Kritische Stimmen
zur Relativitätstheorie

von G.O. Mueller

Die Forschungsgruppe G.O. Mueller berichtet in ihrer  Dokumentation  über die Kritik von Menahem Simhony wegen Verhinderung von kritischen Veröffentlichungen in der Physik:

Quelle: M. Simhony: The electron positron lattice model of space and the reincarnation of physics as a natural science. – In: Physics as a science. Ed.: G. Galeczki, P. Marquardt, J. P. Wesley. – Palm Harbor, FL: Hadronic Press, 1998. S. 269-284.

Simhony kritisiert vehement die Unterdrückung von Kritik an Theorien der Physik (S. 272-273):

“Publication Policies and Advancement of Science. – The policy of rejecting everything that contradicts “accepted knowledge”, especially the relativity and quantum theories, by undisclosed, KKK-type hidden referees, begun in the 1930s, after a long ‘freedom of publication’ era in physics. During that era, any controversial paper was published, if editors or referees could not openly and scientifically show its wrongness. The controversial papers, introducing the Energy Conservation Law (Robert Mayer, 1842), and the Doppler Effect (Christian Doppler, 1842) were published, though bitterly opposed by the “scientific community”. The authors died, unappreciated by that community.

The highly controversial papers of Max Planck and of Albert Einstein were published , though they contained unproven, unexplained, errant, and self-contradictory statements, e. g., that all kinds of energy are equal; that energies exist alone, apart from material bodies; that they turn into mass, which is an intrinsic feature of material bodies; that any material point can be made into an electron; that the velocity of light in space is constant, in all universes; but later, – that the velocity in empty space is increasing above c , or is below this “universal” constant, depending on whether propagating toward a star, or away from it; that the velocity of X-rays in matter is higher than in empty space, etc.

Einstein, who most enjoyed the freedom of publication, was among those who started the modern silencing policy, when he rejected the 1919 Kaluza paper on the five-dimensional space-time manifold, just because it contradicted his four-dimensional system. Luckily for the Kaluza-Klein players of the “Add a Dimension” game, Einstein was not yet the “Maker of Universes”, and (after two years, instead of the then regular two mont[h]s) Kaluza’s paper was published.

The freedom of publication era was most fruitful, rich in scientific discoveries and helpful to technology, especially on a “per scientist”, and much more so, on the “per dollar” base. The free publication of all papers i n physics, including the most deficient and mistaken ones, was still less costly to society then the modern time-consuming selections, that care not about physics but on preserving the status in it of the “accepted knowledge” and of its keepers.”

Erstmals treffen wir bei einem Kritiker auf die interessante Metapher der “KKK-type hidden referees” für die gerühmte anonyme “peer review” zum Schutz der Rechtgläubigen Physiker. Zur Erinnerung: Der Ku-Klux-Klan ist eine Verbrecherbande, und seine handelnden Personen haben angesichts ihrer Taten die Verhüllung ihrer Gesichter dringend nötig. – Damit wird die von den Kritikern sehr früh diagnostizierte permanente Aufführung der Betrügergeschichte von “Des Kaisers neuen Kleidern” in der theoretischen Physik um das Ausstattungs-merkmal der Ku-Klux-Klan-Kapuze bereichert. – Den Relativisten mag es schmeicheln, daß ihr Held Albert Einstein auch beim Unterdrücken und Zensieren von Abweichlern einer der ersten war. – Die Datierung des Beginns der generellen Zensur auf die 1930er Jahre entspricht der Lage in den angelsächsischen Ländern, aber Deutschland war auch hierin weltweit führend und hatte mit der kalten Machtergreifung schon 1922 begonnen und die Unterdrückung und Verleumdung auch viel besser und konsequenter organisiert. Die führende Physik-Nation führte eben auch in der Zensur.

————————————————————–
Siehe auch vom Autor Menahem Simhony in diesem Blog:

The Michelson-Morley “No Ether Winds thus No Ether” Verdict