Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale/Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso/no need to argue/Farce of Physics

Text File | 1994-10-13 | 311KB | 5,696 lines

Bryan G. Wallace                                      49195 words
7210 12th. Ave. No.           (c) Copyright 1993 Bryan G. Wallace
St. Petersburg, FL. 33710
Ph. [phone]
Soc. Sec. Num. 262-42-5891











                      THE FARCE OF PHYSICS


                       by Bryan G. Wallace
                       7210 12th. Ave. No.
                    St. Petersburg, FL. 33710
                       Ph. [phone]

Contents

    Introduction                2

1.  Sacred Science              5

2.  Pathological Physics       23

3.  Mathematical Magic         56

4.  Publication Politics       93

5.  Light Lunacy              126

6.  Relativity Revolution     155

7.  Ultimate Unification      185

    References                207
Introduction

   A 1986 Harris poll found that about 70 percent of the
responding adult Americans described themselves as interested in
science and technology, and they said their understanding of the
subject was very good or adequate.[153]  The word scientist
entered the English language in 1840, and few individuals earned
a living doing research, with most of the investigations carried
out by gentlemen of wealth and leisure.  At that time, a handful
of American scientist were taking steps to transform their status
and image and separate themselves as professionals from those
they considered amateurs.[154]  The major tactic used to create
this artificial separation has been the elaborate use of
technical jargon and complex mathematics.  This erection of
higher and higher barriers to the comprehension of scientific
affairs is a threat to an essential characteristic of science,
its openness to outside examination and appraisal.[155]  Because
of this, modern theoretical physics has become to a large degree,
little more than an elaborate farce.  I will attempt to explore
and document this argument, and this book is meant for anyone who
is interested in this subject.  I have tried to reduce the
technical jargon and mathematics to a minimum in order to reach
the widest possible audience.  If the reader finds parts that are
hard to understand, just skip them, and perhaps come back to them
later if you decide to explore that part in greater detail.  You
should realize that in general only about 90% of professional
physicists are able to make sense of less than 10% of what other
physicists say.[156]  For the past 50 years most of the
scientific research has been funded by the federal government,
and the number of Ph.D. scientists working in the U.S. has far
outstripped the growth of the population as a whole.  President
Eisenhower stated that "in holding scientific research and
discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the
equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become
the captive of a scientific-technological elite."[150]  You the
taxpayer fund this research, and you also enjoy the benefits that
legitimate research can bring.  That is why it is important to
understand what you are getting for your money, and for you to
inform your elected representatives when you think your precious
tax dollars are being wasted.  This book is a journey through my
career as a physicist, giving the interesting details of the many
events, arguments, and evidence encountered along the way.  I
suspect that the reader will discover that the truth can be
stranger than fiction.
   The term physics was derived from the Greek word "physis" for
nature, and the roots of physics lies in the first period of
Greek philosophy in the sixth century B.C., where science,
philosophy and religion were not separated.  The aim of physics
is to discover the essential nature of all things, and it lies at
the base of all of natural science.  The father of modern physics
and astronomy, Galileo Galilei, was outspoken, forceful,
sometimes tactless, and he enjoyed debate.  He made many powerful
enemies, and was eventually tried by the Inquisition and
convicted of heresy.  In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim
there was evidence that the Earth went around the Sun, and in our
time it is heresy to argue that there is evidence that the speed
of light in space is not constant for all observers, no matter
how fast they are moving, as predicted by Prof. Albert Einstein's
sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory.  The heresies change, but
as you will find from reading this book, human nature remains the
same!

Chapter 1

                         Sacred Science

   The title of this book was inspired by Dr. Fritjof Capra's
book The Tao of Physics.  Capra, a theoretical physicist states:

     The purpose or this book is to explore this relationship
  between the concepts of modern physics and the basic ideas in
  the philosophical and religious traditions of the Far East.
  We shall see how the two foundations of twentieth-century
  physicsƒƒquantum theory and relativity theoryƒƒboth force us
  to see the world very much in the way a Hindu, Buddhist, or
  Taoist sees it, and how this similarity strengthens when we
  look at the recent attempts to combine these two theories in
  order to describe the phenomena of the submicroscopic world:
  the properties and interactions of the subatomic particles of
  which all matter is made.  Here the parallels between modern
  physics and Eastern mysticism are most striking, and we shall
  often encounter statements where it is almost impossible to
  say whether they have been made by physicists or Eastern
  mystics. [1 p.4]

   This presents an interesting question, what is the difference
between modern physics and Eastern mysticism?  There was a
fascinating debate concerning creation-science published in the
letters section of the journal Physics Today that directly
relates to this question.  The journal is sent free of charge to
all members of the American Physical Society.  The Society is the
largest physics society in the world, and has world-wide
membership.  The letters section is popular, and is probably the
most important communicative link between the world's physicists.
The following quote is from a letter by Prof. Harry W. Ellis, a
Professor of Physics at Eckerd College:

     On the other hand, the scientist (or anyone) who dismisses
  religion because the idea of an omnipotent God is logically
  inconsistent is guilty of intellectual hypocrisy.  Does he or
  she think that science is free from inconsistencies?  Perhaps
  he or she is not aware of the existence of Russell's paradox
  or Goedel's Theorem.  Actually, aside from obvious
  methodological differences, science and theology have much in
  common.  Each is an attempt to model reality, founded on
  unprovable articles of faith.  If the existence of a benign
  supreme being is the fundamental assumption at the heart of
  religion, certainly the practice of science is founded on the
  unprovable hypothesis that the universe is rationalƒƒthat its
  behavior is subject to human understanding.  Through science
  we construct highly useful models which permit us to
  understand the universe, in the sense of predicting its
  behavior.  Let us not commit the elementary epistemological
  mistake of confusing the model with reality.  Surely
  scientists, as well as religious leaders, should possess
  sufficient maturity to realize that whatever ultimate reality
  there may be is not directly accessible to mortal humans.[2]

Dr. Rodney B. Hall of the University of Iowa writes:

     Perhaps faith or the lack of it is simply a matter of
  indoctrination.  You have been indoctrinated by the priests or
  the professors or both.[3]

Dr. John C. Bortz of the University of Rochester argues:

     Faith is not a valid cognitive procedure.  When it is
  accepted as such, the process of rational argumentation
  degenerates into a contest of whims, and any idea, no matter
  how absurd or evil, may be successfully defended by claiming
  that those who advocate it feel, somehow, that it is right.  In
  such a philosophical environment ideas are accepted not on the
  basis of how logical they are but rather on the basis of how
  much "feeling" their advocates seem to have.  Unfortunately,
  the acceptance of ideas on this basis has been and continues to
  be the dominant epistemological trend in the world.[4]

Dr. Anthony L. Peratt of Los Alamos states:

     It is almost amusing to see the proponents of Big Bang
  cosmology, who have themselves been accused of fostering a
  religious intolerance toward those who question whether the
  foundations of the Big Bang hypothesis are scientifically
  justifiable, now getting a dose of their own medicine from
  biblical creationists.[5]

Dr. Carl A. Zapffe presents the view that:

     Science deserves every whack it gets from the so-called
  creationists, for a charge of puritanical posture belongs as
  much to one side as to the other.[6]

   The governing body of the American Physical Society has
released the following official statement on the matter:

     The Council of The American Physical Society opposes
  proposals to require "equal time" for presentation in public
  school science classes of the biblical story of creation and
  the scientific theory of evolution.  The issues raised by such
  proposals, while mainly focused on evolution, have important
  implications for the entire spectrum of scientific inquiry,
  including geology, physics, and astronomy.  In contrast to
  "Creationism," the systematic application of scientific
  principles has led to a current picture of life, of the nature
  of our planet, and of the universe which, while incomplete, is
  constantly being tested and refined by observation and
  analysis.  This ability to construct critical experiments,
  whose results can require rejection of a theory, is fundamental
  to the scientific method.  While our society must constantly
  guard against oversimplified or dogmatic descriptions of
  science in the education process, we must also resist attempts
  to interfere with the presentation of properly developed
  scientific principles in establishing guidelines for classroom
  instruction or in the development of scientific textbooks.  We
  therefore strongly oppose any requirement for parallel
  treatment of scientific and non-scientific discussions in
  science classes.  Scientific inquiry and religious beliefs are
  two distinct elements of the human experience.  Attempts to
  present them in the same context can only lead to
  misunderstandings of both.[7]

I expect that the average scientist would agree with the
following argument presented by Dr. Michael A. Seeds:

  ...A pseudoscience is something that pretends to be a science
  but does not obey the rules of good conduct common to all
  sciences.  Thus such subjects are false sciences.
     True science is a method of studying nature.  It is a set of
  rules that prevents scientists from lying to each other or to
  themselves.  Hypotheses must be open to testing and must be
  revised in the face of contradictory evidence.  All evidence
  must be considered and all alternative hypotheses must be
  explored.  The rules of good science are nothing more than the
  rules of good thinkingƒƒthat is, the rules of intellectual
  honesty.[8 p.A5]

This brings up an interesting question; Do scientists actually
practice what they preach?  The evidence clearly shows that the
average scientist tends not to use the rules of good science.  In
fact, it appears that Protestant ministers are inclined to have
more intellectual honesty than Ph.D. scientists.  To document
this fact, I will quote from an article titled "Researchers Found
Reluctant to Test Theories" by Dr. David Dickson:

     Despite the emphasis placed by philosophers of science on
  the importance of "falsification"ƒƒthe idea that one of a
  scientist's main concerns should be to try to find evidence
  that disproves rather than supports a particular
  hypothesisƒƒexperiments reported at the AAAS annual meeting
  suggest that research workers are in practice reluctant to put
  their pet theories to such a test.
     In a paper on self-deception in science, Michael J. Mahoney
  of the University of California at Santa Barbara described the
  results of a field trial in which a group of 30 Ph.D.
  scientists were given 10 minutes to find the rule used to
  construct a sequence of three numbers, 2,4,6, by making up new
  sequences, inquiring whether they obeyed the same rule, and
  then announcing (or "publishing") what they concluded the rule
  to be when they felt sufficiently confident.
     The results obtained by the scientists were compared to
  those achieved by a control group of 15 Protestant ministers.
  Analysis showed that the ministers conducted two to three times
  more experiments for every hypothesis that they put forward,
  were more than three times slower in "publishing" their first
  hypothesis, and were only about half as likely as the
  scientists to return to a hypothesis that had already been
  disconfirmed.[9]

   There is an interesting article by Dr. T. Theocharis and Dr.
M. Psimopoulos of the Department of Physics of the Imperial
College of Science and Technology in London titled "Where science
has gone wrong," that explores the arguments put forth by
prominent scientists and philosophers with regard to the nature
of modern science.[10]  The following is several quotes from that
article:

     On 17 and 22 February 1986 BBC television broadcast, in the
  highly regarded Horizon series, a film entitled "Science ...
  Fiction?", and in the issue of 20 February 1986 The Listener
  published an article entitled "The Fallacy of Scientific
  Objectivity".  As is evident from their titles, these were
  attacks against objectivity, truth and science....
     This state of affairs is bad enough.  But things are even
  worse: perversely, many individual scientists and philosophers
  seem bent on questioning and rejecting the true theses, and
  supporting the antitheses.  For example, most of the
  participants in the "Science ... Fiction?" film were academic
  scientists....
  Popper also thought that observations are theory-laden.  He
  phrased it thus: "Sense-data, untheoretical items of
  observation, simply do not exit....[11]
     But if observations are theory-laden, this means that
  observations are simply theories, and then how can one theory
  falsify (never mind verify) another theory?...[12]
     So back to square one: if verifiability and falsifiability
  are not the criteria, then what makes a proposition scientific?
  It is hard to discern the answer to this question in Lakatos's
  writings.  But if any answer is discerned at all, it is one
  that contradicts flagrantly the motto of the Royal Society:  "I
  am not bound to swear as any master dictates".[13]  This answer
  is more obvious in Thomas Kuhn's[14] writings: a proposition is
  scientific if it is sanctioned by the scientific establishment.
  (Example: if the scientific establishment decrees that "fairies
  exist", then this would be scientific indeed.)
     According to Kuhn, science is not the steady, cumulative
  acquisition of knowledge that was portrayed in old-fashioned
  textbooks.  Rather, it is an endless succession of long
  peaceful periods which are violently interrupted by brief
  intellectual revolutions.  During the peaceful period, which
  Kuhn calls "normal science", scientists are guided by a set of
  theories, standards and methods, which Kuhn collectively
  designates as a "paradigm".  (Others call it a "world-view".)
  During a revolution, the old paradigm is violently overthrown
  and replaced by a new one....
     Kuhn's view, that a proposition is scientific if it is
  sanctioned by the scientific establishment, gives rise to the
  problematic question: what exactly makes an establishment
  "scientific"?  This particular Gordian knot was cut by Paul
  Feyerabend: any proposition is scientificƒƒ"There is only one
  principle that can be defended under all circumstances and in
  all stages of human development.  It is the principle: Anything
  goes"....[15]
     In 1979 Science published a four-page complimentary
  feature[16] about Feyerabend, the Salvador Dali of academic
  philosophy, and currently the worst enemy of science.  In this
  article Feyerabend was quoted as stating that "normal science
  is a fairy tale" and that "equal time should be given to
  competing avenues of knowledge such as astrology, acupuncture,
  and witchcraft."  Oddly, religion was omitted.  For according
  to Feyerabend (and the "Science ... Fiction?" film too),
  religionƒƒand everything elseƒƒis an equally valid avenue of
  knowledge.  In fact on one occasion Feyerabend
  characteristically put science on a par with "religion,
  prostitution and so on."[15]

The above mentioned Prof. Thomas S. Kuhn, was a man who wrote a
controversial book on science.  In an interview of Kuhn by John
Horgan on page 40 of the May 1991 issue of the prestigious US
journal SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, we find the following:

  ... "The book" The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
  commonly called the most influential treatise ever written on
  how science does (or does not) proceed.  Since its publication
  in 1962, it has sold nearly a million copies in 16 languages,
  and it is still fundamental reading in courses on the history
  and philosophy of science.
     The book is notable for having spawned that trendy term
  "paradigm."  It also fomented the now trite idea that
  personalities and politics play a large role in science.
  Perhaps the book's most profound argument is less obvious:
  scientists can never fully understand the "real world" or
  evenƒƒto  a crucial degreeƒƒone another...
     Denying the view of science as a continual building process,
  Kuhn asserts that a revolution is a destructive as well as a
  creative event.  The proposer of a new paradigm stands on the
  shoulders of giants and then bashes them over the head.  He or
  she is often young or new to the field, that is, not fully
  indoctrinated....

