The 1931 Consensus Of the German National Socialist Workers Party

A 100% consensus of socialists.

Albert von Brunn: Review of ‘100 Authors against Einstein’ [March 13, 1931] | SpringerLink

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to The 1931 Consensus Of the German National Socialist Workers Party

  1. richard says:

    The connection of the Nazis and Democrats is an eye opener with this new book and film-

    Death of a Nation-

  2. neal s says:

    “One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published in 1931 [that said the Theory of Relativity is wrong]. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that to defeat relativity, one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”

    • There are problems with the Einstein theory. Petr Beckmann covered a slew of these in “Einstein Plus Two.” Basically, the theory has not been tested many ways, and the Maxwell equations and ordinary physics offer alternative interpretations within the limits of experimental accuracy. Einstein did publish “Why Socialism?” endorsing economic totalitarianism at a time when National Socialists were still being hunted, tried and hanged at Nuremberg. The facts Beckmann describes are dismissed the way unvarnished thermometer records are dismissed, ignored or attacked as some sort of threat to looter philosophy. But since Einstein defended the initiation of force, his theories are canonized as “settled science” by clueless hagiographers innocent of the most basic notions of scientific method.

  3. CO2isLife says:

    Tony, from your posts I take it you saw “Death of a Nation.” Great movie and the book “The Big Lie” is even better. Keep up the great work.

    • tonyheller says:

      I was really disappointed by the lack of documentation in the movie, so I did some research which Dinesh should have included.

  4. Charlie says:

    Tony, when I tell Google to go to it takes me to instead. Just started two days ago. Your site is listed about 6 entries down.

  5. GCsquared says:

    Geeking out: I wish this entire paper could be read.

    Back in the day when I was studying relativity, I dug into some early papers to see what actual scientists were thinking about at the time in regard to the fact that measurements of the speed of light always gave the same value no matter how fast the apparatus was moving.

    To my great surprise, H. A. Lorenz, the famous Dutch physicist, had come up with an interesting proof, that if systems were held together with purely electromagnetic forces, then they would contract when moving through the ether, and their internal motion would slow down, in such a way that all observers no matter what their speed would think that light had a fixed speed. This was a mechanistic approach to the problem, which involved deriving the explanation from electrodynamic equations.

    Einstein took a more mathematical approach, reversing the logic, dropping the physics, and formulating the explanation more like a theorem. Forget what’s making this happen. Just start with the idea that all observers measure the same speed for light. How do length and time have to depend on the observers’ speed to make this come about? He got the same formulas as Lorenz, which no longer depended on mechanism: none had been used.

    It’s a bit of a cliffhanger for me not to know exactly what in Einstein’s theory these guys considered wrong. (Not that I’d expect that dragging anti-Semitism into the issue would clarify matters.)

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Unfortunately, I’m not aware of any English translation. I reckon the Great Depression was not a good time to translate and publish a fairly obscure German pamphlet. I would not be surprised if thanks to the internet more people knew of its existence today than in the 1930s.

      I read some of it in German. Many of the arguments were philosophical (not that there is anything wrong with it). I would not call it a paper. It was a collection of contributions—some very short, some repeating similar objections—that were brought together to oppose Einstein’s theories and those backing it.

      I had the sense that many of the authors were simply uncomfortable with the destruction of the “orderly” world of the 19th century. Not too many dealt with the mathematics and if I remember it right some of them complained that it ignored physics.

      And some of them also complained about being blocked from having their views accepted in scientific journals or from presenting at the recent international conference on natural sciences in Innsbruck. They even spoke of the “terror of the Einstein followers”. Kind of typical of academics, and bitterly ironic considering the real world terror that followed.

      • GCsquared says:

        Thanks for mentioning the paper itself, which is available, rather than this review, which is not! (I shoulda knowed.)
        The article indeed makes interesting reading, though I only read about 10 of the 100. These 1931 objections originated back around 1905, and long predated the Nazi regime. The text I saw argued only scientific issues. Since anti-Semitic ethnic and class bias was prevalent in Germany from the late 1800’s on, and because some scientists HAD criticised Jews, indirect bias can’t be dismissed. But Nazis came later, only in the late ‘30’s, when they dug this up as specifically anti-Einstein propaganda.
        The objections as you say are partly philosophical, but working through philosophical implications of space and time was essential for scientific understanding. Other objections involved some of the famous paradoxes that were resolved long after, and others bemoaned the failure to incorporate Mach’s principle. And some didn’t like avoiding mechanistic explanations like I explained above. Overall, the objections of the 100 were really a summary of arguably legitimate problems. That Einstein did NOT get the Nobel for relativity, even after Eddington, illustrates how controversial relativity was in the Physics community a decade earlier in1921.
        “Einstein terror” probably referred to his overwhelming media support and the difficulty relativity sceptics had in getting a public venue for their views. Here we might have some sympathy: the public treatment of climate sceptics today could well be called “Michael Mann terror”. Obviously, I am NOT equating the quality of their work, but only how sceptics might feel about being shouted down.
        Hitler wasn’t the only one worried about Einstein’s Communist and socialist politics and Jewish activism: the FBI had him on a list of sympathizers in the US. He must have been doing something right to get everyone so upset at him.

        • I heartily recommend Beckmann’s “Einstein Plus Two.” There you will find the names and dates of many papers pressing forth with alternative interpretations. Lorentz himself rejected the general theory but offered no replacement. Beckmann offers alternatives and extrapolates these to take a stab at Bode’s Law. It’s eerily reminiscent of Heinlein’s “Time For The Stars” published back in the fifties.

          • GCsquared says:

            Many thanks for the tip!
            Ordered Beckmann from library ($$$); ordered Heinlein for 3.95, LOL.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            I recently listened to a lecture that Beckmann gave in LA in 1980:

            “<a href=""Why Nuclear Power Should Be Defended”

            Thank you Mr. McManus, Mr. Welch, Ladies and Gentlemen.

            I’ve been asked to speak on why nuclear power should be defended.

            Straight off, I’ll give it two perhaps most important reasons about which I will not talk too much.

            Economy and defense.

            The economy, the world’s greatest economy, the greatest that’s ever been known in human history, the American economy runs on a capacity of roughly five hundred thousand megawatts that is not the kind of capacity that can be produced by sun beams, summer breezes, fumeroles and chicken manure.

            Secondly, defense.

            Defense is not decided by weapons alone.

            … in the long run what backs up the defense of a country is strong economy.

            I wondered how many youngsters coming out of public schools today would know who are McManus and Welch .

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            A little code typo above:

            Why Nuclear Power Should Be Defended

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.