This is about a conflict of two different points of view which will be decided by the better arguments.
Newton's 1st law of motion states that a body remains at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by a force. Thus, Newton deals with the state of physical objects (forceless or in a particular interaction), for the change of which a force is required. "Force" is the name of something that changes the state, without anyone having to know the cause of the change. The state is independent of whether the observer sees the bodies at rest or in motion, as is stated at the very beginning, because both terms describe position assessments which do not arise until an observer puts bodies into perspective with conveniently chosen places, which are thus observer-dependent (relativity of motion!). Thus, Newton requires the kinetic quantity v to disappear by means of mathematics, and, in his dynamics, he only deals with the change of the kinetic quantity, the acceleration, because it is a sign of an objectively acting, thus real, force. Thus, it is not astonishing that the Newtonmeter exists as essential force.
Like Mach, Einstein did not want to know anything about causes and forces, and, in his special theory of relativity, let himself be guided, of all things, by the position of bodies and systems, which Newton rightly recognised as subjective ("only depending on the viewpoint"). Although Einstein, at first in his writings "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"* of 1905, in conformity with Newton, stated the assumption "that the term of being absolutely at rest (absolute = objectively inherent to the bodies) does not correspond to any properties of the appearances neither in mechanics nor in electrodynamics…." - an "assumption", which, at the same time, he considered to be "proven" (!) - he nevertheless reasoned, in the following chapters, in replacement of the defamed term of force, with the term of being at rest, which cannot be verified in inanimate bodies, as they do neither have locomotor organs (which are at rest just now) nor do they know any inner peace (of mind). In this context, the talk is about "systems at rest", "stationary clocks", "coordinate systems at rest, a "rod at rest" and a "meter stick at rest" and even about a "space at rest" (which is just about to relax and take a nap), although the state of rest, as correctly seen "by Einstein for the first time, "does not correspond to any physical properties of the phenomena." For this reason, both the non-accelerated travelling and the non-accelerated twin staying at home are in the same physical state, which means in a state of inertia, which is also implied by the equality of the inertial systems, recognised by Einstein. This equality excludes a relativity of these inertial systems. *A "dynamic" without causes or forces (absurd!) The title itself is already not correct! And in terms of physics "moving" is not an objective characteristic! The theory is not even wrong, but physically invalid.
Thus, it is either a gross misunderstanding or a lie, to call Newton's dynamics a marginal phenomenon of Einstein's concept of mechanics. Both authors have nothing in common except for some terms, which, however, could be interpreted in different ways. While Newton eliminates the observer-dependent quantity v, he deals with physics and thus science, whereas Einstein argues in a metaphorical language especially with the appearance of rest and motion, which has no objective equivalent in physics, as he himself saw rightly, and as is stated in Newton's first law of motion. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a linguistic construct, which, like a fairytale, can neither be proven nor disproved both due to the missing relation to reality and also due to its inner contradictions. For every thinking human being, the theory takes care of itself due to its insubstantiality. However, you could argue about it forever, as long as no one takes the effort to discuss objectively, which requires both linguistic discipline and expertise that, in my view, has never been required in official physics so far. Quite the contrary. In his book "The Philosophy of the Physicists" of 2006, the physicist Erhard Scheibe has stated that in physics in Mach's spirit, which pretends to be "modern", it became appropriate to turn one's nose at causality (causal = due to the cause itself; it requires linguistic proficiency to understand this) and to pretend that causality could no longer be found in physics. Relativists are satisfied if they can calculate something without having to understand it on top of that (the economy of thinking = most economical use of the brain!, propagated by Ernst Mach). The physicist Wilhelm Müller (1880-1968), once professor in Munich and successor to Arnold Sommerfeld, commented at that time: "The consideration of the true nature of things completely stops in the Theory of Relativity. The mathematic formalism virtually bungles all quality levels unscrupulously and turns the real problem into a pseudo problem, which has nothing at all to do with physical questions."
Notes of 6th/8th January 2013, english 16th July 2013
Portrait of the "Earth at rest"
Oh, idling is best and from this to take a rest!
The Earth is calmly at rest in the sky,
Only comets are constantly on the fly.
One question is always on my mind:
Have the galaxies not fled us until Einstein's Theories of Relativity are considered as ultimate wisdom in this field, or have they always done so?
How much Quantum Physics is suitable to replace the Theory of Relativity - see the following file.
Translation by Martha Greiner-Jetha (Gröbenzell near Munich, Germany)
© HILLE 2013