Yes it was opened by Horst and myself. I translated it into doc as per attached, and this may work.”
This might pass muster as a schoolboy essay, cribbed from elementary-level textbooks, but it is not exactly an electrifying call-to-arms is it? It is hard to believe that this amateurish spiel was written by anyone with a scientific training; the writer clearly has no knowledge of the history of physics, outside of what he has gleaned from TV documentaries and ‘popular science’ books. It is ‘boiler-plate’ writing, and bad writing at that. Quite apart from all of the blatant lies about the ‘success’ of Ron’s crackpot ‘theory’ and the supposed failures of real physics, it is relentlessly awful. He has not even corrected the ‘hay days’ mistake which we helpfully pointed out weeks ago. He misses out the key word, ‘universal’ from Newton’s gravitational theory: others had recognized that there was attraction between bodies (although Gilbert thought that it was magnetism). Newton realized that the attraction applied to every particle of matter. Newton was the first to note the equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses. Einstein ‘merely’ explained it. Einstein also ‘only’ explained mass-energy equivalence; it was already widely accepted. The speed of light (in vacuo) is a limit on the transfer of information, not on the movement of ‘bodies with mass’ per se. The ‘quote’ about Einstein and quantum theory does not seem to have been used by him, and has been attributed by ‘science writers’. English was not his mother-tongue but, if he had said it, he would have surely known the difference between ‘temporary’ and ‘temporarily’. Gareth-the-Sewage clearly does not. We are not even sure that he knows the difference between ‘epoch’ and ‘era’. There is the usual name-checking (his master’s voice) of Bacon, but no adherence to Bacon’s principles. Yes, one must check theory by experiment. So why is that not done here? What his Fuehrer does is to twist (incorrect) mathematics so as to fit existing data (the bad habit demonstrated by all of Ron’s chemical work). Bacon requires the theory to be checked against new data and new experimental variables. ‘Double-counting’ of the same data is not permitted. Note that Ron’s theory thus only ‘fits where it touches’: it fits the bits that it was forced to fit! In his gravitational musings, he ‘explains’ orbits … but cannot explain tides. In his gravitometric musings, he ‘explains’ precession …. but cannot explain nutation. Ron thinks that computer-algebra is a sure check on his correctness, but computer-algebra can no more validate theory than a spell-checker can detect a (correctly spelled) lie. Nobody seems to care about this sort of thing any more, but the punctuation is haphazard, the sentence-construction is clumsy and he makes the tyro (schoolboy?) mistake of using the same word repeatedly when a synonym or two would have been less jarring. But apart from all of that, your Daddy will be very pleased!