This people were all nuts. 

See it starting from here. The relativity theory is and so the name says, a theory.

It’s astonishing that it is in the name directly and should have led to more skepticism than it actually did. You guys are so far in front of it you had to see it, normally.

In the history of science there are an other assumption like this one, stating the existence of the atoms which might be considered as if it was the term 'idea' getting some grabable content.

This statement or assumption was not really proved since then not even in itself. It is just followed and forwarded (pushed through the generations ) for the reason the supporter, the atomists, could not be proved being wrong when stating atoms would form and even their opponents who are not denying the the atoms but stating the emptiness by which atoms would be surrounded can not be real. I think in times as this idea was new, people as they started thinking about the atoms have had to use the atoms in their own  thinking processes. That means, to be able to think of a way to deny the atoms one has to use atoms shape to get on thinking. Therefore, this idea of this specific art to be is still  of validity today.

This way it was carried trough generations of human mankind. 

A distant prove of the atomistic is given with the practical option of electricity, I think. Where such kind of set together masses must be reached within generators or better, generators generating electricity where invented cause of the idea of the shape of atoms.

Interesting here is the time it took, app. 2500 years?

This but is an other line in time, if you want. Here always people that are still part of science have been and are still and will step on the stage and others proved wrong after a while are no longer not regarded scientists today.

So, for my understanding it all started with the exposure of sweeping forces as to be in nature, relativity could be led back on (? ). 

This is the work of Newton (same here ).

His predications are, today, referred to space and space mission not valid. The gravity would not have an effect further than the weightlessness set's in. So gravity can not be the reason why planets are kept on their pathes. This was right, was't it.  

Newton is of course app. 20 years later then Gericke. Suspicious, isn’t it. I think since then, natural forces have been named as powers of nature as arisen with the hemisphere experiment and attempt, and all went wrong. On the other geographical position was Pascal. Even very suspicious!

This all ended in Einstein's theory. But when you think earth was a disk once in fact, it’s no longer odd. And this was the real story not a kind of tale coming down an other planet. Things do go like this.

For the fact he did not (Einstein; which I today consider a personality except the 'work' he has done ) excluded negative numbers and stated the validity for each digit, positive and greater than 0, only. Remember until now 0 can be + and -. 

The context between physics and math is not existing, firstly and not crossing or criss - crossing. Physics as for my understanding the earliest part of science, seen from if their was a beginning, is being only applicable to - in fact existence. 

This is not given when, yes, when a case is not excluded, mass should be 0 or even smaller than 0menig to be negative (- ). This gentlemen is the fact Einsteins theory actually should not have  come once closed to the sight of science, the sight of scientists. 

(You better do not read this one. )

Today we know, apparently and additionally, mass is appearing as weightless but not zero or below. 

What I just thought was my definition is not within some kind of sciences known today as the atomistic -  or the way towards this idea -  wasn't. 

Energy as I said, is not existing in nature this assumed general way. Not in the nature of science where energy won't be get of it state as an umbrella term. It is happening in specific appearances which one, especially in science, has to take care for. Energy is always not energy but motions in fact. A perhaps interesting point here is as for my sight this motion in nature is always given. 

Nothing really stands still. If it is looking like it was it was moving passive, yet. So a statement in this before mentioned math - physics relation saying a velocity can be 0 is not real and I would like to say not valid, therefore, velocity = 0 says the velocity could be something not be moving which but is a standstill than not a motion in any kind so, there was no velocity that later could get the value 0. In the moment a vehicle for example stands still it has no velocity, that is 0. Velocity related to the self moving vehicle implicates a motion if this motion is not real the velocity can not become 0.

Energy could not have come into being when it would get the value O or even less. You could not include this particular energy or energy in general in the consideration. Energy, as I wrote further on top, could always only have been motion when it was got. Even when you smell things there need to be a specific way to realize this specific kind of motion. When heat runs through a hotplate and you burn your fingers the hotplate needed to have swung so fast that the friction as touching demolished (kind of rubbed off and burned ) your fingers skin, flesh. Brr. This was gotten as you had burned your finger(s ). 

The quantum term means, as you all know of course, a certain amount or quantity. This, if you would see it as double being, it's like the Russian Matroschkas which are wooden puppets, that are hollow, and of different sizes.                                                                                    

 >>>