   Dr. Spencer Weart directs the Center for History of Physics at
the American Institute of Physics in New York.  In his
interesting article THE PHYSICIST AS MAD SCIENTIST published in
Physics Today, he writes:

  The public image of the scientist partly evolved out of ideas
  about wizards.  Here was an impressive figure, known to all
  from early childhood, reaching back through ancient sorcery
  legends to prehistoric shamans.[17 p.28]

   Prof. Albert Einstein states the following on the general lack
of scientific integrity in the temple of science:

     In the temple of science are many mansions, and various
  indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have
  led them thither.  Many take to science out of a joyful sense
  of superior intellectual power; science is their own special
  sport to which they look for vivid experience and the
  satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the
  temple who have offered the products of their brains on this
  altar for purely utilitarian purposes.  Were an angel of the
  Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two
  categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously
  depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present
  and past times, left inside.[39 p.224]

In Ronald W. Clark's definitive biography of Einstein, we find
what Einstein means when he makes the above statement pertaining
to the Lord, or some of his other famous statements such as "God
is subtle, but he is not malicious" or "God does not play dice
with the world.":

     However Einstein's God was not the God of most other men.
  When he wrote of religion, as he often did in middle and later
  life, he tended to adopt the belief of Alice's Red Queen that
  "words mean what you want them to mean," and to clothe with
  different names what to more ordinary mortalsƒƒand to most
  Jewsƒƒlooked like a variant of simple agnosticism.  Replying in
  1929 to a cabled inquiry from Rabbi Goldstein of New York, he
  said that he believed "in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in
  the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns
  himself with the fate and actions of men."  And it is claimed
  that years later, asked by Ben-Gurion whether he believed in
  God, "even he, with his great formula about energy and mass,
  agreed that there must be something behind the energy."  No
  doubt.  But much of Einstein's writing gives the impression of
  belief in a God even more intangible and impersonal than a
  celestial machine minder, running the universe with
  undisputable authority and expert touch.  Instead, Einstein's
  God appears as the physical world itself, with its infinitely
  marvelous structure operating at atomic level with the beauty
  of a craftsman's wristwatch, and at stellar level with the
  majesty of a massive cyclotron.  This was belief enough.  It
  grew early and rooted deep.  Only later was it dignified by the
  title of cosmic religion, a phrase which gave plausible
  respectability to the views of a man who did not believe in a
  life after death and who felt that if virtue paid off in the
  earthly one, then this was the result of cause and effect
  rather than celestial reward.  Einstein's God thus stood for an
  orderly system obeying rules which could be discovered by those
  who had the courage, the imagination, and the persistence to go
  on searching for them.  And it was to this task which he began
  to turn his mind soon after the age of twelve.  For the rest of
  his life everything else was to seem almost trivial by
  comparison.[38 p.38]

In an expansion of Einstein's views with regard to a scientific
cosmic religion, Clark states:

     Maybe.  To some extent the differences between Einstein and
  more conventional believers were semantic, a point brought out
  in his "Religion and Science" which, on Sunday, November 9,
  occupied the entire first page of the New York Times Magazine.
  "Everything that men do or think," it began, "concerns the
  satisfaction of the needs they feel or the escape from pain."
  Einstein then went on to outline three states of religious
  development, starting with the religion of fear that moved
  primitive people, and which in due course became the moral
  religion whose driving force was social feelings.  This in turn
  could become the "cosmic religious sense ... which recognizes
  neither dogmas nor God made in man's image."  And he then put
  the key to his ideas in two sentences.  "I assert that the
  cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest
  driving force behind scientific research."  And, as a
  corollary, "the only deeply religious people of our largely
  materialistic age are the earnest men of research."[38 p.516]

   With reference to the general view of most scientists with
regard to science and religion, there is a very interesting FOCAL
POINT article in the journal Sky & Telescope by Dr. Paul Davies,
a professor of mathematical physics at the University of Adelaide
Australia.[139]  The title of the article is What Hath COBE
Wrought?, and the following statements are from the article:

  THE BLAZE of publicity that accompanied the recent discovery of
  ripples in the heat radiation from the Big Bang focused
  attention once again on the subject of God and creation.
  Commentators disagree on the theological significance of what
  NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer, or COBE, found.  Some
  referred to the ripples as the "fingerprint of God," while
  others lashed out at what they saw as the scientists' attempt
  to demystify God's last refuge.
     When the Big Bang theory became popular in the 1950s, many
  people used it to support the belief that the universe was
  created by God at some specific moment in the past.  And some
  still regard the Big Bang as "the creation" ƒƒ a divine act to
  be left beyond the scope of science.... Cosmologist regard the
  Big Bang as marking the origin of space and time, as well as of
  matter and energy.... This more sophisticated, but abstract,
  idea of God adapts well to the scientific picture of a universe
  subject to timeless eternal laws.... If time itself began with
  the Big Bang, then the question "What caused the Big Bang?" is
  rendered meaningless.... New and exciting theories of quantum
  cosmology seek to explain the origin of the universe within the
  framework of scientific law.  Their central feature is
  Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which permits genuine
  spontaneity in nature.  As a result, the tight linkage between
  cause and effect so characteristic of classical physics is
  loosened.  Quantum events do not need well-defined prior
  causes; they can be regarded as spontaneous fluctuations.  It
  is then possible to imagine the universe coming into being from
  nothing entirely spontaneously, without violating any laws.

   Sir Isaac Newton, in his reasoning in support of the particle
(corpuscular) model of light in space, as opposed to the wave in
ether model, presented the argument:

  Against filling the Heavens with fluid mediums, unless they be
  exceeding rare, a great Objection arises from the regular and
  very lasting motions of the Planets and Comets.  For thence it
  is manifest, that the Heavens are void of all sensible
  resistance, and by consequence of all sensible matter.[140]

In 1846 Michael Faraday wrote in his diary:

  All I can say is, that I do not perceive in any part of space,
  whether (to use the common phrase) vacant or filled with
  matter, anything but forces and the lines in which they
  exerted.[141]

This was the beginning of the dominant modern physics theories,
where it is the geometric and physical conditions of space itself
that is fundamental.  Prof. Eyvind H. Wichmann, in the Berkeley
Physics Course, Volume 4, quantum physics, presents the following
argument:

  35   Today the mechanical ether has been banished from the
  world of physics, and the word "ether" itself, because of its
  "bad" connotations, no longer occurs in textbooks on physics.
  We talk ostentatiously about the "vacuum" instead, thereby
  indicating our lack of interest in the medium in which waves
  propagate.  We no longer ask what it is that "really
  oscillates" when we study electromagnetic waves or de Broglie
  waves.  All we wish to do is to formulate wave equations for
  these waves, through which we can predict experimentally
  observable phenomena....[122]

   There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession
is sexual prostitution.  I think that it is far more likely that
the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century.  I
suspect that long before sex had any commercial value, the
prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to acquire
status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the
dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do.  So
in a sense, I tend to agree with Weart's argument that the
earliest scientists were the prehistoric shamans, and the
argument of Feyerabend that puts science on a par with religion
and prostitution.  I also tend to agree with the argument of
Ellis that states that both science and theology have much in
common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on
unprovable articles of faith.  Using the logic that if it looks
like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must
be a duck: I support the argument that since there is no
significant difference between science and religion, science
should be considered a religion!  I would also agree with Ellis'
argument of the obvious methodological differences between
science and the other religions.  The other dominant religions
are static because their arguments are based on rigid doctrines
set forth by their founders, such as Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad,
who have died long ago.  Science on the other hand, is a dynamic
religion that was developed by many men over a long period of
time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the scientific method, that
demands that the arguments change to conform to the evolving
observational and experimental evidence.
   The word science was derived from the Latin word scientia,
which means knowledge, so we see that the word, in essence, is
just another word for knowledge.  An associate of mine, Prof.
Richard Rhodes II, a Professor of Physics at Eckerd College, once
told me that students in his graduate school used to joke that
Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and Deeper.  If one considers the
vast array of abstract theoretical garbage that dominates modern
physics and astronomy, this appears to be an accurate description
of the degree.  Considering the results from Mahoney's field
trial that showed Protestant ministers were two to three times
more likely to use scientific methodology than Ph.D. scientists,
it seems reasonable to consider that they have two to three times
more right to be called scientists then the so-called Ph.D.
scientists.  I would agree with Popper's argument that
observations are theory-laden, and there is no way to prove an
argument beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at the very
least, the scientist should do more than pay lip service to the
scientific method.  The true scientist must have faith and
believe in the scientific method of testing theories, and not in
the theories themselves.  I agree with Seeds argument that "A
pseudoscience is something that pretends to be a science but does
not obey the rules of good conduct common to all sciences."
Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow
the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled
pseudoscience.  The people who tend to believe more in theories
than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore
the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be
considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists.  To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for
status, wealth , or political reasons, these people are
scientific prostitutes.
   I agree with Newton's argument that if light was a wave in the
ether, the ether would have to be nonsensible matter.  Calling
the ether space or vacuum does not solve the problem.  Its
existence is based on blind faith and not experimental evidence.
As I will show in the following Chapters, there is an
overwhelming body of evidence that light is a particle, as Newton
predicted.  The fact that most modern physicists have refused to
objectively consider this evidence, has made a farce of physics.
This empty space of modern physics is a supernatural solid[123]
that can have infinite temperature and density.[105]  A spot of
this material that is smaller than an atom is supposed to have
created the entire universe.[8 p.325]  This physical material has
become the God of most modern physicists!Chapter 2

                      Pathological Physics

   There is a very interesting article published in the October
1989 issue of Physics Today.[86]  The article is titled
"PATHOLOGICAL SCIENCE" and the abstract reads:

  Certain symptoms seen in studies of 'N rays' and other elusive
  phenomena characterize 'the science of things that aren't so.'

The introduction to the article starts:

  Irving Langmuir spent many productive years pursuing Nobel-
  caliber research (see the photo on the opposite page).  Over
  the years, he also explored the subject of what he called
  "pathological science."  Although he never published his
  investigations in this area, on 18 December 1953 at General
  Electric's Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, he gave a colloquium
  on the subject that will long be remembered by those in his
  audience.  This talk was a colorful account of a particular
  kind of pitfall into which scientists may stumble.

Langmuir begins his presentation with:

  The thing started in this way.  On 23 April 1929, Professor
  Bergen Davis from Columbia University came up and gave a
  colloquium in this Laboratory, in the old building, and it was
  very interesting....

Langmuir then gives the details of the Davis and Barnes
controversial experiment that produced a beam of alpha rays from
polonium in a vacuum tube with a hot cathode electron emitter and
a microscope for counting alpha induced scintillations on a zinc
sulfide screen.  Then Langmuir described the results of a visit
he and a colleague, C. W. Hewlett, made to Davis's laboratory at
Columbia University.  With regard to the experiment Langmuir
states:

  And then I played a dirty trick.  I wrote out on a card of
  paper ten different sequences of V and 0.  I meant to put on a
  certain voltage and then take it off again.  Later I realized
  that [trick wouldn't quite work] because when Hull took off the
  voltage, he sat back in his chairƒƒthere was nothing to
  regulate at zero so he didn't.  Well, of course, Barnes saw him
  whenever he sat back in his chair.  Although the light wasn't
  very bright, he could see whether [Hull] was sitting back in
  his chair or not, so he knew the voltage wasn't on, and the
  result was that he got a corresponding result.  So later I
  whispered, "Don't let him know that you're not reading," and I
  asked him to change the voltage from 325 down to 320 so he'd
  have something to regulate.  I said, "Regulate it just as
  carefully as if you were sitting on a peak."  So he played the
  part from that time on, and from that time on Barnes's readings
  had nothing whatever to do with the voltages that were applied.
  Whether the voltage was at one value or another didn't make the
  slightest difference.  After that he took 12 readings, of which
  about half were right and the other half were wrong, which was
  about what you would expect out of two sets of values.
     I said: "You're through.  You're not measuring anything at
  all.  You never have measured anything at all."
     "Well," he said, "the tube was gassy.  The temperature has
  changed and therefore the nickel plates must have deformed
  themselves so that the electrodes are no longer lined up
  properly."
     "Well," I said, "isn't this the tube in which Davis said he
  got the same results when the filament was turned off
  completely?"
     "Oh, yes," he said, "but we always made blanks to check
  ourselves, with and without the voltage on."
     He immediatelyƒƒwithout giving any thought to itƒƒhe
  immediately had an excuse.  He had a reason for not paying any
  attention to any wrong results.  It just was built into him.
  He just had worked that way all along and always would.  There
  is no question but [that] he is honest: He believed these
  things, absolutely....

