Reference: Essays on Substance
Objections to Einstein’s Relativity
In 1931, A book One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published in Leipzig, Germany, to disprove General Relativity. Einstein’s response to the book was, “Why a Hundred? If I were wrong one would have been enough.”
I think that the objections that were raised by these authors against RTH (Einstein’s theory of Relativity) deserve to be examined closely. I want to see if at least one of these objections is truly valid on a scientific basis, and not necessarily philosophically.
I looked at the objection by the first author, Professor Dr. WALTER DEL-NEGRO / SALZBURG. He says,
“The space-time values of a system are thus generated by the relative movement. However, since the relative movement itself has to be defined in a space-time, which in turn would have to be conditioned by relative movement, etc., an infinite regression results.”
When I look at the solar system, there is a dynamic equilibrium between the relative movement of the planets (including the sun) and space-time. The relative movements and space-time influence each other but there is no infinite regression. So, this objection does not pan out. This is covered in the section on Gravity in The Theory of Substance.
I shall be looking at the objections form other authors, and writing down my observations on this thread, one author at a time. Hopefully, time will allow me to do this.
.
Comments
This may not be relevant. What if we ignore the concept of time. What if all there is, is the here and now? What if all there is, is relative position and the changes in position, and no time. after all, we measure time by counting events, assuming events are of constant value. It seems to me that with no time concept, all there is, is probability of position relatively speaking.
You are talking about thought-time or physical-time?
Objection 2.1
Here is Author #2, Objection 1
Professor Dr. HANS DRIESCHI, LEIPZIG
There is no clear term “the one empirical reality” or “nature”, which is inevitably at one instant of time. It is irrelevant whether nature is understood as “appearance” or in the sense of realism.
This objection is basically philosophic. Einstein may not have defined “the one empirical reality” or “nature” explicitly. However, The theory of Substance defines it fully. Nature is as we sense it and interpret it as the oneness of the Universe. Please see
The Foundation
Objection 2.2
Here is Author #2, Objection 2
Professor Dr. HANS DRIESCHI, LEIPZIG
It is overlooked that a total of absolutely binding statements (“real ontology”) exist for nature.
Apparently Einstein did not spell it out. It is spelled out in Theory of Substance as the constraint of ONENESS that applies to all reality. Please see
The Foundation
Objection 2.3
Here is Author #2, Objection 3
Professor Dr. HANS DRIESCHI, LEIPZIG
It is overlooked that so-called meta-geometry is not “geometry” at all, but only a chapter from pure relational theory, which is clearly not fulfilled.
This criticism is just nit picking. There is such a thing as space that describes the geometry of substance. There are also relationships. Here is what AI says:
Einstein’s meta-geometry and pure relational theory differ in their fundamental approaches to understanding physical reality and the nature of space-time. Einstein’s meta-geometry favors mathematical analysis over geometric intuition in describing space-time, while pure relational theory emphasizes the primacy of interactions and relative properties in understanding physical reality across both classical and quantum domains.
Key differences include:
Objection 2.4
Here is Author #2, Objection 4
Professor Dr. HANS DRIESCHI, LEIPZIG
It is overlooked that time is essentially something fundamental other than space.
This is a misconception of the critic himself. Both space and time are characteristics of the substance. They are consistent with other characteristics of the substance such as consistency and motion. Please see
Substance and Time
Objection 2.5
Here is Author #2, Objection 5
Professor Dr. HANS DRIESCHI, LEIPZIG
That there should be many “times” “simultaneously” is an incomprehensible thought.
This objection relates more to the general misunderstanding of the concept of time in the society.
Different times means different durabilities of substances due to different “inertia”. This reflects in their absolute motions, which is inverse of their “inertias.” The absolute motion reflects the rate of existence of substance, which is “time”. The key example is matter and light, which exist side by side.
Objection 2.6
Here is Author #2, Objection 6
Professor Dr. HANS DRIESCHI, LEIPZIG
The idea that movement, which should only be relative, has an absolutely real effect (scale foreshortening, clock slowing) is used in a completely inadmissible manner.
We are used to relative movement on the surface of earth only. But the motion in free space is very different, where it is the inverse of inertia/mass/consistency of a particle on the spectrum of substance. Einstein’s interpretation in terms of length contraction and time dilation is definitely confusing, misleading, and incorrect also. But the underlying idea of the characteristics of space and time changing with motion is revolutionary, and it led to the theory of Substance.
Objection 2.7
Here is Author #2, Objection 7
Professor Dr. HANS DRIESCHI, LEIPZIG
It is one of Einstein’s merits to have shown that today there is no means of precisely determining simultaneity. But a limit of determinability is not a limit of ideal existence; and limits to the practical determinability can never be used to create logically absurd constructions.
The critics “ideal existence” exists in imagination only. The sense of simultaneity becomes difficult only when the instantaneous awareness of events is not possible. This may be corrected by relying on intuition, which is the domain of thought. Thought may have infinite speed compared to the finite speed of light, but this area is yet to be investigated.
Objection 2.8
Here is Author #2, Objection 8
Professor Dr. HANS DRIESCHI, LEIPZIG
The RTH only deals with the practical scientific activity of mathematical physics, which just encounters certain obstacles; but it has absolutely no ideological significance.
It is true that RTH is only a mathematical theory and not a real theory. But looking at some of the verifications of the predictions from it, it has the potential to become a real theory. The theory of Substance is an attempt to realize this potential.
Objection 3.0
Here is Author #3
Dr. S. FRIEDLAENDER I HALEN SEE
The objection may be summarized as follows:
The objection is against the absoluteness of the speed of light as postulated by Einstein to the point that one is forced to reevaluate the concepts of space and time. Everything is connected to everything else in this universe, so light cannot be entirely independent. The light cannot be independent of different frames of reference. The movement of light is relative not the dimensions of space and time.
This objection may be explained through the following analysis:
An Analysis of Special Relativity (SR)
Objection 4.0
Here is Author #4
Dr. I. K. GEISSLER / RINGGENBERG
This critic is basically upset because Einstein has become famous by reinterpreting data that was already known. He is critical of how Einstein has applied mathematics. He considers Einstein’s “observer” as metaphysical with errors of thought. He thinks that Einstein is neither a physicist nor a philosopher. His criticism is very general and not specific.
Objection 5.0
Here is Author #5
ARMIN GIMMERTHAL / BONN
This critic refers to his writing elsewhere, but he does not provide any specifics in this book.
Objection 6.0
Here is Author #6
Professor Dr. LUDWIG GOLDSCHMIDT / JENA
This critic refers to his writing elsewhere, but he does not provide any specifics in this book.
Objection 7.0
Here is Author #7
Professor Dr. A. H. DE HARTOG / AMSTERDAM
This author recognizes that in Einstein’s view is everything is relative and nothing is fixed any more. He does not offer any negative criticism to Einstein’s work. He provides explanations to help ward off hasty conclusions and unfounded skepticism.
He is basically commenting on the subject of Time that it can be both subjective and objective. There are relative certainties to be obtained. Metaphysical values stand independent of physical values. We naturally look for absolute certainty; but it may not be in the physical realm. Einstein’s view provides basis for further discussions.
Objection 8.0
Here is Author #8
Dipl.-Ing. Dr. HANS ISRAEL / BERLIN
He is trying to refute Einstein’s math; but it is the beginning postulates and conclusions that matter. If Einstein’s math were wrong it would have been broadly known by now.