H. Morgan complains in your July issue that relativity is boring. This view will be shared by many physicists, but they do not seem to have noticed that one cause of the confusions and contradictions is
that it is not a scientific theory...
Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and Physical Society, V18, pp. 71-77 (Mar 1967). What is Wrong With Relativity? provided the inspiration for many dissidents since its publication over 40 years ago. Brown begins by observing that Einstein produced no definitive account of his theory and that his original presentation contained contradictions. He then argues that the two postulates of Special Relativity are (1) a law about laws, and (2) an algebraic representation of what is, or could be, a fact. Citing the work of Herbert Ives, Percy Bridgman, Vladimir Fock, Louis Essen, and others, Brown summarizes the case against Einsteinian relativity as it stood in 1967. His arguments have yet to receive an answer.
The ancient Greek atomists maintained that forces between bodies could only be communicated by pressure or impact, a view that was supported by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas: it appears in the scholastic axiom that C matter cannot act where it is not. Duns Scotus and his followers did not agree; William of Ockham using his Razor to out any intermediate actions which were unobservable and saying that there was no reason to object to action-at-a-distance.
In May 1957 Brown gave a talk on the BBC Third Programme entitled "Must Western Science Decline?" It was printed in The Listener (May 23, 1957), the official journal of the BBC at that time.
The Greek philosophers showed that in the study of Nature there were three fundamentally different theories which could be put forward to account for the obvious and extensive characteristics of stuff and change: the physical, the mathematical, and the functional theories...