https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--deHV-okvFC-WIHmUB8sxdLR2Dv_kDQ7v7Sk6yI4JM/mobilebasic?pli=1

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8cbwash.htm

I need comment by Heaviside experts who published on
Heaviside in The Royal Society. https://www.ivorcatt.com/roysoc.pdf

Oliver Heaviside to Bjerknes
on Einstein.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/heaviside.pdf

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/heaviside.pdf

8/3/20

Dear
Bjerknes,

….

….

I
don’t find Einstein’s Relatiivity agrees with me. It
is the most unnatural & difficult to understand way of representing facts
that could be thought up. His distorted space is chaos …. Moreover, it is no
new discovery that the state of things at a point depends upon the state of
things at a previous moment on a sphere surrounding the point. Poisson did that
a long time ago …. The Einstein enthusiasts are very patronising about the
“classical” electromagnetics & its ether which they have abolished. But
they will come back to it by and by. Though it leaves gravity out in the cold,
as I remarked about 1901 (I think), gravity may be brought back in by changes in
the circuital laws, of practically no significance save in some very minute
effects. of doubtful interpretation (so far)

[“When
a pulse attempts to exit …. ] But you must work
fairly, with the Ether, and Power, & Momentum etc. __They__ are the
realities, without Einsteins distorted nothingness.
What is the value of (Newtons space)/(Einsteins space). Is it 0 or infinity? And I really think
that Einstein is a practical joker, pulling the legs of his enthusiastic
followers, more Einsteinmisch than he. He knows the
weakness of his 2^{nd} Theory. He only does it to annoy.

….

….

I
cant get away from Einstein the Joker. His followers
admit the great difficulty in making people understand the property of equal
speed in all directions when done in terms of Einstein, by means of clocks and
yard sticks. Poisson would smile at them, and say “Whether a receiver is at
rest or moving, the light it receiving comes from a sphere centred on the
receiving point, backwards at a previous time, or with a fourth (imaginary)
dimension, or metaphysics, or clocks, going differently, or hard measures
contracting or expanding.

But
how is it that electromagnetics is supposed to be in it, interpreted in an
incomprehensible way? Well, it is not in it necessarily at all. But as I have
insisted with emphasis, Maxwell’s electromagnetics is dynamical all the way
through, on Newton’s x. y. z. and t. So it being
involved in light, makes no difference to Poisson.

….

….

….

3.1.21

Dear
Bjerknes,

I
have recd yr paper and
letter of Dec. 25 with pleasure. I understand now the meaning of a quotation
from my letter to you I saw in __The Times__ some time ago, referring to
Einstein’s great joke. He is an international Bolshevist, and a Jew. I was
informed by a follower of his doctrine. I never see any scientific journals
now. I don’t think you quite hit the mark in your Relativity remarks. It is not
a question of logic, I believe, but of physical reality. That 4^{th}
dim. Is __surreal__. The trouble is, and always has been with __time__.
Even the great Thomson and Tait, who brought out the proper meaning of Newton’s
laws of Motion, muddled themselves a little over the measure of time.
Mathematicians can imagine or think they imagine all sorts of spaces to fill up
the natural space, real or imaginary, and make the most fearful transformations.
They may be useful sometimes to pure mathematicising and if they take into
account the finite speed of light, there is the opportunity for Einstein and
his followers, the delight of metaphysicians who know nothing about physics.

The
way the old boys at the Roy. Soc. abased themselves before the “Revolution in
Physical Ideas” and “Newton overturned” etc. etc. was rather comical. https://www.ivorcatt.com/roysoc.pdf
. I may have said this in my last letter. As for logic, Lord Rayleigh (late)
agreed with me that “logic is the very last thing”. So
if Oseens criticism is only logical, it might not go
very far. As far as I know, experiment has not gone deep enough yet to
determine the electromagnetic meaning of gravitation. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2_1.htm
., introducing a very small correction to Newtons calculations – That’s enough
about Relativity at present ….

Transcribed by Ivor Catt on 1.1.2020

The Searle Box http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x48k.htm

https://shkrobius.livejournal.com/25298.html