Dr Mellin

Professor Dr. HJ. MELLIN / HELSINGFORS

THE UNSUSTAINABILITY OF RELATIVITY THEORY

For an expert in logical matters, the untenability of Relativity can be explained very briefly and simply.

Because the concept of simultaneity and the equally central concept of existence

• both of the indefinable ultimate givens or basic concepts

1. The thought of Fresnel deals with different densities. In my private sense, I assume that if you have a carafe of water on the table and then walk around the room with the carafe, the water will have the same density in both cases. Fresnel was of the opinion that part of the ether remained and another part was carried away - it is a daring and somewhat arbitrary arithmetic operation, the arithmetic average number from the struggle to pull to calculate between these two “ethers.

belong, without which no thinking is possible - are so inextricably linked that with simultaneity also the existence of certain things is thought and asserted: in mathematics the existence of thought things, in physics the existence of real things. Conversely, existence without absolutely simultaneous things is also absolute nothing. Since Relativity denies absolute simultaneity, it (unconsciously) denies not only mathematics, but also empirical reality. A compelling proof of the empirical and logical untenability of this “theory” can be made so fabulously short and simple. The core point in the immense relativistic confusion of terms deserves to be explained in more detail in connection with other fundamental terms. Without the two basic concepts just mentioned, no thinking is possible, as I said.

The core point in the immense relativistic confusion of terms deserves to be explored in more detail in connection with other fundamental terms. Without the two basic concepts just mentioned, no thinking is possible, as I said. Even the indefinable concept of a set (e.g.) requires that the objects in question be thought or postulated as existing at the same time, regardless of whether they move or not. If one denies simultaneity, one obviously also denies the concept of number. Without simultaneity, there can be no talk of uniformity, non-uniformity, speed and acceleration. Indeed, consider the most general case where two bodies or points P and Q move along their respective trajectories from the starting positions P_0, Q_0 at the same time.

The trajectories may [be at] rest in relation to one another or move as they like. In any case, we say that the movement of P is uniform with respect to that of Q, if the ratio of the simultaneously travelled distances ([along] railway lines) P0 P: Q0 Q constantly maintains the same constant value C at every instant (time) (or shorter: if any but the same distances covered by Q always correspond to the same proportional distances covered by P). C is called the speed of P if the movement of Q is regarded as normal movement or time. This is a definition in the actual or true sense, which must not be confused with explanations of names (nominal definitions).

So here absolutely simultaneous positions of P and Q must absolutely be postulated, if one wants to form and apply the concepts of uniformity and speed at all. This definition is only an imaginary comparison, but by no means observations, let alone measurements. Thinking is comparing and establishing relations 1). The core of the relativistic confusion of terms lies precisely in the fundamentally wrong view that a (physical) term could be defined by measurements and observations. The strange thing1) We do not count the representations on which all thinking is based as part of actual thinking.

is that an exact conception of this question requires only the most elementary knowledge of the theory of sizes. The relativists therefore lack the most elementary knowledge of size theory, despite the fact that they also want to be mathematicians! Indeed, one must first of all know what to measure before one can even measure. The concept (size) must therefore be present in consciousness either as an indefinable given or as an already defined concept. In other words, the concept in question is in all cases an empirical and logical presupposition of measurement: an empirical one because measurement is not realized, a logical one because it cannot be thought without first thinking of the concept as a determinateness to be measured . In short: the concept is empirically and logically the primary, earlier (a priori), measuring is the secondary, later (a posteriori).

Without exception, measurements and observations always set something to be measured or observed, i.e. an already finished concept. If physics is to be called an empirically and logically exact science, it must never define a concept through measurements and observations. This inevitably creates a logical circle.

Once one has made these irrefutable logical truths clear to oneself, the empirical and logical untenability of Relativity is also immediately clear. It is empirically untenable, above all because it denies the absolute simultaneity, without which empirical reality cannot be thought at all. Because the essence of this reality is that material things exist simultaneously, however they may move. It is a logical impossibility, above all because it denies the absolute simultaneity, without which the uniformly moving inertial systems which it presupposes have no meaning at all. Because without absolute simultaneity there can be no talk of uniformity.

These are the consequences of the tremendous error of Relativity that it replaces logical comparison with technical measurement. She [i.e. the theory] doesn’t even know exactly what uniformity and speed are, because otherwise she would know that there can be no talk of these terms without absolute simultaneity, and even less would she set herself the pointless task of “measuring simultaneity” what is already an impossibility because simultaneity is not a “quantity”! To solve this pointless task, a “rule” is set!

Such senseless “rules” are called “assignment definitions”, and that is what they are called in the relativistic “axiomatics”! - Relativity is the monstrous freak of illogical thinking and will remain a warning example of an uncritical time for all times.

The above is independent of all philosophical views on time and space. Only the most basic knowledge from the theory of sizes has been used above.

It should therefore not present any significant difficulties in teaching the general public a correct understanding of the untenability of Relativity.

Further explanations can be found in my following works:

• Severity, Inertia and tension ”, Annales Acad, Scient. Fennicae [Latin-> Letters], Ser. A, XXVIII (64 pp.)
• “The ether and the ether tension” ‘ibid XXX (45 p.).
• “The ether and the ether tension”, ibid XXX (10 p.).
• “The world structure in the light of the ether tension”, ibid XXX (36 S.)– Separate: Academic Bookshop, Helsingfors.