100 Authors Against Einstein

It is a unique case in the intellectual history of mankind that a theory is proclaimed and celebrated as a Copernican act able to reshape our view of nature and the world.

Its essence lies so difficult as to be incomprehensible to the general public.

The suggestive power of a repeatedly placarded name, the misunderstood and misunderstood catchphrase of “relativity”, snobbish admiration of half-conceived paradoxes bend the simple perplexed mind.

Unbiased thinking and unbiased science have rebelled from the start.

But they were dismissed with completely ignoring the twists and turns.

Thus, Einstein’s counter-expression to Lenard’s famous first objections (1918) touched the main points too little or not at all.

A similar thing was repeated at the Nauheim Scientific Meeting in 1921.

During the Leipzig Centenary Celebration 1922, 19 physicists, mathematicians and philosophers (Lenard, Gehrcke, Lipsius, Palagyi, Mohorovicic, Fricke, Vogtherr, Kremer, Lothigius) were forced to protest together:

“They complain in the deepest way the misleading of public opinion, which is touted as the solution of the theory of relativity (RTH) and which is kept in the dark about the fact that many and also highly respected scholars of the three research areas mentioned but even reject it as a fundamentally misguided and logically untenable fiction.”

None of this became known [to the public].

Magazines and newspapers seem to have conspired to bring each yes to close yourself to any “no”.

Researchers of the biggest names know about this. Thus, the general public could be deprived of the fact that Relativity, far from being a sure scientific possession, has recently been proven by irrefutable arguments as a complex of contradictory assertions, as impossible and superfluous to think.

The spiritual fathers of Einstein were Mach and Michelson. They rejected Relativity.

It has not been known that the opponents are at least equal in number and importance to the followers.

What is even more important is the outrageous fact that neither Einstein himself nor his commentators even made the attempt to refute the increasingly frequent arguments of the opponents.

An open letter from Prof. Kraus (Prague) to Einstein and Laue (1925), in which decisive answers to crucial questions are demanded with compelling logic, was ignored.

Even before that, Kraus and Gehrcke had been prevented from expressing new concerns and revealing weaknesses of the opponent in the “Journal of Physics” and in the “Logos”. The Naturalists’ Congress in Innsbruck did not want a lecture against the RTH, after Schlick had been allowed to hold one for Einstein the year before.

Precisely because the RTH has become or has been made a matter not only for science, but for the general public, precisely because it wants or should reshape our entire world view, its defenders would have the obligation to stand in the service of truth, which alone is at stake. Magazines and newspapers would have a duty not to sabotage the exchange of views.

The purpose of this publication is to counter the terror of the Einsteinians with an overview of the number and weight of the opponents and counter-reasons. The purpose is to educate the general public and to clarify the problems in question.

The editors are prepared that the other side will rush to undoubted weaker, vulnerable arguments, to occasional contradictions between the individual authors and thus try to devalue the present collective script. On the other hand, it should be noted in advance that there is no uniform and authentic representation of the theory of relativity either on the part of Einstein or on the part of his numerous commentators.

Rather, the RTH dazzles in all colours.

Einstein himself has given rise to contradictory interpretations (see aether question, clock movement, validity of the absolute constancy of the speed of light), which in turn stand in occasional contrast to the interpretations of Mie, Reichenbach, Thirring, Born, Freundlich, Sommerfeld, Riebesell, Weyl, Schlick, Planck, Petzoldt and others, while these again differ physically, mathematically and in the theoretical way.

(More information about this at Gehrcke, Kraus, Lenard, Lipsius, Linke a.u.a.o.) Even the most elementary basic concerns such as “time” , “reality” (the shortening of space, etc.) are deeply unclear and has disagreement. The ambiguous and misleading counterfront cannot therefore be opposed to a unified self-front.

But surely there is the corresponding debunking counter-argument to every argument of the Einstein side. In the case of unbiased and fair examination, the present material in its entirety will testify in all circumstances against Einstein and every reading of his theory. The editors.

Light: Constant Speed Time: Simultaneity Circular Reasoning Space: Reality Speed: Cause

Grading System

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20