SALZBURG

Dr. I. K. GEISSLER / RINGGENBERG ENOUGH WITH THE EINSTEIN - MISTAKE!

It is wrong to copulate the term “relativity” with “Einstein” as inseparable.

Newton already talks a lot about the relative and absolutes in mathematics and physics.

Einstein knows and uses the works of E. Mach who has written about relative space, relative time and movement.

Mansion (Paris 1863) considered:

• the absolute movement to be pointless
• the Ptolemaic and Copernican system to be kinematically equal.

I myself published a coherent general “possible” doctrine of relativity in space, time, etc., as early as 1900.

Einstein did not publish much about relativity until 1905.

But my book (“A possible declaration of being . . “, ) did not lead.

Einstein seeks to remove the difficulties, with which Newton had already fought, in a quite violent and illogical way (with faulty circle closure).

The difficulty of the different speeds, however, in which time and space is present, he believes to solve by forcibly letting times, which one called the same, be different, depending on different speeds, which is even supposed to be the case in nature.

It is neglected that in the “concepts” of speed there is also the concept of space and time.

Such a concept cannot possibly be presented as the original. What Einstein continues to use was also already available.

Even Lorentz had established the transformational formulas that Einstein now uses in “his” relativistic sense and in his assertion over time.

Lorentz accepted shortenings of bodies during movement.

But to Einstein, it is the space itself which is simply shorter as soon as they are on a different moving body.

He does not realize that when presenting such changes he always presupposes the uniformity of the time and space stretches, that without these those changes are not conceivable at all, nothing at all.

He does it similarly to the non-euclidicers, if they have a non-Euclidic[ian] space, which they otherwise only arithmetic (about by widely telling of 1, 2, 3 dimensions to a fourth and n-th) defined, to illustrate, such as if they want to present a finite, returning space instead of the infinite one, by using a parable that is entirely based on the actual Euclidean infinite space.

One should imagine a sphere surface on which one can return to the beginning in a circling way.

However, it is assumed that there is an area in the space and that such an area is always presented only if outside this sphere surface the expanding space is located, but otherwise it is impossible in the sense, in the view.

In fact, Einstein is simply relying on non-Euclidean teachings or assertions.

But in this way, by a faulty circle, one does not get rid of infinity. As on asphere surface, such as the earth’s surface, “hump” can be imagined, so should the space can be humpback, quasi-spherical. Just as the space lengths in Einstein can change due to the difference in speed, so the space itself should be able to get small changes through the influence of “masses” — as if such humpbacks were at all understandable and had some sense if one did not assume that there is the lack of disgust, from which the hump differs. Of course, of these wonderful things, which are written by Einstein of nature, we should usually not notice anything: “even masses the size of a sun only minimally influence the metric of the surrounding space”.

So: there is this sun sitting in the space — or not in the space ? And this sun, which mass has a “spatial” extent (or is the sun as a mass a completely metaphysical, extraspatial thing ? ?), should now have an influence on space, namely the “surrounding” albeit minimal, which makes this space itself humpback.

Relativity no longer moves in the context of physics. It becomes metaphysical with errors of thought.

with the use of a prerequisite (a space with which the humpful one is compared, which cannot be humpback without this condition, completely destroys this concept) — that is, using a condition in the “rebuttal of this condition - — to refute this condition. One cannot jump over into the field of philosophy if one cannot think philosophically, not logically — even the most extensive advertising does not help — except for people who understand the whole question only indepth or not at all.

Whoever wants to judge here, including the who Einstein wants to prove right and revere him as a great physicist and philosopher must surely be able to think seriously and philosophically himself, or at least have heard the other side. Audiatur et altera pars [Latin translates as-> let the other party] - — and thoroughly, not just after a brief excerpt.

ARMIN GIMMERTHAL / BONN: RELATIVITY IS FAKE

I prove in a recent work “Four Relations Clauses and one Relations System, a Complete Refutation of the RTH” :

1. Relativity is in contradiction with incontrovertible laws of thought, in particular the principle of addition and the principle of relativity of classical mechanics;

2. Relativity is a falsification of it and that he has had to make it in order to be able to make his claims

3. All transformation equations intended to support these claims are false;

4. Einstein’s views on space and time are untenable, in particular, that he lacks the appropriate ideas for the concept of simultaneity

5. Relativizing simultaneity is an obvious nonsense

6. The Minkowski’s “world” — a mathematical fantasy of this is in turn a forgery, and7. that the correctly understood mathematics of theory fully confirms all these accusations.