An essay on Einstein, his quotes, sayings and numerous contradictions.
STR examined from a common sense point of view.
One can't take Johnson lightly - he is an applied mathematician (Norway?) who resolved D'Alembert's paradox. What he writes not only makes common sense but also epistimological sense. He is not an anti-semite.
As for me:
It's not for a lack of trying to understand STR, that I rejected it. I have studied the field equations and I do not understand them. I don't feel too bad because no one else does. Even Einstein himself openly admitted that he does not understand. I am a mathematician whose math is second to none. Surely with my much higher than average IQ, I should have been able to make sense of STR... but no such thing.
It is my opinion that most scientists have never understood gravity or time. I have my own theory about gravity, and while it might explain what causes gravity, I haven't worked on it except when I lie sleepless in my bed and ponder these things.
I think Einstein was above average intelligence but he sure was no genius and did not deserve a Noble Prize. The general theory of relativity is a joke. STR is a joke.
GPS does not require any adjustments due to "relativistic distortions".
We need theories, but the thing about theories is that they can't be over scrutinized - especially theories in which concepts are not well defined.
My theory on gravity:
Motion is the sole cause of gravity. You may retort that Newton's law states an attraction even between stationary bodies. Well, those bodies are not truly stationary, as the entire universe is in motion - even to the subatomic level.
My theory on time:
Without motion there is no time. If the entire universe came to a complete halt also at the subatomic level, gravity would instantly cease and time would become meaningless as it was before the advent of the physical universe. Time is in fact dimensionless, but that is another topic.
In conclusion, Einstein has done more to harm physics than all the scientists of the twentieth century combined. His theories are worthless junk. As for admitting error, one should obviously maintain an open mind and constantly question one's own theories of knowledge.
Your reference to Herbert Dingle has no relevance in my case. I am correct and every body else who disagrees with me is wrong. This does not mean to say I haven't been wrong. On the contrary I have reexamined and reevaluated my ideas countless times and continue to do so.
I too prefer truth in knowledge. The New Calculus grew out of a quest for new knowledge. I did not invent it. No true knowledge is ever invented, only discovered and developed (*). However, I do take credit for being the first to realise it. You can't appreciate the power, the resilience, the elegance, the beauty, the rigour and the simplicity of the New Calculus unless you study it. Its development didn't happen overnight.
(*) The development takes place by reification of new concepts.