Talk:Louis Essen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] what embarrassment?
"caused some embarrassment to his employers" -
1. according to what source, and
2. according to that source, what did these employers claim to be embarrassing about such a criticism? Harald88 10:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- No good source? Thus I'll modify that phrase. Harald88 18:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] KraMuc edits
Please note that KraMuc (talk • contribs • block log) has been permabanned at both the English and German language Wikipedia for making anti-semitic remarks. He should not be editing the Wikipedia at all. This user has created several sockpuppet accounts and continues to edit as an anon from various domains, most often (as of October, 2006) the dipt.dialin anon from the Munich area; see for example the recent edits to this article by 84.153.118.38 (talk • contribs), which appear to push KraMuc's idiosyncratic point of view. Therefore, I partially reverted to an earlier version, keeping two minor changes made my non-KraMuc editors. Unfortunately, this article and the others which KraMuc frequently edits will need to be watched continually for more such edits.---CH 16:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing and reverting that. However, you apparently overlooked that your revert removed some valuable references, one of which even relates to a sofar unsourced claim for which I demanded sourcing; and KraMuc has shown to be a reliable contributor of references. Thus, if it was KraMuc or not (or even the Devil in person), it's wise to delete with intelligence.
- Probably it was Kramuc who reinserted the passages and references again. Thus I'll revert it but in the near future I plan to improve the article accordingly with the newly supplied references.
Meanwhile I'll just park deleted but possibly useful references here:
Essen, L. (1971) The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis, Oxford University Press (Oxford science research papers, 5). , booklet in which he questioned the modern interpretation of the special theory of relativity.
Essen, L. (1977) "Atomic Clocks - Coming and Going", Creation Research Society Quarterly 14, p. 64. (1972 Häfele and Keating exp.)
Essen, L. (1978) "Relativity and Time Signals", Electronics and Wireless World, Oct. 1978, p. 14.: "No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects. ... ... the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory."
Essen, L. (1988) "Relativity - Joke or Swindle?", Electronics and Wireless World, No. 94, pp. 126-127.: "Insofar as (Einstein's) theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would had regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science."
Harald88 12:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I had overlooked these:
Essen, L. (1977) "Einstein", THE ECONOMIST , 19 March 1977, p. 4. (letter):
- "I studied Einstein's thought-experiment and found that it was incorrectly performed and that if correctly performed it could not give the result he obtained. This finding led me to study the whole paper in detail and other errors were disclosed. My booklet contains my criticisms in full and concludes with the suggestion that the theory consists simply of a number of contradictory assumptions".
Essen, L., and Perry, J. V. (1955), "An atomic standard of frequency and time keeping", Nature 176, p. 280.
McCourby, A. O. (1961) "Frequency Control by Microwave Atomic Resonance", Microwave Journal, November 1961, pp. 7 - 11.
McCourby, A. O. (1966) "A Survey of Atomic Frequency Standards", Proc. IEEE 54, No. 2, February 1966, pp. 116 - 135.
McCourby, A. O. (1967) "The Relative Merits of Atomic Frequency Standards", Proc. IEEE 55, No. 4, June 1967, pp. 805 - 814.
Audoin, C., and Vanier, J. (1976) "Atomic frequency standards and clocks", Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments 9, pp. 697 - 720.
Harald88 17:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yep. This is a not unusual dilemma. What to do with banned users, when they do constructive edits? AFAIK this is known as admin teasing and should always be reverted on sight. After that, contributors may decide whether to to recycle some of the deleted edits.
- I'm willing to discuss this with interested parties, including KraMuc, off Wikipedia, i.e. via e-Mail or IRC.
- Pjacobi 20:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