At the end of that section, Langmuir states:

     To me, [its] extremely interesting that men, perfectly
  honest, enthusiastic over their work, can so completely fool
  themselves.  Now what was it about that work that made it so
  easy for them to do that?  Well, I began thinking of other
  things.  I had seen R. W. Wood and told him about this
  phenomenon because he's a good experimenter and doesn't make
  such mistakes himself very oftenƒƒif at all.  [Wood was a
  physicist from Johns Hopkins University.]  And he told me about
  the N rays that he had an experience with back in 1904.  So I
  looked up the data on N rays.[87]

Then Langmuir gave a detailed account of N rays, and how they
were discovered in 1903 by a respected French physicist, RenÇ-
Prosper Blondlot, at the University of Nancy.  The N-rays were
supposed to be generated by a hot wire inside an iron tube that
has an 1/8 inch aluminum window in it, and the rays are detected
by a calcium sulfide screen which gave out a very faint glow in a
dark room.  One of the experiments involved a large prism of
aluminum with a 60 degree angle.  Wood visited Blondlot's lab and
Langmuir recounts the following trick Wood played on Blondlot:

     Well, Wood asked him to repeat some of these measurements,
  which he was only too glad to do.  But in the meantime, the
  room, being very dark, R. W. Wood put the prism in his pocket
  and the results checked perfectly with what [Blondlot] had
  before.  Well, Wood rather cruelly published that.[88]  And
  that was the end of Blondlot.

Langmuir next deals with the 1923 mitrogenetic ray experiments of
Prof. Alexander Gurwitsch at the First State University of
Moscow.[89]  After the mitrogenetic ray section, Langmuir
presents the following section, which is the heart of his
article:

  Symptoms of sick science

  The Davis-Barnes experiment and the N rays and the mitogenetic
  rays all have things in common.  These are cases where there is
  no dishonesty involved but where people are tricked into false
  results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can
  do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective
  effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions.  These are
  examples of pathological science.  These are things that
  attracted a great deal of attention.  Usually hundreds of
  papers have been published on them.  Sometimes they have lasted
  for 15 or 20 years and then gradually have died away.  Now here
  are the characteristic rules [see the box above]:

  > The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a
  causative agent of barely detectable intensity.  For example,
  you might think that if one onion root would affect another due
  to ultraviolet light then by putting on an ultraviolet source
  of light you could get it to work better.  Oh no! Oh no! It had
  to be just the amount of intensity that's given off by an onion
  root.  Ten onion roots wouldn't do any better than one and it
  didn't make any difference about the distance of the source.
  It didn't follow any inverse square law or anything as simple
  as that.  And so on.  In other words, the effect is independent
  of the intensity of the cause.  That was true in the
  mitogenetic rays and it was true in the N rays.  Ten bricks
  didn't have any more effect than one.  It had to be of low
  intensity.  We know why it had to be of low intensity: so that
  you could fool yourself so easily.  Otherwise, it wouldn't
  work.  Davis-Barnes worked just as well when the filament was
  turned off.  They counted scintillations.

  > Another characteristic thing about them all is that these
  observations are near the threshold of visibility of the eyes.
  Any other sense, I suppose, would work as well.  Or many
  measurements are necessaryƒƒmany measurementsƒƒbecause of the
  very low statistical significance of the results.  With the
  mitogenetic rays particularly, [people] started out by seeing
  something that was bent.  Later on, they would take a hundred
  onion roots and expose them to something, and they would get
  the average position of all of them to see whether the average
  had been affected a little bit...  Statistical measurements of
  a very small...were thought to be significant if you took large
  numbers.  Now the trouble with that is this. [Most people have
  a habit, when taking] measurements of low significance, [of
  finding] a means of rejecting data.  They are right at the
  threshold value and there are many reasons why [they] can
  discard data.  Davis and Barnes were doing that right along.
  If things were doubtful at all, why, they would discard them or
  not discard them depending on whether or not they fit the
  theory.  They didn't know that, but that's the way it worked
  out.

  > There are claims of great accuracy.  Barnes was going to get
  the Rydberg constant more accurately than the spectroscopists
  could.  Great sensitivity or great specificityƒƒwe'll come
  across that particularly in the Allison effect.

  > Fantastic theories contrary to experience.  In the Bohr
  theory, the whole idea of an electron being captured by an
  alpha particle when the alpha particles aren't there, just
  because the waves are there, [isn't] a very sensible theory.

  > Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur
  of the moment.  They always had an answerƒƒalways.

  > The ratio of the supporters to the critics rises up somewhere
  near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.  The critics
  couldn't reproduce the effects.  Only the supporters could do
  that.  In the end, nothing was salvaged.  Why should there be?
  There isn't anything there.  There never was.  That's
  characteristic of the effect.

   In an evaluation of modern physics based on Langmuir's
arguments, we find that many of the dominant theories should be
classed as pathological science.  For example, starting with his
first characteristic rule "The maximum effect that is observed is
produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity.";
we find that Einstein's special relativity theory which is
generally acknowledged as the foundation of the rest of the
dominant theories of 20th century physics, is based on the fact
that the Michelson-Morley experiment could not detect the motion
of the earth through the ether!  As I have shown in Chapter 3
"Mathematical Magic", Einstein believed that the ether sea exists
but that it is invisible and can't be detected by experiments.
   As a second example of the spectrum of modern theories that
should be classed as pathological, we have the particle
physicists that argue that invisible quarks exist inside of the
detectable protons and neutrons.[64]  Actually, their arguments
have expanded over the years to include a whole zoo of invisible
particles that come in different colors and flavors, the zoo
contains, quarks, gluons, gravitrons, Higgs bosons, etc.  All of
these particles are detectable only by using very elaborate
"Mathematical Magic" to analysis the particles that are detected.
On this question, Werner Heisenberg, one of the most prominent
physicists of this century, makes the following remarks in his
article[90] titled "The nature of elementary particles":

  ...Before this time it was assumed that there were two
  fundamental kinds of particles, electrons and protons, which,
  unlike most other particles, were immutable.  Therefore their
  number was fixed and they were referred to as "elementary"
  particles.  Matter was seen as being ultimately constructed of
  electrons and protons.  The experiments of Anderson and
  Blackett provided definite proof that this hypothesis was
  wrong.  Electrons can be created and annihilated; their number
  is not constant; they are not "elementary" in the original
  meaning of the word....  A proton could be obtained from a
  neutron and a pion, or a hyperon and a kaon, or from two
  nucleons and one antinucleon, and so on.  Could we therefore
  simply say a proton consists of continuous matter?...  This
  development convincingly suggests the following analogy: Let us
  compare the so-called "elementary" particles with the
  stationary states of an atom or a molecule.  We may think of
  these as various states of one single molecule or as the many
  different molecules of chemistry.  One may therefore speak
  simply of the "spectrum of matter."...
     My intention, however, is not to deal with philosophy but
  with physics.  Therefore I will now discuss that development of
  theoretical particle physics that, I believe, begins with the
  wrong questions.  First of all there is the thesis that the
  observed particles such as the proton, the pion, the hyperon
  consist of smaller particles: quarks, partons, gluons, charmed
  particles or whatever else, none of which have been observed.
  Apparently here the question was asked: "What does a proton
  consist of?"  But the questioners appear to have forgotten the
  phrase "consist of" has a tolerably clear meaning only if the
  particle can be divided into pieces with a small amount of
  energy, much smaller than the rest mass of the particle itself.
  ...In the same way I am afraid that the quark hypothesis is not
  really taken seriously today by its proponents.  Questions
  dealing with the statistics of quarks, the forces that keep
  them together, the reason why the quarks are never seen as free
  particles, the creation of pairs of quarks inside an elementary
  particle, are all left more or less undefined.  If the quark
  hypothesis is really to be taken seriously it is necessary to
  formulate precise mathematical assumptions for the quarks and
  for the forces that keep them together and to show, at least
  qualitatively, that all these assumptions reproduce the known
  features of particle physics...
     Therefore this article can be concluded with a more
  optimistic view of those developments in particle physics that
  promise success.  New experimental results are always valuable,
  even if they only enlarge the data table; but they are
  especially interesting if they answer critical questions of the
  theory.  In the theory one should try to make precise
  assumptions concerning the dynamics of matter, without any
  philosophical prejudices.  The dynamics must be taken
  seriously, and we should not be content with vaguely defined
  hypotheses that leave essential points open.  Everything
  outside of the dynamics is just a verbal description of the
  table of data, and even then the data table probably yields
  more information than the verbal description can.  The particle
  spectrum can be understood only if the underlying dynamics of
  matter is known; dynamics is the central problem.

   In 1977, in collaboration with Prof. Wilbur Block and Prof.
Richard Rhodes II, I submitted a research proposal through Eckerd
College to the National Science Foundation.  The proposal was for
$159,512, of which $99,655 was to go for a high-performance
Harris computer.  We intended to use computer methods to attack
the difficult mathematics of the underlying dynamics of matter as
outlined in Heisenberg's article.  The February 1978 rejection
letter from Dr. Barry R. Holstein, Program Officer for
Theoretical Physics, stated the proposal was declined because
their reviewers had an overwhelming feeling that there is no
reason to abandon the conventional and remarkably successful
theories of electron and quark interactions in favor of our
model.  The letter supplied the motivation for my campaign to
discredit the quark theorists.  The campaign involved for the
most part, attacking prominent quark theorists at the American
Physical Society meetings, and to add insult to injury, I
published the following letter[91] in Physics Today:

  Heisenberg and QCD

  I would like to comment on Gerald E. Brown's and Mannque Rho's
  recent paper "The structure of the nucleon" (February, page
  24).  At the APS 1982 Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C., Brown
  gave an invited paper entitled "Structure of the Nucleons."[92]
  After he delivered his paper, I challenged Brown to defend his
  QCD arguments.  I stated that Werner Heisenberg had argued[90]
  that he was afraid that the quark hypothesis was not really
  taken seriously by its proponents.  He pointed out that they do
  not deal with the mass dynamics of the transformation of mass
  from energy to the particle spectrum, and that it was
  irrational to speculate on the division of quarks into
  subparticles because it would take many times the rest energy
  of the particles to produce them.  I asked him how he would
  challenge Heisenberg's arguments.  He stated that he could not,
  and that it would be best to ask this of others since he was a
  nuclear physicist.
     In answer to Brown's comment, I have asked other QCD
  theorists and their supporters how they would challenge
  Heisenberg's arguments.  One prominent particle theorist who
  presented an invited paper at the same Spring Meeting shouted
  "No Way!" before I could even finish pronouncing Heisenberg's
  name.  In general, this question has had the same sort of
  devastating effect on all the physicists I've asked it of.
  Considering Heisenberg's status, it's no wonder that few
  physicists are willing to challenge his arguments....

In the April 1982 issue of Physics Today,[93] there appeared an
article titled "Instant fame and small fortune" which states:

  At the San Francisco APS meeting in January, Arthur Schawlow
  announced the results of a contest he initiated last year
  (PHYSICS TODAY,March 1981, page 75).  In his retiring
  presidential address he said, "This year, I have sponsored a
  contest for APS members to propose the best way to publicize
  their own contributed papers.  The contest has been judged by a
  distinguished panel of graduate students and secretaries, who
  will remain anonymous for their own safety.

     "First prize of ten dollars goes to...

     "Second prize of, five dollars, goes to...

     "Third prize, a copy of my latest paper, goes to...

     "Fourth prize, a copy of my two latest papers, goes to Bryan
  G. Wallace of Eckerd College, who pointed out that the
  abstracts are reproduced photographically, and so he had been
  able to use tricks like italics and extra heavy type to make
  his abstracts stand out....

