Special Relativity Is Irksome

This paper defines a new way to assess the scientific value of Einstein’s special theory of relativity by defining a concept called irksomeness. This follows by converting the adjective irksome, meaning vexatious or troublesome, into a noun. We will call a theory irksome by the following definition: An irksome theory is one in which each of its component demonstrations makes sense or is rational, but the theory as a whole makes no sense or is irrational. Hence a theory, such as relativity, which is a very good example of a theory possessing this characteristic, is irksome or possesses irksomeness, if it satisfies the above definition. An irksome theory is recalcitrant in that its inconsistencies, anomalies, or paradoxes refuse to be tamed or effectively eliminated. It is also irksome when its concepts can not be clearly defined in a way such that there is a consistent agreement regarding its essential truth claims.

Four Forces – A Dissident Perspective

It is probably the most sought after prize in physics. Einstein wanted it, everyone talks about it, and dissidents claim to have solved it. What is it? The unification of the four forces in nature. The latest in this quest for the “grand unification” has been quantum gravity or the unified field theory where physicists are trying to unify Einstein’s general relativity with the strong force inside the atom. So far, there has been little success with many candidate theories not passing the grade and having been debunked by the experiments during the last 10 years of the Large Hadron Collider.

Growing Earth and the Growing Kilogram

Its been in the news as imminent for years, but it actually took until May 2019 for the the International Committee for Weights and Measures to officially change the definition of the kilogram from an artefact kilogram ( a lump of metal in Paris ) to a multiple of units based on fundamental constants.

Catt Question Letter

The following letter was prepared by Harry Ricker as a courtesy to Ivor Catt who wished to send a letter to the editor of the IOP Journal Physics Education in order to refute the claims made in a paper published in that journal. The letter was cosigned by five other scientists. This letter was rejected and so it is presented here. Background for The Catt Question is presented by Ivor Catt at his website.