Einstein's Dilemma
The following two short comments on Einstein's special relativity serve as an example for the hopeless difficulties one encounters, when one takes an intuitive instead of a rational approach and one starts with axiomatic statements towards a certain matter, instead of using common principles as a criterion of one's considerations.
Just like objective evaluations are impossible without previously tested criteria, no meaningful measurements and no serious science are possible without physical quantities, units and measurement procedures agreed upon by standardization committees. Knowledge about length, time intervals and velocities is available only after measurements involving previously defined units and standards. This basic requirement was grossly violated by Einstein's axiomatic stipulation of the constancy of light velocity, which started from light velocity and with seemingly objective statements and then , from this knowledge obtained by revelation, the presupposed result - i.e. the anomalous, subjective behavior of rods and clocks - followed. Hasn't it been the original aim of science that we can dispense with revelations - that we can know and that we no longer have to believe. And if experimental results do not fit ones expectations, is it no more probable that he, rather than the material standard, is going wrong?
Since our knowledge in a rational physics of measurements and their possible changes can rely only upon constant standards, the thesis "space and time are relative" is lacking any basis. If space and time were relative - or better, if the standards for lengths and time intervals and/or the reference frame - in the SRT-context - would depend on velocity, then, lacking constant reference standards, neither their relativity, nor the constancy or non-constancy of velocity, nor the velocity itself would be ascertainable at all. If we cannot rely upon the constancy of measurements means, then there is no meaningful procedure worthy of the name "measurement"! Einstein's thesis presupposes what he contests! If that is no dilemma! And it shows us, that only the rational way, built upon already tested premises, can be the way leading to knowledge.
translated by Dr. George Galeczki (Cologne/Germany)