Actually, the full text of my entry concerned more than dark
italic type, and goes as follows:

  Dear Art:

     With reference to your open letter that accompanied the 1982
  renewal invoice, I would like to enter your "Instant Fame and
  (small) Fortune contest.  We have had a major problem with QCD
  theorists acting as referees in trying to obtain funding and
  publication for our mass dynamics research.  As an example, one
  of our NSF proposals was declined because "There was an
  overwhelming feeling that there is no reason to abandon the
  conventional and remarkably successful theories of electron and
  quark interactions in favor of your model which is beset with a
  number of fatal conceptual difficulties."  In order to
  compensate for this problem we have adopted a policy of
  presenting current research results in the form of a
  contributed paper annually, with abstracts published in the
  Bulletin making an archival record.  Since the APS Spring
  Meeting is traditionally held at or near Washington D.C. we
  felt we could get the most bang per buck from it.
     I have devised a number of methods of publicizing the
  contributed papers.  To begin with, I use my trusty old Sears
  typewriter that has large Italic type, use a new ribbon, and
  set it for maximum impact to type the published abstract.
  Enclosed you will find a copy of the abstracts published to
  date.  They stand out like a sore thumb from the other
  abstracts, and are real eye grabbers.  The next tactic is to
  attend the Spring Meeting symposiums where the QCD super stars
  are giving their invited papers.  The idea is to present short,
  high impact commercials, our brand (Mass Dynamics) versus the
  other brand (QCD).  Where a TV commercial might use a well
  known movie or television star to help sell their product, I
  use statements made by Werner Heisenberg, who of course is a
  physics super duper star.  The statements come from
  Heisenberg's article "The nature of elementary particles" in
  the March 1976 issue of "Physics Today."  Heisenberg had some
  nice things to say about mass dynamics and some very nasty
  things to say about QCD type theories.  His statements have
  made effective stones for the sling of this modern day David.
  As two examples of what I consider to be the best shots fired
  to date:

       At the 1979 HA Special Session To Celebrate The Hundredth
    Anniversary Of Dr. Albert Einstein's Birth before a packed
    room of perhaps 1000 physicists, Steven Weinberg presented a
    talk entitled "Unification of the Forces of Nature."  Peter
    Bergmann who was presiding the session gave me Weinberg's
    throat mike, we were all standing by the overhead projector.
    I stated that Heisenberg published a paper on the nature of
    elementary particles a few years ago in Physics Today, and
    that in the paper he made the contention that Quark theories
    are little more than a verbal description of the data table
    and that we will not understand the nature of the particle
    spectrum until we invent a theory of the dynamics of matter,
    then I asked him to comment on this.  He was flustered and
    stated that of course this was a legitimate point of view and
    there are many problems with trying to develop the mass
    dynamics of quark theories, then he threw up his hands and in
    an emotional voice shouted that he just believed in them!

       At the 1981 JA Symposium "High-Energy Facilities of the
    Future," Leon Lederman gave a talk on "Future Facilities at
    Fermilab."  I was the first to comment and said that
    Heisenberg has argued that QCD theories are nothing more than
    a verbal description of the data and that we would not
    understand the nature of the particle spectrum until we
    developed theories of the mass dynamics, and here he was
    basing his arguments for more funding on theories that were
    mere verbal descriptions of the data.  Perhaps the large
    accelerators are the SSTs of modern physics and we should let
    the Europeans waste their money on them and we could spend
    ours on more important things like physicist's salaries and
    computers.  He answered that of course he would not want to
    argue with Heisenberg, and that I had a good point and he
    would like to get with me later and talk about it.  After the
    session, he came over and asked "Why me?  Why me?  Why didn't
    you pick on any of the others?"  I said he was the first to
    use QCD to support his argument for more funding.  He stated
    that he felt that if Heisenberg were still alive, he probably
    would support QCD, look at the Nobel prize, the large number
    of theorists that support it.  I asked him if he had read
    Heisenberg's article, he said no, but now he was going to
    make a point to read it.  At the end of our conversation, I
    gave him 2 cents and said it was my share of the money he
    needed and that I had nothing against accelerators, only
    quarks.

In an 1985 Physics Today article[94] titles "The SSC: A machine
for the nineties," Dr. Sheldon L. Glashow and Dr. Leon M.
Lederman present the following argument:

     True, the Standard Model does explain a very great deal.
  Nevertheless it is not yet a proper theory, principally because
  it does not satisfy the physicists naive faith in elegance and
  simplicity.  It involves some 17 allegedly fundamental
  particles and the same number of arbitrary and tunable
  parameters, such as the fine-structure constants, the muon-
  electron mass ratio and the various mysterious mixing angles
  (Cabibbo, Weinberg, Kobayashi-Maskawa).  Surely the Creator did
  not twiddle 17 dials on his black box before initiating the Big
  Bang, and its glorious sequela, mankind.  Our present theory is
  incomplete, insufficient and inelegant, though it may be long
  remembered as a significant turning point. It remains for
  history to record whether, on the threshold of a major
  synthesis, we chose to turn our backs or to thrust onward.  The
  choice is upon us with the still-hypothetical SSC.

In effect, Glashow and Lederman are arguing that after spending
billions of dollars on particle accelerators, all we have to show
for it is a bunch of worthless mathematics, or what Heisenberg
calls using the language of mathematics to produce "a verbal
description of the table of data."  They want us to spend many
more billions of dollars to build the SSC, a machine that is up
to 112 miles in circumference and that can accelerate protons to
40 trillion electron volts of energy.  They offer the slim hope
that if we explore the short-lived trash at the high end of the
particle spectrum at energies far beyond that of the stable
particles of the everyday world, we might have some additional
insight into a unified theory!  The 1985 APS retirement address
of the particle physicist Dr. Robert R. Wilson that I quoted in
Chapter 4, and the above reply to my NSF proposal tends to
indicate that the average particle physicist is opposed to a
unified theory along the lines presented by Einstein and
Heisenberg, and that funding of the SSC could very likely hamper
the development of a realistic unified theory that would bring
enormous benefits for mankind.  At the 1985 APS Spring Meeting,
the Nobel prize winning particle physicist Dr. Carlo Rubbia gave
a talk in which he indicated a major problem in separating the
data from the artifacts of machine operation.  The only way to be
certain of the results, was when different accelerators gave
consistent data at the same energies.  During the comment and
question session following his talk, I asked him if the current
accelerators had reached the point of diminishing returns, and he
answered "Yes."  So we face the prospect of spending many
billions of dollars for a machine that will produce uncertain
results, of marginal value, a real "white elephant."  The
following excerpts from the letter published in the July 1988
issue of Physics Today,[95] by Dr. John F. Waymouth of GTE that
is titled "WHAT PRICE FUNDING THE SUPER COLLIDER?" brings to bear
some interesting arguments on this question:

  I am an R&D director in industry whose own work is almost
  entirely company funded.  I nevertheless believe that
  government funding of long-range research in the physical
  sciences is essential to the future health of the US economy.
     I am, however, extremely distressed by the direction that
  recent proposals for such funding are takingƒƒtoward hundreds
  of millions, ultimately billions of dollars for a gigantic
  particle accelerator to explore physical phenomena in the tera-
  electron-volt range.  At the same time, I see from my
  perspective as an eventual "customer" of university-based low-
  energy plasma, atomic, molecular, electron and optical physics
  research, and as a former member of the NSF Advisory Committee
  for Physics, that these areas are being severely constrained by
  inadequate funding.  I believe that this allocation of
  priorities in funding of the physical sciences would be in
  error, for the reasons outlined in the following....
     This line of reasoning leads me to the conclusion that the
  only satisfactory argument justifying society's support of
  physics research over the long term is the fourth one: that
  physics research in the past has led to a cornucopia of new
  products, industries and jobs and thereby to the wealth and
  quality of life that we now enjoy; failure on our part to
  provide the same kind of support will deprive our children, and
  our children's children, of similar benefits in the future....
     As I reflect back on what physics research has provided to
  society in the past, I am struck by the fact that not all
  physics research is uniformly productive of economic benefits.
  In my own mind, I have divided physics into three basic areas:
  electron-volt physics, in which energy exchanges on an atomic,
  molecular or electronic scale are less than 100 000 volts; MeV-
  GeV physics, which primarily involves nuclear and subnuclear
  particles; and high-energy physics, covering GeV to TeV and up,
  involving the structure of subnuclear matter.
     Out of Ev physics have come electricity and magnetism,
  telegraphy, telephony, the electric light and power industry,
  stationary and propulsion electric motors, radio, television,
  lasers, radar and microwave ovens, to name just a few.  In
  short, it is the core science of the modern world.
     X rays and the resulting medical physics industry were the
  high-energy physics of their day, but fall within my definition
  of Ev physics.  Digital computers arose from the computational
  needs of MeV physics, but the technology for satisfying those
  needs came entirely out of Ev physics; microminiaturization of
  those computers for space exploration was accomplished also by
  Ev physics, resulting in the capability to put computing power
  undreamed of by John von Neumann in the hands of an elementary
  school child.
     Moreover, Ev physics has been the core science in the
  training of generations of engineers who have invented,
  developed and improved products in all of the above areas.  It
  is, in addition, the core science in the extremely exciting
  development of understanding of the detailed processes involved
  in chemical reactions, and the ultimate understanding of
  biological reactions and the life process itself.  Every single
  member of our society has been touched in very substantial ways
  by the accomplishments of Ev physics, and many of them are
  fully aware of it.
     MeV-GeV physics has given us radioisotope analysis, a
  substantial portion of medical physics, and nuclear energy
  (which a significant, vocal minority of our society regards as
  an unmitigated curse instead of a blessing).  High-energy
  physics has to date given us nothing....
     In my opinion, there is another interpretation.  Electron-
  volt physics is the science of things that happen on Earth;
  MeV-GeV physics is the science of things that happen in the
  Sun, the stars and the Galaxy; TeV physics has not happened
  anywhere in the universe since the first few milliseconds of
  the Big Bang (except possibly inside black holes, which are by
  definition unknowable).
     Consequently, it should come as no surprise that items
  useful on Earth will come primarily from the branch of physics
  that deals with what happens here on Earth, with lesser
  contributions from the science of what happens in the nearby
  Sun and the intervening space.  I firmly believe that this
  situation is quite fundamental, and that despite the best
  efforts of many dedicated TeV physicists, the probability that
  economic benefit to society in the future will result from
  their activities is very remote: in the phraseology of the
  research director justifying his budget, "a high-risk, longshot
  gamble."

Waymouth's above article presented the currently popular argument
for the justification of funding the SSC, that it will shed light
on the phenomena that happened in the first few milliseconds of
the Big Bang creation of the entire universe.  In examination of
this argument we should consider the fact that there is ample
evidence that Big Bang creation theories are pathological science
at its very worst.  Some interesting insight into the development
of the Big Bang type of theories is contained in the following
excerpts from a recent Physics Today article[96] titled "EDWIN P.
HUBBLE AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF COSMOLOGY":

  ...It is now usual to trace the idea of an expanding universe,
  at least in the mathematical sense, to two papers[97] published
  by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander
  Friedmann in 1922 and 1924.  Friedmann's starting point was the
  field equations of general relativity that Einstein had
  developed in 1917,...  Rather, the first person to join theory
  and observation in a way that would come to be widely seen as
  physically meaningful within the general framework of the
  expanding universe was, as Helge Kragh has argued
  convincingly,[98] a 33-year-old Belgian abbÇ and professor at
  the University of Louvain, Georges Lemaåtre.
     In 1927 Lemaåtre published what would later be recognized as
  the seminal paper on the expanding universe.[99]  But for a
  brief time, Lemaåtre's work drew no interest.  Even Einstein
  told Lemaåtre, at the fifth Solvay conference in 1927, that he
  did not accept the notion of the expanding universe or the
  physics underpinning the paper....
     Hubble was always careful in print to avoid definitely
  interpreting the redshifts as Doppler shifts.  But the writings
  of Eddington and others soon meshed the calculations of
  Lemaåtre and various theorists with Hubble's observational
  research on the redshift-distance relation.  The notion of the
  expanding universe was swiftly accepted by many, and the linear
  relationship between redshift and distance was later widely
  accepted as Hubble's law.
  ...But Eddington explicitly rejected the notion of a creation
  of the universe, as seemed to be implied by a universe with
  more mass than the Einstein universe, because "it seems to
  require a sudden and peculiar beginning of things."...
     During the early 1930s several people, including a sometime
  collaborator of Hubble's, the Caltech mathematical physicist
  Richard C. Tolman, examined possible physical mechanisms to
  explain the expansion.  Of course an alternative explanation of
  the expansion was that it really did start with the beginning
  of the entire universe, and it was Lemaåtre who introduced this
  concept into the cosmological practice of the 1930s.  In 1931
  he suggested the first detailed example of what later became
  known as Big Bang cosmology.  But unlike the universe of modern
  Big Bang theories, Lemaåtre's universe did not evolve from a
  true singularity but from a material pre-universe, what
  Lemaåtre referred to as the "primeval atom".[98]

Additional insight into Hubble's views of this matter comes from
the following material taken from a 1986 article[100] by Dr.
Barry Parker of the Idaho State University, titled "Discovery of
the Expanding Universe":

     It was evident by now, however, that Hubble's attitude had
  changed.  He no longer referred to his graph as a velocity-
  distance relation, though still confident that his distance
  scale was reasonably accurate.  The interpretation of redshifts
  as velocities bothered him, and he now referred to "apparent
  velocity displacements."  This wording implied there were other
  possibilities, and indeed there were....
     Lemaitre's theory also predicted an expanding universe, so
  in itself it probably did not bother Hubble.  However, a paper
  published the same year by his Mount Wilson colleague Fritz
  Zwicky apparently did.  Zwicky was convinced that the redshift
  did not necessarily indicate motion; he was sure that the
  extremely large speeds recently obtained by Humason were
  impossible.
     As an alternative, Zwicky introduced the idea that the
  redshifts were due to an interaction between light and matter
  in space.  The light gradually lost energy, which shifted it,
  and the spectral lines, to redder wavelengths.  The farther
  away an object, the more its light would "tire" during the trip
  to Earth....  He was now very close to the limit of the 100-
  inch telescope, but there was a new one on the horizon, the
  200-inch.  He was confident that this instrument would enable
  astronomers to resolve, once and for all, most of the major
  cosmological problems....

