Blog Ekkehard Friebe

Nachstehend bringe ich Auszüge aus einer Internet-Veröffentlichung „The Farce of Physics“
von Bryan G. Wallace (Copyright 1993 Bryan G. Wallace), Kapitel 3: „Mathematical Magic“:

Zitat:

I presented the argument that mathematics was a language. My view on this matter was based on the following statement by Dr. Robert B. Fischer, in his book „Science Man and Society“: 

The language of mathematics, which consists of its symbols and their relationships, is very much at the heart of the practice of virtually all fields of science. [40]

My view was also shaped by various statements made by Prof. Albert Einstein such as the following sentence: 

It demands the highest possible standard of rigorous precision in the description of relations, such as only the use of mathematical language can give. [39 p.225]

Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a member of the Physics faculty, and a graduate of Yale University, told a story in support of my argument. The story concerned a statement made by Prof. Josiah Willard Gibbs, Yale’s first professor of mathematical physics. With regard to Gibbs, the following was taken from an article on him entitled „A loner’s legacy“:

Gibb’s work was so advanced that one of his great admirers, Albert Einstein, complained about one of his papers that „it is hard to read and the main points have to be read between the lines.“ However, Einstein also termed it „a masterpiece.“ Scientists have been reading between the lines since Gibbs first laid out the fundamental equations of thermodynamics and reshaped the study of relations between energy and the composition of matter into a modern field with implications still being found. [41]

The story came from a biography on Gibbs by Dr. Muriel Rukeyser, and goes as follows:

A story is told of him, the one story that anyone remembers of Willard Gibbs at a faculty meeting. He would come to meetings – these faculty gatherings so full of campus politics, scarcely veiled manoeuvres, and academic obstacle races – and leave without a word, staying politely enough, but never speaking.

Just this once, he spoke. It was during a long and tiring debate on elective courses, on whether there should be more or less English, more or less classics, more or less mathematics. And suddenly everything he had been doing stood up – and the past behind him, his father’s life, and behind that, the long effort and voyage that had been made in many lifetimes – and he stood up, looking down at the upturned faces, astonished to see the silent man talk at last. And he said, with emphasis, once and for all:

„Mathematics is a language.“ [42]

Following Rhodes‘ story about Gibbs, everyone seemed to agree, that yes, mathematics is a language.

The above information gives us insight into the nature of Einstein’s relativity theory. He believes that the sea of ether exists, but he also believes that it cannot be detected by experiments, in other words, he believes it is invisible. The situation in modern physics is very much like the Hans Christian Andersen tale of „The Emperor’s New Clothes“, with Einstein playing the part of the Emperor. The tale goes that the Emperor, who was obsessed with fine clothing to the point that he cared about nothing else, let two swindlers sell him a suit of cloth that would be invisible to anyone who was „unfit for his office or unforgivably stupid.“ It turned out that no one could see the suit – not the emperor, not his courtiers, not the citizens of the town who lined the street to see him show off his new finery. Yet no one dared admit it until a little child cried out, „But he doesn’t have anything on!“

In regard to Einstein’s reluctance to acknowledge the influence of the Michelson-Morley experiment on his thinking, and Whittaker’s argument that his special relativity theory was a clever restatement of the work of Poincaré and Lorentz, I report the following published [56] statements which Einstein made to Prof. R. S. Shankland on this matter:

The several statements which Einstein made to me in Princeton concerning the Michelson-Morley experiment are not entirely consistent, as mentioned above and in my earlier publication. His statements and attitudes towards the Michelson-Morley experiment underwent a progressive change during the course of our several conversations. I wrote down within a few minutes after each meeting exactly what I recalled that he had said. On 4 February 1950 he said,“…that he had become aware of it through the writings of H. A. Lorentz, but only after 1905 had it come to his attention.“ But at a later meeting on 24 October, 1952 he said, „I am not sure when I first heard of the Michelson experiment. I was not conscious that it had influenced me directly during the seven years that relativity had been my life. I guess I just took it for granted that it was true.“ However, in the years 1905-1909 (he told me) he thought a great deal about Michelson’s result in his discussions with Lorentz and others, and then he realized (so he told me) that he „had been conscious of Michelson’s result before 1905 partly through his reading of the papers of Lorentz and more because he had simply assumed this result of Michelson to be true.“….  

With regard to the politics that led to Einstein’s fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar’s article [46] states:

In 1917, after more than two years of war, England enacted conscription for all able-bodied men. Eddington, who was 34, was eligible for draft. But as a devout Quaker, he was a conscientious objector; and it was generally known and expected that he would claim deferment from military service on that ground. Now the climate of opinion in England during the war was very adverse with respect to conscientious objectors: it was, in fact, a social disgrace to be even associated with one. And the stalwarts of Cambridge of those days – Larmor (of the Larmor precession), Newall, and others – felt that Cambridge University would be disgraced by having one of its distinguished members a declared conscientious objector. They therefore tried through the Home Office to have Eddington deferred on the grounds that he was a most distinguished scientist and that it was not in the long-range interests of Britain to have him serve in the army… In any event, at Dyson’s intervention – as the Astronomer Royal, he had close connections with the Admiralty – Eddington was deferred with the express stipulation that if the war should have ended by 1919, he should lead one of two expeditions that were being planned for the express purpose of verifying Einstein’s prediction with regard to the gravitational deflection of light… The Times of London for November 7, 1919, carried two headlines: „The Glorious Dead, Armistice Observance. All Trains in the Country to Stop,“ and „Revolution in Science. Newtonian Ideas Overthrown.“

Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper [49] titled „The Einstein Shift – An Unsettled Problem,“ and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.

So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the world’s greatest scientist was based on the Mathematical Magic of Trimming and Cooking of the eclipse data to present the illusion that Einstein’s general relativity theory was correct in order to prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced because one of its distinguished members was close to being declared a „conscientious objector“!

(Zitatende, Hervorhebungen durch Fettdruck von Friebe)

Lesen Sie bitte hier weiter!

Beste Grüße Ekkehard Friebe