Re: Tom Van Flandern's book aninymously criticizing relativity while he was alive.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 8:31:59 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>

On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 20:32:43 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>

On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:37:08 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>

On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 10:36:39 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>

On 15/06/2025 09:25, J. J. Lodder wrote:

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>

On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 20:00:42 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>

"AI: "The Einstein Hoax: The Disastrous Intellectual War on Common
Sense" is a book by Tom Van Flandern that critiques Albert
Einstein's theories, particularly relativity."
>
It is published under the pen name H. E. Retic, as explained in the
About the Author section, where he describes Van Flandern's career.

Reading it I find that it certainly seems like it must be Van
Flandern's and it's copyright 1997.

>
Do you have verifiable evidence
for H. E. Retic being Tom van Flandern?

>
I wouldn't want to lose you (am I wrong?), but could you please
stop feeding the spammers?

>
The book: "The Einstein Hoax: The Disastrous Intellectual War on Common
Sense" by H. E. Retic obviously exists.
(you can order it on Amazon for example,
 but I won't spend real money on it)
>
So I would like to see the About the Author section,
to see if the claim that he is Van Flandern is justified.
>
One never knows, even LaurenceClarkCrossen may provide
some useful information, once in a while,
>
Jan
>
BTW, Van Flandern admitted later on that his anti-relativity claims
based on Voyager data didn't hold water.
There has been a lot of discussion on it in the other SPR,
when that group still had worthwhile content.

>

"About the Author...retired Mechanical Engineer who graduated from
Cornell University in 1948...designed and built the stable platform of
the inertial guidance system used in the X-15 aircraft...designed for
sale to the Navy  the first Low-Light level Television System capable of
operating from full daylight to the photon noise limit threshold without
picture degradation...a goal that the Night Vision Laboratory at Ft.
Belvoir had declared impossible...holds over 25 patents and in one year
was granted 10% of the patents issued to a major military
contractor...began to study gravitation in the mid 1960's..."

>
Thanks. And OK, that settles it.
This 'H. E. Retic' is definitely not Tom Van Flandern.
Just another dime a dozen dumb engineer.
>
Why is it that some of those engineers think
that they know everything about everything,
which qualifies them to disprove any scientific theory they don't like,
like evolution or relativity?
>
Jan

As usual you give no good reason for your opinion.

>
I did. Comparison of the Author description
with the wikiparticle on Tom Van Flandern
makes it obvious that the two don't fit together,
>
Jan

Anyone desiring to judge for themselves can get a free pdf:
https://epdf.pub/the-einstein-hoax-the-disastrous-intellectual-war-on-common-s

ense.html

It has 16 chapters without the appendixes.

>
Cowardly evasions.
YOU claimed something, it is up to YOU
to make it at least a bit plausible,
>
Jan

"9.4- It is because the solution of a problem in Tensor Calculus
requires the performance of mathematical integration that Tensor
Calculus is unsuitable for the derivation of a relativistic theory. The
partial derivatives in the Tensor Calculus matrix used to derive the
General Theory of Relativity involve length. It has been demonstrated
that the units of measurement of length change
between reference frames which differ in velocity. Since the derivation
of General Relativity is based upon the Principle of Equivalence, it
follows that the effect of a change in elevation on the units of
measurement for length must be known in order for a meaningful,
mathematically valid, integration to be performed. (The size of the
units of measurement are analogous to the "size" of K in the previous
paragraph.) Unfortunately, the effect of a change in elevation on the
units of measurement for length cannot be known until the integration
has been performed correctly and a valid integration cannot be performed
until the effects of a change in elevation on the units of measurement
for length are known. Consequently a valid derivation of gravitational
theory is not
possible by this method. When the attempt is made, it arbitrarily forces
the Gravity Transformation for Length to equal unity regardless of its
correct value. Until the Tensor Calculus equations have been solved, the
required information needed to solve them is not available. It is
difficult to
understand, however, why Dr. Einstein did not recognize that, in
employing Tensor Calculus to derive General Relativity, he was
incorporating an erroneous loop of circular reasoning. If an
undergraduate student of elementary calculus persistently made an
equivalent error he would receive a failing grade for the course.
9.5- Dr. Einstein's mathematical error made it impossible to achieve a
solution of the General Relativity Tensor in a manner which is
consistent with Euclidian geometry. He is reported to have struggled
with this difficulty for about 18 months and finally resolved his
impasse' by adding another, otherwise superfluous, degree of freedom. He
did this by incorporating the curved space
described by Riemann Geometry. This addition permitted the mathematical
equations to be solved, but the results were clearly not rigorously
correct since, as Table 8.9.1 shows, the resultant General Theory of
Relativity clearly violates the Principles of Relativity and Equivalence
upon which it is
based."