With regard to Hubble's expectation that the 200-inch would
resolve the problem, the following information taken from a
recent article[101] published in THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL by Dr.
Paul A. LaViolette, and titled "IS THE UNIVERSE REALLY
EXPANDING", shows that the current evidence supports the Zwicky
tired-light model.  The abstract of the article reads:

     The no-evolution, tired-light model and the no-evolution, qo
  = 0, expanding universe cosmology are compared against
  observational data on four kinds of cosmological tests.  On all
  four tests the tired-light model is found to make the better
  fit to the data without requiring the ad hoc introduction of
  assumptions about rapid galaxy evolution.  The data may be
  interpreted in the simplest fashion if space is assumed to be
  Euclidean, galaxies cosmologically static, evolutionary effects
  relatively insignificant, and photon energy nonconserved, with
  photons losing about 5%-7% of their energy for every 109 light
  years of distance traveled through intergalactic space.  The
  observation that redshifts are quantized may be accommodated by
  a version of the tired-light model in which photon energy
  decreases occur incrementally in a stepwise fashion.

The introduction of the article starts with:

     The notion that the cosmological redshift is a non-Doppler
  phenomenon in which photons continuously undergo an energy
  depletion or "aging" effect is not new.  This idea was first
  suggested by Zwicky (1929).  Later, Hubble and Tolman (1935)
  discussed this alternative, postulating that photon energy was
  depleted in a linear fashion with increasing photon travel
  distance.  Hubble (1936) claimed that his galaxy number count
  results strongly supported the linear energy depletion
  hypothesis....

On the 2nd page of the article LaViolette writes:

     The performance of the tired-light and expanding universe
  comologies are evaluated on four cosmological tests: the
  angular size-redshift test, the Hubble diagram test, the galaxy
  number-count-magnitude test, and the number-count-flux density
  test (log dN/dS-log S test).  It is determined that on all four
  tests the tired-light model exhibits superior performance.
  That is, it makes the best fit to the data with the fewest
  number of assumptions.  Finally, the redshift quantization
  phenomenon is briefly discussed.  Although not a cosmological
  test per se, this phenomenon is something that any candidate
  cosmology must somehow address.  It is shown that redshift
  quantization is quite compatible with the tired-light model.
  On the other hand, when the expanding universe hypothesis is
  adhered to, ad hoc assumptions must be introduced about the
  possible existence of macroscopic dynamical quantization in the
  universe's expanding motion.

In the CONCLUSION LaViolette states:

  ...It is concluded that the tired-light model makes a better
  fit on all four data sets.  The expanding universe hypothesis
  may be considered plausible only if it is modified to include
  specific assumptions regarding the evolution of galaxy cluster
  size, galaxy radio lobe size, galaxy luminosity, and galaxy
  number density.  In addition, if the redshift quantization
  effect is also to be accounted for, special assumptions must be
  introduced regarding the operation of dynamical quantization on
  a cosmological scale.  But the required assumptions are
  numerous.  Consequently, the tired-light model is preferred on
  the basis of simplicity.  Presently available observational
  data, therefore, appear to favor a cosmology in which the
  universe is conceived of as being stationary, Euclidean, and
  slowly evolving, and which photons lose a small fraction of
  their total energy for every distance increment they cover on
  their journey through space.

In a recent review[102] of a book[103] titled "QUASARS,
REDSHIFTS, AND CONTROVERSIES" published by Dr. Halton Arp, the
world-renowned astrophysicist Dr. Geoffrey Burbidge, writes:

     Chip Arp started with impeccable credentials.  Educated at
  Harvard and Caltech, after a short spell at Indiana he was
  appointed to a staff position at the Mount Wilson and Palomar
  Observatories, where he remained for 29 years.  A little more
  than 20 years ago Arp began to devote all his time to
  extragalactic astronomy.  At first he compiled the marvelous
  Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies.  Then he started to find what he
  believed were physical associations between some of these
  galaxies and previously identified powerful radio sources.
  Soon he found many cases of apparent associations between
  galaxies and quasi-stellar objects, or quasars.
     All of this would have been completely acceptable if the
  associated objects had the same redshifts, but they did not.
  Yet Arp believed in the reality of the associations, and, after
  struggles with referees, his papers were published.  Others
  were finding similar results, and soon the terms "nonvelocity
  redshifts" (those not associated with the expansion of the
  universe) and "local" (as distinct from distant, or
  "cosmological") quasars entered the literature.  Arp's ranking
  in the "Association of Astronomy Professionals" plunged from
  within the first 20 to below 200.  As he continued to claim
  that not all galaxy redshifts were due to the expansion of the
  universe, his ranking dropped further.
     About four years ago came the final blow: his whole field of
  research was deemed unacceptable by the telescope-allocation
  committee in Pasadena.  Both directors (of Mount Wilson and Las
  Campanas, and Palomar, observatories) endorsed the censure.
  Since Arp refused to work in a more conventional field, he was
  given no more telescope time.  After abortive appeals all the
  way up to the trustees of the Carnegie Institution, he took
  early retirement and moved to West Germany.  Earlier, Fritz
  Zwicky had also been frequently criticized by his colleagues in
  Pasadena (by coincidence?).  Zwicky remained a staff member at
  Mount Wilson and Palomar until he retired, but much of his work
  continued to be ignored or derided until some years after his
  death.
     Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies contains Arp's account
  of his own work and that of others leading, in his mind, to the
  conclusion that redshifts are not always correlated with
  distances.  It also contains his personal view of the way he
  has been treated.  When he is critical of others, he omits
  their names.  Zwicky was more blunt in his Morphological
  Astronomy....
     The other part of this learning process has been unpleasant,
  probably because I have a strong instinct for fair play.  It
  may be argued that this is no substitute for good judgement.
  But neither are the tactics that have been used by those who
  want to maintain the status quo.  These include interminable
  refereeing, blackballing of speakers at meetings, distortion
  and misquotation of the written word, rewriting of history, and
  worst of all, the denial of telescope time to those who are
  investigating what some believe are the wrong things.  Thus,
  for both scientific and sociological reasons, I am sympathetic
  to Arp....
     In my view the best evidence for the existence of
  noncosmological redshifts is the following:  the three quasars
  within 2 arc minutes of the center of NGC 1073, each have a
  redshift at a peak in the distribution found earlier; the low-
  redshift quasar Markarian 205 joined to NGC 4319; the pair of
  galaxies NGC 7603 and its companion, which are connected by a
  luminous bridge but have very different redshifts; and the
  statistical evidence relating many quasars to bright ƒƒ not
  faint ƒƒ galaxies....
     One of the most fascinating chapters describes the idea that
  the alignments of objects with different redshifts are not
  accidental, but real, implying that galaxies can eject objects,
  up to and including other galaxies...

Dr. I. E. Segal of M.I.T. has published an article[104] that
examines the claim that the cosmic background radiation is
evidence in support of the Big Bang theories.  In the last
sentence of the article, he states:

  ...Unless it can be shown that a temporally homogeneous
  universe is not physically sustainable, and this has not been
  possible even in the specific, nonparametric case of the
  chronometric cosmology, a claim for the big bang theory that it
  is the natural or logical explanation for the CBR and its
  apparently Planck law spectrum would appear untenable.

With regard to the current evidence on the radiation, a recent
article[134] titled "Background radiation deepens the confusion
for big bang theorists" states:

  THE LATEST results from NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer
  (COBE) satellite are continuing to mystify astronomers.  They
  show that the matter of the early Universe was spread so
  smoothly that it is difficult to understand how galaxies and
  clusters of galaxies could have formed (New Scientist,Science,
  19 December).
     Astronomers presented the results last week at a meeting of
  the American Physical Society in Washington DC.  Although the
  results confirm those released earlier, they are from
  observations of the whole sky rather than from just a small
  portion (This Week,20 January).
     COBE was launched earlier this year to observe the cosmic
  background radiation, the remnant radiation of the big bang in
  which the Universe was born 15 billion years ago.  The
  radiation was created a mere 300 000 years after the big bang.
  By determining how smoothly that radiation is distributed
  across the sky we can learn how smoothly matter was distributed
  at that epoch.
     "These measurements are more and more puzzling," says
  Michael Hauser of the NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center.  The
  COBE data show that 300 000 years after the big bang, the
  matter of the Universe had a density uniform to one part in
  10,000.
     Many of the scientists at the meeting expressed concern that
  many accepted theories of galaxy formation will have to go if
  the data build up and continue to show there is no variation in
  the background radiation.  Galaxies could only have condensed
  from the stuff of the big bang if it was lumpy.
     "We will be surprised if we don't start seeing wiggles at
  the level of one part in 100 000 of accuracy," said David
  Wilkinson of Princeton University.  "If COBE gets to [one part
  in a million] and still sees things smooth big bang theories
  will be in a lot of trouble."
     According to George Smoot of the University of California,
  Berkeley, the data from COBE are really more accurate than one
  part in 10,000, but the scientists are not revealing these data
  until they have a chance to correct for any systematic errors.
  They hinted, however, that they have found nothing even at this
  level of detail.

There was a 1/3/91 article in my local St. Petersburg Times
newspaper that was reprinted from  The New York Times.  The title
of the article was Big Bang theory turning out to be big bust and
the abstract states:

  Satellite research casts doubt on a key part of the widely held
  theory of how the universe was formed.

Two paragraphs in the middle of the article state:

     In a report published today in the journal Nature, they said
  the theory in its present form must be abandoned.
     The journal noted that the report by Dr. Will Saunders of
  Oxford University and colleagues "is all the more remarkable
  for coming from a group of authors that includes some of the
  theory's long time supporters."

   The Big Bang theories fit all of Langmuir's rules for
pathological science, but in particular, they fit his 4th one of
"Fantastic theories contrary to experience."  For example, the
following is the sort of fantastic arguments one finds in most
modern text books on this matter:

  ...These new theories are call Grand Unified Theories or GUTs.
     Studies of GUTs suggest that the universe expanded and
  cooled until about 10-35 seconds after the big bang, at which
  time it became so cool that the forces of nature began to
  separate from each other.  This released tremendous amounts of
  energy, which suddenly inflated the universe by a factor
  between 1020 and 1030.  At that time the part of the universe
  that we can see now, the entire observable universe, was no
  larger than the volume of an atom, but it suddenly inflated to
  the volume of a cherry pit and then continued its slower
  expansion to its present extent....     [8 p.325]

As another example of the fantastic type of arguments one finds
in scientific journals, the following was taken from a
article[105] titled "The Inflationary Universe" that was
published in the prestigious journal Scientific American:

  From a historical point of view probably the most revolutionary
  aspect of the inflationary model is the notion that all matter
  and energy in the observable universe may have emerged from
  almost nothing.  This claim stands in marked contrast to
  centuries of scientific tradition in which it was believed that
  something cannot come from nothing.Chapter 3

                       Mathematical Magic

   There is a tradition of brown-bag lunch in the foyer of the
Science auditorium at Eckerd College.  Most of the Natural
Science Collegium faculty tend to observe this tradition, and it
is not unusual to have faculty from the other Collegiums or even
the President or Dean of the College to attend the lunch as well.
The well upholstered easy chairs and sofas are dragged over the
carpet to form a circle, and the lunch becomes an informal
discussion group, with wide ranging topics from sports to
philosophy.  Many of the arguments presented in this book have
evolved from the discussions and debates at this lunch, and even
the book itself has become a topic of discussion, as I've passed
out copies of the material as it has developed to interested
faculty members, in an effort to obtain input from the group.
One of the topics that was discussed was the question of the
nature of mathematics.  It was interesting to find that the Math
faculty had no simple well defined definition of Mathematics!  My
Grolier Encyclopedia states that the word was derived from the
Greek word for learning mathema, and that Mathematical scholars
disagree upon a definition of mathematics.  The article goes on
to state under HISTORY:

     As a recognizable discipline, mathematics is found first
  among the ancient Egyptians and the Sumerians.  In fact, the
  Egyptians probably had considerable mathematical knowledge as
  early as 2900 B.C., when the Great Pyramid of Gizeh was built.
  A handbook upon mathematics, known as the Ahmes Papyrus,
  written about 1550 B.C., shows that the early Egyptians could
  solve many difficult arithmetical problems.  Some modern
  scholars believe that the Sumerians, who were the predecessors
  of the Babylonians, may have had a system of arithmetic as
  early as 3500 B.C.  The Sumerians and Babylonians applied
  arithmetic and elementary geometry to the study of astronomical
  problems and to the construction of great irrigation and other
  engineering projects.
     The Greek philosopher-mathematician Thales is usually
  regarded as the first to realize the importance of organizing
  mathematics upon a logical basis.  Such a tradition was carried
  on and further developed in early times by Pythagoras, Plato,
  Aristotle, and especially by the mathematicians of the
  Alexandrian School.  The famous University of Alexandria,
  between 300 B.C. and 500 A.D., had upon its staff such
  distinguished mathematicians as Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius,
  Eratosthenes, Ptolemy, Heron, Menelaus, Pappus, and Diophantus.
     For nearly a thousand years before the 15th century little
  original work was done in the field of mathematics except that
  produced by the Hindus and the Arabs.  In the 16th century
  Tartaglia, Cardan, and Ferrari in Italy and Vieta in France
  laid the foundations of modern algebra.  The 17th century
  produced many outstanding mathematicians including Descartes,
  Newton, Leibnitz, Fermat, Pascal, Desargues, Napier, and
  Kepler.  During the 17th century mathematics was extended in
  many directions, and modern analysis was born with the
  invention of the calculus.  The 18th, 19th, and the first half
  of the 20th centuries have seen a tremendous growth in the
  development of mathematical theory, and mathematical techniques
  have been introduced into virtually all branches of pure and
  applied science.

