Was Einstein Wrong? Or Wikipedia? Or Bytegeist...?

( See Dermot Hogan's Bytegeist column )

Sir,

The site you mention in your Wikipedia article bears my name and had you taken the time to read its purpose, you would have seen that all scientific papers are welcome. The reason it contains so few that are in support of relativity theory is that there is no logical argument that can do so. In fact, it refutes its own postulates.

I have debated with many of the so-called experts regarding my paper on the theoretical foundations of relativity, all of whom failed miserably in their attempts to discredit it. What I received from them is a sneer and some mumbling about "the theory had survived for one hundred years" and "all experiments confirm it" - much like yourself.

In fact, there has never been an experiment that confirms relativistic theory. Bucherer, et al. did not take into consideration electromagnetic fields even though his experiments were based on magnetic forces, Eddington's experimental results were never duplicated - and dismissed even by supporters of relativity, Fizeau's partial convection of light was ascribed to relativity by default and is more accurately explained using classical electromagnetic theory, the circumnavigation of the globe with a clock (an accelerated frame of reference for god's sake) was dismissed by its own authors and the "slowing of time with respect to muon decay" is the virtual antithesis of a controlled experiment.

I do not know who linked my site to Wikipedia, and care less. What I do know is that you linked it on yours. My suggestion to you is that you should either have some knowledge of the subjects you write about, or spare your readers the task of reading them.

Walter Babin
http://www.wbabin.net

More Mojo

Sir,

Thanks for the interview with Doc Kenton Musgrave and the review of MojoWorld. This is fascinating stuff and I don't know why more people don't know about it. I particularly like the idea that MojoWorld was originally going to be called Slartibartfast. As a fan of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, that idea really appeals to me. Pity they didn't keep the name ;-)

T. E. Peters

How Sharp is C#?

Sir,

In your .NET debate, you make the point that "if C# isn’t any better than the other languages why did Microsoft invent it in the first place?" I agree with you that Microsoft has changed its tune re. C# over the past few years. The way I remember it was that C# was originally being plugged as the default language (i.e. the best language) for .NET. Now, as you say, it's been demoted to just one language among many.

I must be one of the many thousands off people who tried out C# at the early stages in the expectation that, by now, this would be the standard Windows programming language - or close to it, anyhow. In fact, Microsoft is putting out ever more confusing messages. They are even still plugging away at their Java lookalike, J#. Can someone explain to me why .NET needs two Java-like languages, C# and J#? Moreover, if as Microsoft now says, all .NET languages are equal, why do we also need VB .NET (which as you've said in the past, is a different language from the old VB so doesn't even have all that much to attract VB programmers)?

Maybe, after all, the future does not lie with the glossy new C# but with the grubby old C++. It may not be the neatest language going, but at least it gets the job done.

Rob Martin