### A criticism of the special theory of relativity

**By Louis Essen ** 1981

*Beitrag aus dem GOM-Projekt: 2394 weitere kritische Veröffentlichungen *

zur Ergänzung der Dokumentation Textversion 1.2 – 2004, Kapitel 4.

**A criticism of the special theory of relativity** / L. Essen. In: Kammerer, E.: Schwindel als Wissenschaft. 1981. (2 S.) Abdruck aus: Wissen im Werden. 12. 1976, H. 2/3.

**Auszüge:** „The general acceptance and continued teaching of the special theory of relativity is, in my view, hindering the progress of physical science by discouraging the search for a more rational theory.

There is no great difficulty in exposing the faults in the theory but great difficulty in persuading scientists even to consider the possibility that it might be wrong. They have accepted the theory without completely under-standing it and are reluctant to think about further. A frequent comment, made even by eminent scientists, is „I do not understand it myself but the experts must be right“.

This attitude is encouraged by three myths which are widely disseminated. These are that the theory is accepted by all reputable scientists, is too profound for ordinary minds to comprehend, and has been confirmed by many experiments. A careful study of the literature shows that there have been numerous critics, that any difficulty in understanding it arises from its ambiguities and mistakes rather than its profundity, and that no experiment, of the kind needed to check the relativity aspect of the theory, has ever been attempted.“ […]

„One of the predictions in Einstein’s paper [Naturwissenschaften. 48. 1918, 697] is that the time „marked“ by a moving clock is slow by 1/2(v/c)² seconds per second when „viewed in the stationary system“; but the practical implications of the prediction were never realised. There is only one way of „viewing“ the time of the distant clock, whether it is moving or not, and that is by receiving and counting the time pulses transmitted from it. At the receiving station there are two dials, one recording the number of pulses from the distant clock and the other the number from the local clock. The prediction states that fewer pulses are received from the distant clock than from the local clock. Since the clocks are identical by definition it follows that fewer pulses are received than are transmitted and the question arises, what happens to the missing pulses? They cannot be following behind in space because the effect is the same whether the clocks are moving towards or away from each other, since it is proportional to the square of the velocity. There is no known explanation of the missing pulses but it is inherent in the prediction. Being unaware of this relativitists assume that all the transmitted pulses are received and naturally arrive at paradoxical results. Einstein himself in a later paper, states that it is absurd to think that pulses can be lost, but does not of course draw the corollary that the prediction is absurd.“

Analysiert weiterhin detailliert die angebliche Zeitdilatation und kommt zu dem Ergebnis (S. 2): „The complete result is clearly impossible and constitutes the notorius „clock-paradox“.“ Gibt eine Übersicht der zahlreichen verschiedenen Erklärungen der Relativisten, die sich widersprechen und nichts befriedigend erklären (S. 2):

„A careful and objective analysis of Einstein’s paper of 1905 shows that the so-called theory consists of a number of assumptions, some of which are made implicitly. The contraction of time, proposed earlier by Lorentz, is first assumed to be a consequence of using new units of measurement, it is then assumed to be an apparent effect of uniform relative velocity, then, after the clock paradox result, to be a real effect of uniform motion, and finally to be due to acceleration or gravitation. Each new assumption contradicts and replaces the previous one but the theory is presented as though they follow logically one from the other.“

— *Eine der kompaktesten Darstellungen über den wahren Zustand der SRT und ihr inneres Funktionieren nach Art der Relativisten. – Bewertet Albert Einsteins Arbeit „Dialog über Einwände gegen die Relativitätstheorie“ (in: Die Naturwissenschaften. **6. 1918, S. 697-702): „Einstein also admitted that the result contradicts the initial postulates and in a most extraordinary paper he attributes it to gravitational effects, by the help of another thought-experiment, in which he makes further „experimental“ mistakes.“ *