I presented the argument that mathematics was a language.  My
view on this matter was based on the following statement by Dr.
Robert B. Fischer, in his book "Science Man and Society":

  The language of mathematics, which consists of its symbols and
  their relationships, is very much at the heart of the practice
  of virtually all fields of science.[40]

My view was also shaped by various statements made by Prof.
Albert Einstein such as the following sentence:

  It demands the highest possible standard of rigorous precision
  in the description of relations, such as only the use of
  mathematical language can give.[39 p.225]

Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a member of the Physics faculty, and a
graduate of Yale University, told a story in support of my
argument.  The story concerned a statement made by Prof. Josiah
Willard Gibbs, Yale's first professor of mathematical physics.
With regard to Gibbs, the following was taken from an article on
him entitled "A loner's legacy":

    Gibb's work was so advanced that one of his great admirers,
  Albert Einstein, complained about one of his papers that "it is
  hard to read and the main points have to be read between the
  lines."  However, Einstein also termed it "a masterpiece."
  Scientists have been reading between the lines since Gibbs
  first laid out the fundamental equations of thermodynamics and
  reshaped the study of relations between energy and the
  composition of matter into a modern field with implications
  still being found.[41]

The story came from a biography on Gibbs by Dr. Muriel Rukeyser,
and goes as follows:

  A story is told of him, the one story that anyone remembers of
  Willard Gibbs at a faculty meeting.  He would come to meetings
  - these faculty gatherings so full of campus politics, scarcely
  veiled manoeuvres, and academic obstacle races - and leave
  without a word, staying politely enough, but never speaking.
     Just this once, he spoke.  It was during a long and tiring
  debate on elective courses, on whether there should be more or
  less English, more or less classics, more or less mathematics.
  And suddenly everything he had been doing stood upƒƒand the
  past behind him, his father's life, and behind that, the long
  effort and voyage that had been made in many lifetimesƒƒand he
  stood up, looking down at the upturned faces, astonished to see
  the silent man talk at last.  And he said, with emphasis, once
  and for all:

     "Mathematics is a language."[42]

Following Rhodes' story about Gibbs, everyone seemed to agree,
that yes, mathematics is a language.

   The major problem with mathematics, is that for the average
person, it is a foreign language.  To illustrate this point, I
will cite several paragraphs taken from a very interesting
article published in Physics Today, entitled "Math anxiety and
physics: Some thoughts on learning 'difficult' subjects":

     However, students bring more than Aristotelianisms to class.
  They consider science in general and physics in particular
  "hard" subjects to learn.  As Robert Fuller of the University
  of Nebraska points out, professors intentionally and
  unintentionally contribute to this reputation.  In a proposal,
  since funded by Exxon, for AAPT workshops to help teachers
  develop student confidence in physics, Fuller notes that
  "Opening lectures often describe the high standards maintained
  by the department, the firm math prerequisites, the poor grade
  records of previous classes."  Even when they do not make such
  explicit statements, teachers convey the message that physics
  is a particularly difficult subject, says Fuller, and this
  damages student confidence.
     How significant, then, is apprehension in discouraging
  nonscience undergraduates from attempting physics?  Might the
  anxiety-reduction techniques that proved useful in treating
  fear of mathematics work for the physics student?  While it
  remains to be seen whether the sources of physics anxiety and
  math anxiety are the same, one thing is clear to someone who
  has dealt with fear of mathematics in college-age students:
  The two have similar manifestations.  Hence, even though the
  discussion in the first half of this article focuses on
  obstacles to learning mathematics, I think readers will find
  that it rings true for physics as well. ...
     Instead, what appears to link students of very diverse
  mathematical "ability" is a collection of what might be called
  ideological beliefs or prejudices about the subject.  Students'
  early experiences with mathematics typically give them false
  impressions not only of the nature of the subject, but also,
  and more perniciously, of the kinds of skills required to
  master it.  They think, for example, that speed is more
  important than persistence.  Even more humbling, most come away
  from their exposure to mathematics believing they do not have
  the sine qua non of mathematics success, namely, a
  "mathematical mind."
     When the students that I interviewedƒƒparticularly the woman
  studentsƒƒdecided to stop taking mathematics, they explained
  this in terms of their feelings:  They felt helpless and out of
  control in confronting mathematics; they were easily bewildered
  and found themselves humiliated in class; they were uneasy
  solving or analyzing problems under time pressure, and they had
  become distrustful of intuitive ideas that had not been
  formally introduced in the text.  Because of all this, the
  students felt compelled to memorize solutions to individual
  problems.[43]

   Mathematics forms the foundation of the technical jargon that
the average physicist uses to confuse the issues and enhance his
status by over publishing his work.  The same basic equations, or
algebraic variations of them, are repeated over and over in the
literature.  If the unneeded equations were eliminated, the
articles would be easier to understand, and the inflated volume
of the physics journals would be reduced by at least 90%.  To
illustrate the problem, I will make several quotes from an
article by Prof. N. David Mermin entitled "WHAT'S WRONG WITH
THESE EQUATIONS?":

     A major impediment to writing physics gracefully comes from
  the need to embed in the prose many large pieces of raw
  mathematics.  Nothing in freshman composition courses prepares
  us for the literary problems raised by the use of displayed
  equations.  Our knowledge is acquired implicitly by reading
  textbooks and articles, most of whose authors have also given
  the problem no thought....
     Admittedly sometimes an equation is buried so deep in the
  guts of an argument, so contingent on context, so ungainly in
  form that no brief phrase can convey to a reader even a glimmer
  of what it is about, and anybody wanting to know why it was
  invoked a dozen pages further on cannot do better than wander
  back along the trail and gaze at the equation itself, all
  glowering and menacing in its lair.... Indeed, is the equation
  itself essential?  Or is it the kind of nasty and fundamentally
  uninteresting intermediate step that readers would either skip
  over or, if seriously interested, work out for themselves, in
  neither case needing to have it appear in your text?...
     We punctuate equations because they are a form of prose
  (they can, after all, be read aloud as a sequence of words) and
  are therefore subject to the same rules as any other prose....
     Most journals punctuate their equations, even if the author
  of the manuscript did not, but a sorry few don't, removing all
  vestiges of the punctuation carefully supplied by the author.
  This unavoidably weakens the coupling between the math and the
  prose, and often introduces ambiguity and confusion.[44]

Dr. Oliver C. Wells is a research scientist at the IBM Thomas J.
Watson Research Center, and concerning the difficulty in
understanding the mathematics and technical jargon in physics,
writes:

     On the subject of writing style, I am frequently horrified
  to discover that I quite simply cannot understand even the
  first paragraph of a technical article on a subject quite close
  to my own major area of interest.[45]

   The Executive Director of the scientific research society
Sigma Xi, has published a booklet on scientific ethics.[50]  On
page 11 of Chapter 3 which is titled "Trimming, Cooking, and
Forging" Dr. Jackson starts with:

     Charles Babbage (1792-1871) is generally remembered as the
  prophet of the electronic computer, because of his "difference
  engine" and the uncompleted "analytical engine."  But he had a
  much more extensive influence on scientific development.  As
  professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, he published
  a book entitled Reflections on the Decline of Science in
  England.  Since the year was 1830, the same year that Charles
  Lyell began to publish his Principles of Geology and shortly
  before Charles Darwin set sail on the "Beagle," the title may
  seem as premature as his calculating devices.  Babbage's book,
  however, is generally given credit as a catalyst in the
  creation of the British Association for the Advancement of
  Science, and indirectly of similar associations in the U.S.A.,
  Australia and elsewhere.
     Babbage, the "irascible genius," was also concerned with how
  science should be done, and the same book describes the forms
  of scientific dishonesty that give this chapter its title.  The
  definitions used here are phrased in contemporary English;
  otherwise not much seems to have changed in 150 years.

          Trimming: the smoothing of irregularities to make the
                    data look extremely accurate and precise.

          Cooking:  retaining only those results that fit the
                    theory and discarding others.

          Forging:  inventing some or all of the research data
                    that are reported, and even reporting
                    experiments to obtain those data that were
                    never performed.

   Dishonest deceptions are not unusual in the history of
physics.  They began with Galileo Galilei, the man who laid the
foundations of modern physics.  My insight into this matter came
from a book titled "The Birth of a New Physics" by Dr. I. Bernard
Cohen.[51]  On page 66 we find:

  ...Galileo was born in Pisa, Italy, in 1564, almost on the day
  of Michelangelo's death and within a year of Shakespeare's
  birth.  His father sent him to the university at Pisa, where
  his sardonic combativeness quickly won him the nickname
  "wrangler."

And then on page 111:

     Galileo's originality was therefore different from what he
  boastfully declared.  No longer need we believe anything so
  absurd as that there had been no progress in understanding
  motion between the time of Aristotle and Galileo.  And we may
  ignore the many accounts that make it appear that Galileo
  invented modern dynamics with no debt to any medieval or
  ancient predecessor.
     This was a point of view encouraged by Galileo himself but
  it is one that could be more justifiably held fifty years ago
  than today.  One of the most fruitful areas of research in the
  history of science in the last half centuryƒƒbegan chiefly by
  the French scholar and scientist Pierre Duhemƒƒhas been the
  "exact sciences" of the Middle Ages.  These investigations have
  uncovered a tradition of criticism of Aristotle which paved the
  way for Galileo's own contributions.  By making precise exactly
  what Galileo owed to his predecessors, we may delineate more
  accurately his own heroic proportions.  In this way,
  furthermore, we may make the life story of Galileo more real,
  because we are aware that in the advance of the sciences each
  man builds on the work of his predecessors....

   More than any other man, Sir Isaac Newton set the tone for
scientific dishonesty in modern physics by his skilled use of
"Mathematical Magic."  My insight into this came from a very
interesting article titled "Newton and the Fudge Factor" by Dr.
Richard S. Westfall.[52]  To advance my argument I start with the
following paragraph from the article:

     And having proposed exact correlation as the criterion of
  truth, it took care to see that exact correlation was
  presented, whether or not it was properly achieved.  Not the
  least part of the Principia's persuasiveness was its deliberate
  pretense to a degree of precision quite beyond its legitimate
  claim.  If the Principia established the quantitative pattern
  of modern science, it equally suggested a less sublime
  truthƒƒthat no one can manipulate the fudge factor quite so
  effectively as the master mathematician himself.

In explaining Newton's motives in fudging his work, I present the
following paragraph from Westfall's article:

     The second edition of the Principia was at once an amended
  version of the first edition and a justification of Newtonian
  science.  The battle with the continental mechanical
  philosophers who refused to have truck with the occult notion
  of action at a distance still raged.  The second edition made
  its appearance framed, as it were, by its two most important
  additions, Cotes' "Preface" at the beginning and Newton's
  "General Scholium" at the end, both of them devoted to the
  defense of Newtonian philosophy, of exact quantitative science
  as opposed to speculative hypotheses of causal mechanisms.  By
  1713, moreover, Newton's perpetual neurosis had reached its
  passionate climax in the crusade to destroy the arch-villain
  Leibniz.  Only a year earlier the Royal Society had published
  its Commercium epistolicum, a condemnation of Leibniz for
  plagiary and a vindication of Newton, which Newton himself
  composed privately and thrust upon the society's committee of
  avowed impartial judges.  In Newton's mind, the two battles
  merged into one, undoubtedly gaining emotional intensity in the
  process.  Not only did Leibniz try to explain the planetary
  system by means of a vortex and inveigh against the concept of
  attraction, but he also encouraged others to attack Newton's
  philosophy.  His arrogance in claiming the calculus was only a
  special instance of his arrogant presumption to trim nature to
  the mold of his philosophical hypotheses.  In contrast, the
  true philosophy modestly and patiently followed nature instead
  of seeking to compel her.  The increased show of precision in
  the second edition was the reverse side of the coin stamped
  hypotheses non fingo.  It played a central role in the polemic
  supporting Newtonian science.

