformity as the most natural thing in the world? Behind the conformity there is a feeling - whether conscious or
unconscious - that it is an advantage for science (physics) if it cannot be criticized. What an idea!
The role of the serious press in the decades of suppression of the criticism of the theory desperately needs to be
clarified. Why did the open letters by O. Kraus addressed to Albert Einstein and Max von Laue in 1925 attract no
one’s interest? How can the work of a lifetime, like that of E. Gehrcke, remain fully unnoticed? Why was the cry of
help from Hans Israel, the publisher of the small book “100 Authors Against Einstein” in 1931, against the “Terror
der Einsteinianer” [Terror of the Einsteiners] not heeded? How can a book like that by G. Galeczki and P.
Marquardt (“Requiem für die Spezielle Relativität” [Requiem for the Special Theory of Relativity], 1997) remain
fully ignored? Who in today’s editorial staff is at all aware and conscious of the existence of this conformity (apart
from the convinced relativists, who find such conformity in their own interests very acceptable)?
There is a spectacular proof of the conformity mentality derived from one of the rare cases of its being rejected.
In 1986 the engineer H. Kretzschmar wanted to pay to have a large advertisement placed in the Süddeutsche
Zeitung or in the SPIEGEL, this criticising the theory of relativity in a very objective manner. The SZ or the
SPIEGEL refused to publish it! In this case the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung broke with conformity and printed
the advertisement:
Kretzschmar, Harry:
An alle Physiker, Mathematiker und anderen Naturwissenschaftler, die sich mit der Relativitätstheorie schon
einmal befaßt haben oder daran interessiert sind [To all physicists, mathematicians and other scientists who
have already occupied themselves with the theory of relativity or have shown an interest in it.]
In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 1986, 29. Oct., Advertisement.
Kretzschmar, Harry:
Neue Betrachtungen zur Relativitätstheorie [New Reflections on the Theory of Relativity].
In: “raum & zeit”. 1987, No. 26, pp 46-52. [Reprint of the advertisement.]
A newspaper that relinquishes a considerable income from an advertisement because it makes an unwanted or
forbidden criticism: can there be a better demonstration of conformity? With its printing, the FAZ at least broke
through this conformity - though only in the interests of its business advantage, not - unfortunately - in the name of
liberal reporting.
A quick word on the criticism of the theory during the period of Nazi rule. This was - perversely - the only
period in Germany after 1922 in which criticism could be published, which only further damaged the criticism of
the theory, because it was now easier to express sweeping, slanderous abuse of a Nazi-anti-Semitic-racist nature.
We have, however, already indicated (text version 1.1: pp 37-41; text version 1.2: pp 16-20) just how small the
number of anti-Semitic-inspired works of theoretical criticism were, even in this period.”
87
G. O. Mueller: STR