Reliable physics?

Are the stuff on this website :

http://www.amasci.com/elect/elefaq1.html#n

reliable physics?

I would quibble about some of his teminology, and I am not sure about his concept of bouncing back energy in a domestic usage sense, but essentially it is correct

how about this one:

http://www.circlon.com/HTML/earthfallsup.html

reliable?

he has a book.

“earthfallsup” is pretty out there. He seems to be saying that we should interpret General Relativity to say that the earth (and everything else) is constantly expanding - but that we don’t notice it because everyting else is expanding too. Without thinking too hard about it, I suppose this might be a consistent interpretation, but if you cant tell the difference, then why bother with this confusing construction?

Physicists have learned (especially from quantum mechanics) that there may be many different ways of interpreting a set of equations, but if there’s no observable differences between the interpretations, then it’s purely a matter of personal taste which you choose.

I haven’t even had time to read the links, but I think I can answer this one.

Many times, in relativity, you can analyze a problem from more than one perspective, or reference frame. Sometimes, one of them results in a simplified analysis, or insight into the mechanics of the situation being analyzed. It is not always predictable which oddball perspectives are going to result in a breakthrough observation. So it makes sense to try a lot of things.

Bill Beaty is actually on this board, as bbeaty. As far as I’ve seen, his stuff seems pretty solid.