The term "fudge factor" is of course, just a polite way of
describing  Newton's dishonest ways of Trimming, Cooking, and
Forging the data.  The following is taken from one of the
examples of Newton's fudging in the article:

     In examining the alterations, let us start with the velocity
  of sound since the deception in this case was patent enough
  that no one beyond Newton's most devoted followers was taken
  in.  Any number of things were wrong with the demonstration.
  It calculated a velocity of sound in exact agreement with
  Derham's figure, whereas Derham himself had presented the
  conclusion merely as the average of a large number of
  measurements.  Newton's assumptions that air contains vapor in
  the quantity of 10 parts to 1 and that vapor does not
  participate in the sound vibrations were wholly arbitrary,
  resting on no empirical foundation whatever.  And his use of
  the "crassitude" of the air particles to raise the calculated
  velocity by more than 10 percent was nothing short of
  deliberate fraud.

   Interesting additional information with regard to Newton's
lack of scientific integrity can be found in an article published
by Dr. I. Bernard Cohen in the journal Scientific American.[53]
The article is titled "Newton's Discovery of Gravity" and
contains the following paragraph:

     A decisive step on the path to universal gravity came in
  late 1679 and early 1680, when Robert Hooke introduced Newton
  to a new way of analyzing motion along a curved trajectory.
  Hooke had cleverly seen that the motion of an orbiting body has
  two components, an inertial component and a centripetal, or
  center-seeking, one.  The inertial component tends to propel
  the body in a straight line tangent to the curved path, whereas
  the centripetal component continuously draws the body away from
  the inertial straight-line trajectory.  In a stable orbit such
  as that of the moon the two components are matched, so that the
  moon neither veers away on a tangential path nor spirals toward
  the earth.

Later in the article Cohen writes this paragraph:

     In his letter Hooke ventured the suggestion that the
  centripetal force drawing a planet toward the sun varies
  inversely as the square of the separation.  At this point Hooke
  was stuck.  He could not see the dynamical consequences of his
  own deep insight and therefore could not make the leap from
  intuitive hunch and guesswork to exact science.  He could go no
  further because he lacked both the mathematical genius of
  Newton and an appreciation of Kepler's law of areas, which
  figured prominently in Newton's subsequent approach to
  celestial dynamics.  The law of areas states that the radius
  vector from the sun to a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal
  times.

With regard to Newton's philosophy as to the cause of the
gravitational force, we find the following paragraph:

     Although Newton at times thought universal gravity might be
  caused by the impulses of a stream of ether particles
  bombarding an object or by variations in an all-pervading
  ether, he did not advance either of these notions in the
  Principia because, as he said, he would "not feign hypotheses"
  as physical explanations.  The Newtonian style had led him to a
  mathematical concept of universal force, and that style led him
  to apply his mathematical result to the physical world even
  though it was not the kind of force in which he could believe.

With regard to Newton's dishonest attempt to claim full credit we
find:

     In 1717 Newton wanted to ensure his own priority in
  discovering the inverse-square law of gravitation, and so he
  invented a scenario in which he made the famous moon test not
  while writing the Principia but two decades earlier in the
  1660's....

And in this same regard, Cohen states this paragraph:

     Newton never published his invented scenario of the early
  moon test.  He included it in the manuscript draft of a letter
  to the French writer Pierre Des Maizeaux but then crossed it
  out.  Newton also circulated the familiar story that a falling
  apple set him on a chain of reflections that led to the
  discovery of universal gravitation.  Presumably this invention
  was also part of his campaign to push back the discovery of
  gravity, or at least the roots of the discovery, to a time 20
  years before the Principia.

   With Newton as a role model, it's no wonder that modern
physics is riddled with an almost complete lack of scientific
objectivity and integrity!  Additional insight into this matter
comes from a very interesting book by Dr. Rudolf Thiel.[54]  The
insight starts on page 183 with the following paragraph:

     RenÇ Descartes dominated the first half of the seventeenth
  century in his dual capacity of mathematician and philosopher.
  He had developed mathematical analysis, which wiped out the
  boundary between geometry and algebra, in which curves became
  functions.  By comparison, Euclidean thinking seemed pedantic
  and limited.  Then he attempted to explain the entire mechanism
  of the world by ether eddies.  These supposedly transmitted
  light, and at the same time set the celestial bodies in motion.
  He succeeded in reducing all the phenomena of nature known at
  the time to this single cause, which transmitted its effect
  tangible from one thing to another; thus everything was
  connected in a chain with everything else.  Descartes's
  contemporaries hailed this triumph of reasoning which seemed to
  explain every detail of the entire Creation.
     Then Newton came along with his mathematical proofs of
  gravitation, which could not be explained by ether eddies.
  Gravitation was a mystery working over great distances in some
  inconceivable manner.  Such a thing was repugnant to Europeans,
  who wanted to see the interlocking cause and effect with their
  own eyes.  Newton's version of nature therefore seemed to be a
  descent from the heights attained by Descartes, retrogression
  to an outmoded stage of philosophy.
     Worse still, in Newton's mighty system there was no room
  left for the ether.  This also undermined the wave theory of
  light, which Huygens had recently presented to the world.
  Newton himself regretted this, for the wave theory was
  essential to his theory of color.  There still remained the
  problem of explaining the spectrum: why were the rays of
  primary light arranged in the particular order of red, yellow,
  green, and violet?  Why did light consist of many colors; what
  were colors?  According to Huygens they were simply waves of
  differing lengths, differing frequencies, just like different
  pitches.  The spectrum represented a scale, a gamut of light.
     This explanation seemed to emerge again from another of
  Newton's experiments.  If light is passed through a lens
  pressed upon a plate of glass, a wreath of colored rings is
  produced.  When monochromatic light is sent through such an
  apparatus, the rings of each color appear at different
  distances from one another.  Newton measured the distancesƒƒand
  was in effect measuring the wave lengths of light.  But he
  would not accept this explanation; light waves could not exist
  because there was no medium, no ether, to transmit them.  So
  impossible, nonsensical a concept as that of the ether had no
  right to existence.  Anything that did not follow from
  observations was a hypothesis, he maintained, and hypotheses
  had no place in experimental science.
     Newton therefore concluded that light consisted of
  corpuscles passing through empty space.  The differing
  distances of the colored rings proved only that the corpuscles
  were affected by their passage through the lens and the glass,
  that their character was affected in some way, to what degree
  depending on their color.
     Only Newton with his incredibly sane and all-embracing
  system, could have succeeded in putting across so absurd a
  conception.  He won the battle completely.  The wave theory
  vanished, and with it Descartes's ether eddies.  The whole
  triumphant world-view of the Baroque Age had been shattered.
  In its place Newton offered the inexplicable, remote force of
  gravitation which was, admittedly, a mystery to himself.  When
  he was asked what accounted for it, he flatly refused to
  venture any opinion: "I do not invent hypotheses."
     This attitude of his became a model for future natural
  philosophers.  Henceforth scientists considered it more
  important to recognize where the limits of science lay than to
  satisfy the urge for knowledge by unproved speculations, no
  matter how pretty they might be.
     The incomprehensibility of gravitation Newton considered a
  divine dispensation.  The Almighty had denied man ultimate
  insight into the mystery of His Creation.  A Christian must be
  able to reconcile himself to this factƒƒand Newton was a devout
  Christian....

With regard to Newton as the role model for the corrupt politics
of modern physics, we find on page 185:

     In his mid-fifties there came a radical change in Newton's
  way of life.  He was appointed master of the Royal Mint, an
  office equivalent to what would now be governor of the Bank of
  England.  He exchanged his modest lodgings at Cambridge for a
  palace in London, entered society, kept horses, carriages, and
  servants.  His income shot abruptly from sixty to five hundred
  pounds a year, besides various perquisites; he was able to
  indulge his taste for philanthropy.  He was knighted, and
  became an influential personage at court.  Most important of
  all, he became president of the Royal Society.
     This celebrated association of scientists was about the same
  age as Newton himself.  At the time he was given his
  professorship, the society became "royal," and was provided
  with special privileges, robes of state, a mace, and a seal
  bearing the motto: "Let no one's word be law."  But the motto
  went by the board once Newton was elected with absolute
  regularity to the presidency.  His word was sacred.  An
  excellent model for a cannon was unanimously rejected because
  Newton declared: "This diabolic instrument will only multiply
  mass killing."  In London the Royal Society was generally known
  as Sir Isaac's Parliament.
     This parliament became the platform for Newton's world fame.
  But it also embittered the closing days of his life by its
  frenetic partisanship, in connection with his fourth great
  contribution, the calculus of fluxions, which has become the
  core of modern mathematics.  This time, however, Newton was not
  the sole discover of the method.  It was simultaneously
  developed, under the name of the differential calculus, by the
  German philosopher Leibnitz....
     Most of the technical terminology of modern mathematics
  derives from Leibnitz.  All of Europe learned the differential
  calculus from his textbook.  He described the new art of
  reckoning in such lucid terms that a veritable race began among
  mathematicians, each trying to outdo the other in elegant
  solutions of hitherto unsolved problems.  Mathematicians posed
  each other riddles, and sent each other the results in code to
  be sure that no one copied.  The period immediately after
  Leibnitz was an exciting and glorious era in the history of
  mathematics.  And all the newest discoveries were made by means
  of Leibnitzian differential quotients.  No one had ever heard
  of Newton's counterpart, his fluxions.  Newton had created the
  method for his own private use, and hesitated to publish it
  because it was so difficult to grasp.  For his Principia he
  therefore invented a less difficult, more geometrical method of
  proof....
     The most remarkable aspect of the whole barren struggle was
  this: no participant doubted for a moment that Newton had
  already developed his method of fluxions when Leibnitz began
  work on the differential calculus.  Yet there was no proof,
  only Newton's word.  He had published nothing but a calculation
  of a tangent, and the note: "This is only a special case of a
  general method whereby I can calculate curves and determine
  maxima, minima, and centers of gravity."  How this was done he
  explained to a pupil a full twenty years later, when Leibnitz's
  textbooks were widely circulated.  His own manuscripts came to
  light only after his death, and then they could no longer be
  dated.
     Though Newton's priority was not provable, it was taken for
  granted, while Leibnitz was always asked to prove that he had
  not plagiarizedƒƒa charge as humiliating as it was absurd.
  This grotesque situation demonstrates most vividly the
  authority Newton enjoyed everywhere.  He was truly the monarch
  of all he surveyed, a unique phenomenon.  To Western science he
  occupied the same place that had been held in classical
  antiquity by Pythagorasƒƒwhose disciples were wont to crush all
  opponents with the words: "Pythagoras himself has said so."

   In our time, Einstein has replaced Newton as the monarch of
physics.  Einstein's disciples tend to crush all opponents of his
relativity theories by citing chapter and verse of articles he
has published.  The main problem with this is the fact that
Einstein tends to be a moving target, and his arguments are not
consistent from paper to paper, and often within the same paper.
Louis Essen has published a booklet titled "The Special Theory of
Relativity A Critical Analysis" in which he examines this
question in great detail.[55]  Essen is a prominant English
physicist who built the first caesium atomic clock in 1955 and
determined the most accurate value for the velocity of light by
using a cavity resonator.  Skipping around the math, I present
the following excerpts from the booklet:

     Perhaps the strangest feature of all, and the most
  unfortunate to the development of science, is the use of the
  thought-experiment.  The expression itself is a contradiction
  in terms, since an experiment is a search for new knowledge
  that cannot be confirmed, although it might be predicted, by a
  process of logical thought.  A thought-experiment on the other
  hand cannot provide new knowledge; if it gives a result that is
  contrary to the theoretical knowledge and assumptions on which
  it is based then a mistake must have been made.  Some of the
  results of the theory were obtained in this way and differ from
  the original assumptions....
     A common reaction of experimental physicists to the theory
  is that although they do not understand it themselves it is so
  widely accepted that it must be correct.  I must confess that
  until recent years this was my own attitude.  I was, however,
  rather more than usually interested in the subject from a
  practical point of view, having repeated, with microwaves
  instead of optical waves(Essen 1955), the celebrated Michelson-
  Morley experiment, which was the starting point of the theory.
  Then with the introduction of atomic clocks, and the enormous
  increase in the accuracy of time measurements that they made
  possible, the relativity effects became of practical
  significance....
     Many of the thought-experiments described by Einstein and
  others involve the comparison of distant clocks.  Such
  comparisons are now made every day at many laboratories
  throughout the world.  The techniques are well known.  It seems
  reasonable, therefore, to consider the thought-experiments in
  terms of these techniques.  When this is done, the errors in
  the thought-experiments become more obvious.  The fact that
  errors in the theory arise in the course of the thought-
  experiments may explain why they were not detected for so long.
  Theoretical physicists might not have considered them
  critically from an experimental point of view.  But if one has
  been actually performing such experiments for many years, one
  is in a more favorable position to detect any departure from
  the correct procedure.  In the existing climate of opinion, one
  needed to be very confident to speak of definite errors in the
  theory.  Was there not perhaps some subtle interpretation that
  was being overlooked?  A study of the literature did not reveal
  any, but even so it was familiarity with the experiments that
  gave one the necessary confidence to maintain a critical
  attitude.
     The literature sometimes reveals a remarkable vagueness of
  expression, a lack of a clear statement of the assumptions of
  the theory, and even a failure to appreciate the basic ideas of
  physical measurement.  Ambiguities are not absent from
  Einstein's own papers, and various writers, even when advancing
  different interpretations of the theory, are correct in as much
  as these interpretations can all be attributed to Einstein....
     The contraction of length and the dilation of time can now
  be understood as representing the changes that have to be made
  to make the results of measurement consistent.  There is no
  question here of a physical theory but simply of a new system
  of units in which c is constant, and length and time do not
  have constant units but have units that vary with v2/c2.  Thus
  they are no longer independent, and space and time are
  intermixed by definition and not as a result of some peculiar
  property of nature....  If the theory of relativity is regarded
  simply as a new system of units it can be made consistent but
  it serves no useful purpose....  The argument about the clock
  paradox has continued interminably, although the way the
  paradox arose and its explanation follow quite clearly from a
  careful reading of Einstein's paper....  The experiment is
  often expressed in the dramatized form of two twins, one of
  whom returns from a round trip younger than his brother; and in
  this form it has received wide publicity....  It is illogical
  to suggest that a result obtained on the basis of the special
  theory is correct but is a consequence of a completely
  different theory developed some years later.  It is also
  illogical to assume that accelerations have no effect ƒ as he
  does in A's picture of the events ƒ and then to assume that
  gravitation, which in the general theory is assumed to be
  equivalent to acceleration, does have an effect....  It may be
  surprising, therefore, to find that a more critical examination
  of the experiments and the experimental conditions suggests
  that there is no experimental support for the theory...  The
  experiments of the Michelson-Morley type cannot be taken as
  supporting the theory, because the theory was developed in
  order to explain the null result that was obtained....  The
  increase of mass with velocity was predicted for the case of
  charged particles directly from electromagnetic theory before
  the advent of relativity theory and was confirmed
  experimentally by Kaufmann....

