**European Journal of Physics (IOP) papers**

*European Mathematical Society* 2006 citation (unsolicited)

https://zbmath.org/?q=ai%3Acoleman.brian

Widespread confusions in relativity dynamics have been epitomised by a classic misverdict in *Smith’s* 1965/1996 *Introduction to Relativity* (Dover, p.126): *“ideas of momentum conservation fail …[the correct relationships] must be guessed”*. The above 2005 and 2006 papers directly resolve this problem using an unprecedented elementary approach—as graciously acknowledged (on reflection) by an EJP reviewer.

**Time travel lecture Dublin City University**

- Astronomy Ireland (2005)

This website’s rocket time travel’s spherical geometry graphic was first outlined at this 2005 lecture.

**Foundation of Physics Journal submission**

FoP comment (2008): “We often have to reject correct and interesting papers such as yours.”

**Göttingen Presentation Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft**

**Results in Physics (Elsevier)**

- Bell’s twin rockets non-inertial length enigma resolved by real geometry (2017)

The 1959 enigma of the ‘length’ between accelerating rockets finally solved after 58 years.

- Real-metric spacetime own-surfaces hosting nongeodesic radar paths crossing ‘hemix’ own-lines and shared velocity helices (2019)
- ADDENDUM PDF Addendum/Corrigendum submitted to
*Results in Physics*February 2020:

The *Real-metric spacetime own-surfaces *paper’s *Introduction *section referred to *the static gravitational field *discussed by Einstein in his 1912 paper (reference [5]). Such a constant ‘background’ one-dimensional gravity field could be created by an infinite radius thin disk. Independently of its distance from the disk, as easily shown, any small object would be subject to a fixed acceleration *a *= 2π*G*ω*h *along the disk’s axis, *G *being the universal gravitational constant, ω the disk’s mass density per unit volume and *h *being the disk’s thickness—necessarily negligible compared with any object’s distance. Acceleration *a *however is that with respect to the inertial reference frame of the disk itself which differs from any medium’s constituent’s own-[proper]acceleration α in a comoving frame. Accordingly, the paper’s *‘*homogeneously accelerating’ medium case is not fully equivalent to Einstein’s *static* field scenario.

Hence in the *Introduction *section’s 3rd paragraph, *‘replicates’* should read *‘approximately replicates’*; four lines after equation (26) *‘idealised’* should read *‘approximately idealised’*; and ‘*exactly*’ in the paper’s 5th last paragraph should be replaced by ‘*approximated by*’.

Nevertheless this does not reflect on the paper’s thesis, in particular its paradigm as *the ‘simplest possible case’* visually embodying key properties of an accelerating extended medium’s real-metric manifold, and directly challenging general relativity literature’s endemically hypothesised geodesics.