SALZBURG

1. Dr. WALTER DEL-NEGRO / SALZBURG: THE QUESTION OF RELATIVITY

The questionable nature of Relativty is in it replacing the basics of philosophical and physical thought from a mere hypothesis to explain certain experimental results, even if that hypothesis is not even the only possible one.

The probability of a hypothesis is calculated in a multiplicative way from the probability of the explanatory value and the preceding probability ; the former may be large here, but the latter is minimal.

Relativity makes the space-time continuum of a system one-sidedly dependent on the relative motion.

If the relative velocity of a system changes, the measurement results available from it also change, which Relativity explains by actually changing the space-time of this system.

The space-time values of a system are thus generated by the relative motion ; since, however, the relative movement itself must be defined in a space-time, which in turn is again caused by relative movement should, etc., a regr[ession] in infin[ity]. The RTH therefore harbours ontological impossibility.

If one replies that Relativity only wants to be an expedient drawing system without ontological claims, the view of theory as fiction is thus admitted to the opponent of the RTH. There is nothing to be said against this, but the non-positivist, who believes in a physical reality, must then remain free to push the finality of Relativity.

Professor Dr. HANS DRIESCH / LEIPZIG: MY MAIN OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE RELATIVITY THEORISTICS

1. The clear term “The one empirical reality” or “nature” is missing, which is inevitably in one time.

It does not matter whether nature is conceived as a “appearance” or in the sense of realism

2. It is overlooked that there is a set of absolutely binding statements (“real ontology”) for nature

3. It is overlooked that so-called metageometry is not a “geometry” at all, but only a chapter from pure relations theory (1.c. p. 62 ff.), which is clearly not fulfilled.

4. It is overlooked that time is fundamentally different from space (1.c p. 43).5. That “at the same time” should be many “times” is an unenforceable thought (1.c p. 41),

5. The idea that movement, which is supposed to be only relative, has an absolute real effect (scale reduction, clock example; 1.c s. 21, 25, 26).

6. It is a credit to Einstein to have shown that today there is no means of precisely determining simultaneity.

But a limit of determinability is not a limit of ideal gratitude; and limits of practical determinability must never be used to create logically absurd constructions.

8. Relatvity only deals with the practical scientific operation of mathematical physics, which encounters certain obstacles; but it has no ideological significance at all.

Dr. S. FRIEDLAENDER / HALENSEE: RELATIVITY FINALLY REFUTED BY ERNST MARCUS

According to the prevailing hypothesis of the propagation of light, the movement of light is independent of all movements of the physical world. It should therefore contrast against it.

But this is not the case.

The experimental experience does not reveal such a contrast.

Relativty relativizes in order to hold on to the hypothesis of light propagation which prevails unchecked, even time itself and all dimensions.

In your dream of the independence of the light movement, you do not think of second one.

You prefer to doubt the world, the sway to understand itself. Thoughtlessly uncritical, keeps the old image sacred. But this is by no means inevitable.

One of the unbreakable prerequisites of the special RTH is the proposition: the law of light propagation remains the same for the moving system as for the resting system.

But it is precisely then that contrasts would have to emerge, depending on the light encountering differently moving bodies. In fact, no contrasts can be determined experimentally.

Therefore, Einstein does not relativize how close it would be to the previous image of the light, but immediately the time itself.

On a dormant system, in relation to this, other time ratios as related to a moving one.

Is this claim false, so with this mantle the whole edifice falls, the entire special RTH. Then it is physically impossible.And in this assertion, as Marcus strictly proves, there is a mistake.

Two things of movement are possible: different movements are either in relation to the independent interarrangement or the interdependence and subordination.

Einstein confuses the independent arrangement with subordination in the movement of light.

His assertion that the movement of light, as an independent, does not contrast with other movements is baseless and incomprehensible, hence the whole theory is untenable.

One hears that the light movement is independent and should therefore contrast with the others. But the experiment does him no favour at all.

Isn’t that weird?

Should we not come up with the simple idea, like Ernst Marcus, that this thoughtlessly assumed independence of the light movement would be doubted precisely by this experimental experience?

But no, for God’s sake this independence must be maintained, and rather time be relativized itself !

The light is caused by bodies and is therefore dependent on them. Nevertheless, it should then be independent in its movement ?

And so that the bill is only true, time is put into perspective. Without any physical justification, Einstein treats time like a body moving with or by bodies. Such physically untenable means do not solve problems.

But this wrong slogan points to the real problem and its correct solution: is the light movement independent or dependent?

How do you rhyme with the alienating contradiction that the light, caused by bodies, is nevertheless independent in its movement?

Supposedly, after the transmission, the light should spread in spherical radii in all directions of the space, like waves in the water.

This requirement of the special RTH is untenable. Marcus assumes that the light from radiation is not only one-sided of the outside, but also of the outside and receiver.

A relationship such as that of polarity between light poles. All world bodies would be connected to each other only by strips of light, in between eclipse. Here we really would have a new, wonderful photo.

Planets would not only be hit by solar rays by chance, but they, as recipients, help to create the light.

The light movement loses its absolute character. If the outsider and receiver retain their removal, these light poles, the light moves only at its own speed.

It has also been proved experimentally that the light in its own motion cannot be influenced by the earth’s movement.

Here, of course, this miracle is explained, without one becoming Einstein’s desperate, very problematic means would have to take refuge. If you don’t want to follow Marcus, you’d rather leave the problem unresolved. Protecting a problem from sham solutions are important.

Goethe has already long ago claimed that the confirmation of a hypothesis by mathematical formulas is not proof of correctness.

Mathematicians think they can’t believe it. In other words, forgo experience. In no way is science privileged to imply hypotheses that dispense with control by perception.

The most abstruse hypotheses are devised to prove that the light movement, although it does not stand out from others, nevertheless proceeds independently.

But the light cannot move in the same breath soon independent, soon dependent ! The previous light propagation hypothesis may be incorrect.

This eventuality has not been taken into account at all. One can mistakenly assume that the light movement is absolute. Experiments of experience argue against this absoluteness. Whystick to the previous hypothesis of light propagation? It is really enough to relativize only the light movement instead of time and dimensions.