Rude comments

I have watered-down the page http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/EW.htm .

When people suppress a discovery, which makes the inventor (Ivor Catt) have difficulty publicising the resultant electronics technology, and people needlessly die as a result, should the suppressor's be made responsible? Or should they be hero-worshipped for saving the world from having better safety features? Call me what you like, but I don't exactly have much respect for those who just throw mud at inventors who have spotted a contradiction between two electrical mechanisms which modern physics ignores.

The thing about the popular interpretation of special (restricted theory) relativity is that it is presented as denying that anyone can say two events are simultaneous. Now I say two events are simultaneous if they occur the same age after the big bang. This dispenses with that special relativity claim. What you always get is bogus mainstream guys who claim that special relativity is infallible, ignoring the fact that Einstein himself had to replace it by general relativity because it can't account for any acceleration, and therefore can't account for any real motion in this particular universe.

All acceleration is absolute since it produces detectable force. Hence circular motion, with its centripetal motion, is something you can feel. Try it! Put some one in a box and spin them around. Then repeat the experiment without spinning the box. They will be able to tell the difference. This invalidates the application of special relativity to acceleration, which Einstein knew a long time ago. This is why Einstein realised that deep down, there is absolute motion. If you take anyone on any journey in a vehicle with no windows, they can in principle work out where they are by integrating the accelerations to obtain velocities, and integrating those to obtain displacements.

What is really interesting here is that nobody is interested in the physics, only in the mathematical predictions. When you see that the relativity equations were not introduced by Einstein, but had come out of bogus ether speculations years previously by FitzGerald, Lorentz, Larmor, and even Poincare, it is surprising that these claims for the formulae are taken so seriously: if the mass increase formula is the same for the ether theory as relativity, what does experimental confirmation prove? You can see that the whole special relativity brigade, apart from simply being ignorant of general relativity (http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/) must also be abusive in order to avoid complete dismissal. Such abusiveness consists of making false accusations about what is being stated. For example, if you point out that general relativity supersedes special relativity because the latter is false for virtually all practical situations, then they must abusively take this as an attack on Einstein, when in fact they are the ones attacking Einstein's general relativity by going on about the embarrassingly obsolete earlier theory.

Nigel Cook