Dr Petraschek

Dr. K. O. PETRASCHEK / MUNICH

THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY AS A SOLUTION TO A SPARKLING PROBLEM

The principle of the absolute constancy of the speed of light on which Einstein’s special RTH is based, which consists in the assumption that the light always travels at the same speed for the observer, regardless of whether the observer flees from the incoming light beam or goes towards it (p. 2) 1), does not include a contradiction in the formal-logical sense (p. 53), since the assumption that a presupposed objective, i.e. a change in speed occurring in the unconscious body world does not need itself also subjectively to manifest as such in the observer’s consciousness, does not contain any impossibility of thinking, but does in the material-logical or actually epistemological sense. This is to be understood.

The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is like the special RTH, a physical theory based on it, and as such primarily grasps real things and processes in the outside world (p. 54). The theory is therefore based on critical realism, according to which there is a temporal-spatial body world independent of the individual consciousness there (p. 51, A). If this spatial-temporal nature of the presupposed real world is not to lose any explanatory value, then the objective forms of existence of space and time must be assumed to correspond to the subjective forms of perception of the same category (p. 52). The opposite assumption would be tantamount to proclaiming the contradiction as a means of knowledge and thus the complete bankruptcy of all real, i.e. mean knowledge that goes beyond the mere playful contemplation of logical possibilities and one’s own content of consciousness (p. 54). Since the assertion of the immutability of the speed of light, and with it the special RTH, actually makes the opposite assumption, from the realistic point of view of knowledge it is to be regarded as a contradicting doctrine, which is therefore a confirmation

1. See d. V. ,, The basic contradiction in the special RTH and its consequences. “Hillmann, Leipzig

• and of course also a refutation - by Experience is so certainly incapable as the experimenter is unable to take a stand outside his consciousness that would enable him to compare the proportions seen in the mirror of his sensuality with the real proportions corresponding to them according to a common standard (p. 53).

2. The (logical or psychological) epistemological idealism can only evade the decision about the contradicting nature of the principle of constancy of the speed of light and the special RTH based primarily on it, in no way it can answer the question (affirmative or negative) ; on the other hand, he must not leave the answer to physics either (p. 51, A). Since, however, an answer must now be demanded, the example of Einstein’s theory of relativity shows particularly clearly the need to advance from an idealistic to a realistic point of view (cf. Petraschek, “The Logic of the Unconscious”, Munich 1926, Vol. II , P. 542, text and note).
3. The principle of the constancy of the speed of light, as well as the relativization of spatial and temporal distances, which has become necessary for the special RTH as a result of the acceptance of this contradicting basic assumption - and thus also of simultaneity - (p. 69) cannot be analogous to the spatial perspective shifts Appearance or as a process that grasps the (whether subjective or objective) forms of perception of space and time itself (p. 48 f., 73 f.). The modern relativity principle, which only states the equivalence of all systems moving in a straight line and uniformly against one another for the formulation of the general laws of nature (p. 20), in and of itself has nothing to do with the aforementioned relativization (p. 29).4. Since the principle of the absolute constancy of the speed of light can also be formulated as the principle of the independence of the speed of light to be understood with reference to the observer from a possible movement of the light source in relation to this very observer, in the interference experiment made by Michelson and Morley, however, the negative result of which the special RTH usually invokes to confirm the correctness of the principle of constancy of the speed of light on which it is based, a movement of the observer in relation to the light source is not an option, then this attempt does not form a possible basis for the decision the question of the dependence of the speed of light on the state of motion of the light source (p. 19) and therefore no possible confirmation or refutation of the special RTH.
4. Those derived from the contradicting basic presupposition of the absolute immutability of the speed of light

for the coordinate transformation of systems moving in a straight line with respect to one another are wrong, despite their external correspondence with the transformation equations derived from the point of view of Lorentz’s contraction hypothesis, because the expression of contradicting facts; the contradiction, which they merely conceal without being able to eliminate it, only emerges in its full strength in the expanded meaning that Einstein, through the misapplication of the modern principle of relativity, gave them not only to the derivation, but also to the result ( Pp. 35, 39). 6, With the Lorentz transformations in Einstein’s interpretation, Einstein’s addition theorem of the velocities shares the contradicting nature. The contradiction also occurs here in a form that must lead the special RTH either to the admission of its inability to determine the actual speed of a movement or to the abolition of its own basis (p. 61, 63). 7. As a consequence of the principle of constancy of the speed of light, the assertion of the impossibility of a speed of movement exceeding the speed of propagation of light is to be rejected, as is the basic formula, understood in the relativistic sense, for the dependence of the dimensions of a moving body on the speed of its movement; this does not affect the question of the justification for assuming such a dependency and an insurmountable speed limit, which is based on the observation of facts (p. 66).

8. The assertion that all simultaneity is to be understood only in relative terms, according to the actual content of the relevant statements by Einstein and other relativists, only states that when light signals are used to determine the simultaneity of two events, this simultaneity must not be taken in the absolute sense, when, on the basis of the ether theory of light, the movement of the signal receiver (and the two locations of the event) against the hypothetical light ether and thus the exact value of the speed of the two-sided light signals in relation to the signal receiver is not known. Here, contrary to the view of the special RTH, the possibility of different speeds of light is reckoned with (p. 68 f.) And accordingly a “relativity” of simultaneity and thus of time measures in general is assumed, which is actually an introduction to the understanding of the special RTH The intended relativity of temporal (and spatial) distances proves to be completely unsuitable (p. 69 f.).

9. The special RTH tries to solve a bogus problem. Therefore, with the examination of appearances, it must share the fate of the problem of being put aside (p. 76).