… because his fingers move over his keyboard.
“The force law of Einsteinian general relativity (EGR) does not give a precessing ellipse. The correct force law is given in Eq. (9). This was effectively pointed out to Einstein on Dec. 22nd. 1915 by Schwarzschild. It seems that citation of Einstein has taken place ever since without reading his work. Careful analysis shows that it is erroneous. There is no way in which any scientist of integrity can accept obviously erroneous work.”
Details of General Relativity are picked-over on a daily basis by scientists. Ron’s claim that it is accepted in a rote manner is just typical of the sort of lie that pseudoscientists always try to foist on a scientifically ignorant general public. Elsewhere, Ron has claimed only that GR gives the wrong (4th-power) disturbing force (thus undermining his own claim above) rather than the observed (3rd-power) force. We have ourselves shown recently that this objection is fictitious. What does Ron know of integrity? He is an epitome, however, of erroneous work.
” Accurate scientometrology shows that the great majority now rejects Einstein’s general relativity.”
The word is ‘SCIENTOMETRICS’, Ron, and the real concept is much more sophisticated than merely counting hits on websites. As we have pointed out, Ron’s own evidence fails to identify any meaningful referring sites. And who knows who might be using the keyboards at apparently reputable organisations: has he never heard of Ludwig Plutonium – an insane janitor who used to sneak in and use university computers? Where is this ‘great majority’? Why does it not bombard us with pro-Ron rhetoric?
” It has been kept alive by a small group of dogmatists. Computer algebra has been used to show that the incorrect force law of EGR produces a very complicated orbit that is not an ellipse at all. The EGR’s own lagrangian methods wer [sic] eused [sic] in the computer algebra. So that is teh [sic] end of teh [sic] matter.”
Quite, condemned out of his own mouth: computer algebra is not spell-check – it cannot detect errors in the submitted model. And where are these complicated orbits in Nature? Pssst, dear reader, Ron and Kerry won’t know this (being incredibly ignorant of physics) but computer algebra (sic) has shown that Newtonian gravitation permits the existence of orbits that make Ron’s erroneous ones look quite unimaginative.
“No amont of dogma can change algebra.”
True. That is why Ron is losing the argument.
“Readers are invited to check eq. (10) for themselves. We will make Dr. Horst Eckardt’s code available to them if they like.”
Hmm, put the same incorrect information into the same program and expect a different result? That is Ron’s concept of science, in a rotten nutshell.
” This is just one out of many refutations of EGR in the special issue.”
All of the issues are ‘special’! How many real journals have to be filled 90% by the editor and a few friends?
“The papers of the issue have been intensively studied for well over a year off www.aias.us without a single objection.”
The Occam’s Razor explanation would be that they are not being read by anyone who cares.
“I advise students that there is no point in going into a subject that is not science at all. I woudl [sic] advise gong [sic] into engineering or medicine, or perhaps chemistry.”
We advise students to study, under expert guidance, the claims made by crackpots such as Ron. Bringing down supposedly great men has always been an incentive to students, and they will find much intellectual satisfaction in seeing how the habits of Baconian science protect against ludicrous error … provided that one adheres to them.
” Professionals in all these subjects have long been critical of the dogmatic attitudes of some physicists.”
Very true: the more that one distances oneself from physics, the more one falls into the clutches of error and pseudoscience. Take biologists, for instance, they used to use telepathy to explain observations which they could not understand. Nowadays, the flaky ones use pseudoscientific versions of quantum-mechanical concepts for that purpose.