I did it because while I felt that I'd be ignored, I had to do it to prove that "Yes, I'd been ignored by the establishment physics departments". Also, Karl K, a science writer suggested it, and it seemed about time to go through the exercise.
The physics department at the University where I graduated for the most part said it had no expertise in Relativity. I sorta expected that line. An old lecturer gave a more unexpected comment : "That looks like fun. I wish I had time to purse that sort of stuff".
But I kept trying, knowing that I had to make some sort of case that I'd approached these departments and been ignored. I tried a department that would have some affinity with Relativity : A Particle Physics group.
Lo and behold, I had a very slight reaction. The excuse was now that they were busy doing other stuff, but there was at least some small connection.
It was a bit of a surprise. Between being ignored, dismissed, derided, insulted and generally not getting far in my discussions on sci.physics I ended up paranoid.
Even years on, I do believe that many of the "Establishment Types" on that newsgroup play nasty games. They never concede you've made a point successfully - they clip out the text and focus on something else. They accuse you of not mentioned some detail when you mentioned it months ago and they ignored it at the time. Cripes. They're not just arrant claims by cranks on the group. It really does happen. It has an effect on you. Needless to say, there are some reasonable people on those groups, but they are in the minority.
For sure, in spite of the ethic of science being open mindedness, few people embrace that ethic. A common response on sci.physics was that until I had developed an alternate description for pretty much every experiment that relativity describes, my view was not worth paying attention to. And, when you said something you thought was intriguing, it would be ignored or people would latch onto some incidental aspect.
This is a quite extreme view. In any case, much of my writing previously tries to "cover" many areas that Special (and General) Relativity explains, with at least conceptual explanations - I was making an effort, and was still being ignored.
So I managed to get a dialogue going with the Particle Physics group at a local university. They do have a bit of that open mindedness so lacking in many others. In restrospect, it makes sense. I've been ignored by the leading lights in Physics. And they must get quite a few emails from people like myself. But, approach a department which does not attract the same sort of interest, and you are more likely to be listened to.
But there were still challenges. People were busy. Fortunately, I managed to get the interest of one retired physicist.
Busy. Yes, universities have been pressed for funding lately. But is it a convenient excuse ? Perhaps the departments would have had to look harder for excuses in times past, and now they have one more ready at hand.
And the arguments about "academic tenure" sprung to mind. An academic has the freedom to pursue stuff which interests them. But what about stuff which interests others ? I suspect that has always been difficult.
OK, so eventually you past the "busy", though a lot of patience. I talk about how Ritzian theory explains what Maxwell's theory was originally able to explain. They concede that. But physics has moved on. We have Quantum Electrodynamics. But, I say, Quantum Electrodynamics grew out of Maxwell's theory. So any problems with Maxwell's theory will be inherited into QED. Fair point, they say.
But, in order to get somewhere, they say, you do not have to have a theory which covers everything. But, you should have coverage over some intriguing area in detail, and be able to say something new.
New ? But the stuff about how Ritzian electrodynamics covers a lot of Maxwellian electrodynamics is as relevant now as it ever was, even if it is old. It has not been given the consideration it deserves.
Still, it is a lot better than expecting me to be able to explain every damn thing that Relativity does. That's an improvement.
It was as the result of these discussions that I've decided to focus on electrodynamics. I have managed to get a reasonably detailed mathematical basis for Ritzian electrodynamics. Its a position I'm developing some detail on.
So, where does that leave General Relativity ? Well, there's two issues. The first is that a criticism made of cranks is that we focus on SR but leave GR alone, because the concepts and mathematics are a lot more difficult. A point is that I have made an effort to explain GR's predictions and observations. And there is stuff on this web page which covers that material. So I think it would be unfair to apply that label to me.
But, based on discussion, my position is that I do not need to worry about GR. Sure, GR does stuff. I'm not able to explain it quantitatively. I'm targeting the foundations of Relativity, not its spires. My case is based around a theory of electrodynamics which differs from that current. I am developing mathematical detail in that and a small number of experiments which would prove or disprove the theory.
When I tried to explain GR observations, I really had no focus. I tried to cover anything and everything, whenever I could strike up a dialogue on any topic. There were a lot of side tours I went on, and I would never be able to cover anything consistently. But when people had the (ridiculous) attitude that I had to explain every damn thing, what did you expect me to do ?
In advocating Ritzian theory I could be wrong, but I've always been relaxed about that, and I'm getting even more relaxed with that possibility now. The more seriously people take me, the more relaxed I am about being wrong.
Next : 10. The sci.physics.relativity experience - the bearpit