  18.   Conclusions

  A critical examination of Einstein's papers reveals that in the
  course of thought-experiments he makes implicit assumptions
  that are additional and contrary to his two initial principles.
  The initial postulates of relativity and the constancy of the
  velocity of light lead directly to length contraction and time
  dilation simply as new units of measurements, and in several
  places Einstein gives support to this view by making his
  observers adjust their clocks.  More usually, and this
  constitutes the second set of assumptions, he regards the
  changes as being observed effects, even when the units are not
  deliberately changed.  This implies that there is some physical
  effect even if it is not understood or described.  The results
  are symmetrical to observers in relative motion; and such can
  only be an effect in the process of the transmission of the
  signals.  The third assumption is that the clocks and lengths
  actually change.  In this case the relativity postulate can no
  longer hold.
     The first approach, in which the units of measurement are
  changed, is not a physical theory, and the question of
  experimental evidence does not arise.  There is no evidence for
  the second approach because no symmetrical experiment has ever
  been made.  There is no direct experimental evidence of the
  third statement of the theory because no experiments have been
  made in an inertial system.  There are experimental results
  that support the idea of an observed time dilation, but
  accelerations are always involved, and there is some indication
  that they are responsible for the observed effects.

   My main insight into Einstein and his work came from a book by
Dr. Abraham Pais titled 'Subtle is the Lord...' The Science and
the Life of Albert Einstein.[37]  Pais is an award-winning
physicist who knew Einstein personally during the last nine years
of his life.  On page 13 we find that in Einstein's own words he
had been an "unscrupulous opportunist."  On page 44 we learn that
Einstein did not attend lectures or study, but instead used
Marcel Grossman's lecture notes to pass his college examinations.
With regard to the mathematics of relativity, page 152 states:

  Initially, Einstein was not impressed and regarded the
  transcriptions of his theory into tensor form as 'uberglussige
  Gelehrsamkeit,' (superfluous learnedness).  However, in 1912 he
  adopted tensor methods and in 1916 acknowledged his
  indebtedness to Minkowski for having greatly facilitated the
  transition from special to general relativity.

Since most scientists do not use or are conversant in tensor
mathematics, its use has tended to obscure the intimate meaning
behind the relativity theoretical arguments. On page 164 Pais
asks:

  Why, on the whole, was Einstein so reticent to acknowledge the
  influence of the Michelson-Morley experiment on his thinking?

On page 168 we find the answer to this question in the second
volume of Sir Edmund Whittaker's masterpiece book entitled
"History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity", where:

  Whittaker's opinion on this point is best conveyed by the title
  of his chapter on this subject: 'The Relativity Theory of
  PoincarÇ and Lorentz.'

In effect Whittaker showed that Einstein's special relativity
theory was not original work, but just a clever restatement of
the theoretical work of PoincarÇ and Lorentz.  The translation of
Lorentz's 1904 relativity paper[57 p.12] states:

  ...PoincarÇ has objected to the existing theory of electric and
  optical phenomena in moving bodies that, in order to explain
  Michelson's negative result, the introduction of a new
  hypothesis has been required, and that the same necessity may
  occur each time new facts will be brought to light.  Surely
  this course of inventing special hypotheses for each new
  experimental result is somewhat artificial.  It would be more
  satisfactory if it were possible to show by means of certain
  fundamental assumptions and without neglecting terms of one
  order of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic
  actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system.

The translation of Einstein's 1905 special relativity paper[57
p.37] presented the argument that one could explain many
electromagnetic actions by fundamental assumptions based on two
postulates and that the "introduction of a "luminiferous ether"
will prove to be superfluous", and his paper made no direct
reference to the Michelson-Morley experiment or the work of
PoincarÇ and Lorentz.  On page 313 of Pais' book we learn that in
1920, after Einstein had become famous, he made an inaugural
address on aether and relativity theory for his special chair in
Leiden.  In the address he states:

  The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium
  without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which
  codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.

So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all,
and that this ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical
characteristics!  This illustrates the arbitrary nature of
relativity, most physicists, and for that matter, most physics
text books, present the argument that relativity is not an ether
theory.  On page 467 we find that near the end of his life,
Einstein wrote to his dear friend M. Besso in 1954:

  I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on
  the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures.  In that
  case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air,
  gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern
  physics.

With regard to the problem of the average physicist not
understanding relativity theory, Dr. S. Chandrasekhar, a Nobel
laureate physicist, writes in an article[46] titled "Einstein and
general relativity: Historical perspectives":

     The meeting of November 6, 1919 of the Royal Society also
  originated a myth that persists even today (though in a very
  much diluted version):"Only three persons in the world
  understand relativity."  Eddington explained the origin of this
  myth during the Christmas-recess conversation with which I
  began this account.
     Thomson, as President of the Royal Society at that time,
  concluded the meeting with the statement:"I have to confess
  that no one has yet succeeded in stating in clear language what
  the theory of Einstein really is."  And Eddington recalled that
  as the meeting was dispersing, Ludwig Silberstein (the author
  of one of the early books on relativity) came up to him and
  said: "Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in
  the world who understands general relativity."  On Eddington
  demurring to this statement, Silberstein responded, "Don't be
  modest Eddington."  And the Eddington's reply was, "On the
  contrary, I am trying to think who the third person is!"

This lack of comprehension of Relativity theory, is not uncommon
among physicists and astronomers.  Over the years, in many
intimate conversations and correspondence with them, I've found
few scientists willing to admit to an indepth understanding of
the theory, yet most of them will argue of their belief in it.  I
have also discovered that even the scientists that are willing to
admit to full comprehension of the theory, have serious gaps in
their knowledge of it.  For example, Prof. William H. McCrea of
England wrote the counter argument to Prof. Herbert Dingle's
controversial attack on the inconsistent logic in the theory,
which was published in the prestigious journal NATURE.[47]
Dingle was an interesting fellow, at one time he was a leading
proponent of the relativity theory, and even was a member of
several British solar eclipse expeditions.  He was a professor at
University College in London, and the author of many books and
papers on astrophysics, relativity, and the history of science.
I was introduced to McCrea by Prof. Thornton Page, at the 1968
Fourth Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics.  McCrea who
is considered to be an authority on relativity theory, was
surprised to find that Einstein considered relativity to be an
ether theory.  With regard to the argument that I showed McCrea
that represented relativity as an ether theory, Einstein and
Infeld state:

  ...On the other hand, the problem of devising the mechanical
  model of ether seemed to become less and less interesting and
  the result, in view of the forced and artificial character of
  the assumptions, more and more discouraging.
     Our only way out seems to be to take for granted the fact
  that space has the physical property of transmitting
  electromagnetic waves, and not to bother too much about the
  meaning of this statement.  We may still use the word ether,
  but only to express some physical property of space.  This word
  ether has changed its meaning many times in the development of
  science.  At the moment it no longer stands for a medium built
  up of particles.  Its story, by no means finished, is continued
  by the relativity theory.[20 p.153]

There is a very interesting article on this question published in
the August 1982 issue of Physics Today by Prof. Yoshimasa A. Ono.
The article begins:

  It is known that when Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel
  Prize for Physics in 1922, he was unable to attend the
  ceremonies in Stockholm in December of that year because of an
  earlier commitment to visit Japan at the same time.  In Japan,
  Einstein gave a speech entitled "How I Created the Theory of
  Relativity" at Kyoto University on 14 December 1922.  This was
  an impromptu speech to students and faculty members, made in
  response to a request by K. Nishida, professor of philosophy at
  Kyoto University.  Einstein himself made no written notes.  The
  talk was delivered in German and a running translation was
  given to the audience on the spot by J. Isiwara, who had
  studied under Arnold Sommerfeld and Einstein from 1912 to 1914
  and was a professor of physics at Tohoku University.  Isiwara
  kept careful notes of the lecture, and published his detailed
  notes (in Japanese) in the monthly Japanese periodical Kaizo in
  1923; Ishiwara's notes are the only existing notes of
  Einstein's talk....

Ono ends his introduction to his translation with the statement:


  It is clear that this account of Einstein's throws some light
  on the current controversy as to whether or not he was aware of
  the Michelson-Morley experiment when he proposed the special
  theory of relativity in 1905; the account also offers insight
  into many other aspects of Einstein's work on relativity.

With regard to the ether, Einstein states:

  Light propagates through the sea of ether, in which the Earth
  is moving.  In other words, the ether is moving with respect to
  the Earth....

With regard to the experiment he argues:

  Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of
  the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit
  Michelson's null result as a fact.  This was the first path
  which led me to the special theory of relativity.  Since then I
  have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be
  detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is
  revolving around the Sun.[48]

The above information gives us insight into the nature of
Einstein's relativity theory.  He believes that the sea of ether
exists, but he also believes that it cannot be detected by
experiments, in other words, he believes it is invisible.  The
situation in modern physics is very much like the Hans Christian
Andersen tale of "The Emperor's New Clothes", with Einstein
playing the part of the Emperor.  The tale goes that the Emperor,
who was obsessed with fine clothing to the point that he cared
about nothing else, let two swindlers sell him a suit of cloth
that would be invisible to anyone who was "unfit for his office
or unforgivably stupid."  It turned out that no one could see the
suitƒƒnot the emperor, not his courtiers, not the citizens of the
town who lined the street to see him show off his new finery.
Yet no one dared admit it until a little child cried out, "But he
doesn't have anything on!"
   In regard to Einstein's reluctance to acknowledge the
influence of the Michelson-Morley experiment on his thinking, and
Whittaker's argument that his special relativity theory was a
clever restatement of the work of PoincarÇ and Lorentz, I report
the following published[56] statements which Einstein made to
Prof. R. S. Shankland on this matter:

     The several statements which Einstein made to me in
  Princeton concerning the Michelson-Morley experiment are not
  entirely consistent, as mentioned above and in my earlier
  publication.  His statements and attitudes towards the
  Michelson-Morley experiment underwent a progressive change
  during the course of our several conversations.  I wrote down
  within a few minutes after each meeting exactly what I recalled
  that he had said.  On 4 February 1950 he said,"...that he had
  become aware of it through the writings of H. A. Lorentz, but
  only after 1905 had it come to his attention."  But at a later
  meeting on 24 October, 1952 he said, "I am not sure when I
  first heard of the Michelson experiment.  I was not conscious
  that it had influenced me directly during the seven years that
  relativity had been my life.  I guess I just took it for
  granted that it was true."  However, in the years 1905-1909 (he
  told me) he thought a great deal about Michelson's result in
  his discussions with Lorentz and others, and then he realized
  (so he told me) that he "had been conscious of Michelson's
  result before 1905 partly through his reading of the papers of
  Lorentz and more because he had simply assumed this result of
  Michelson to be true."...

   With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S.
Chandrasekhar's article[46] states:

    In 1917, after more than two years of war, England enacted
  conscription for all able-bodied men.  Eddington, who was 34,
  was eligible for draft.  But as a devout Quaker, he was a
  conscientious objector; and it was generally known and expected
  that he would claim deferment from military service on that
  ground.  Now the climate of opinion in England during the war
  was very adverse with respect to conscientious objectors: it
  was, in fact, a social disgrace to be even associated with one.
  And the stalwarts of Cambridge of those daysƒƒLarmor (of the
  Larmor precession), Newall, and othersƒƒfelt that Cambridge
  University would be disgraced by having one of its
  distinguished members a declared conscientious objector.  They
  therefore tried through the Home Office to have Eddington
  deferred on the grounds that he was a most distinguished
  scientist and that it was not in the long-range interests of
  Britain to have him serve in the army....  In any event, at
  Dyson's interventionƒƒas the Astronomer Royal, he had close
  connections with the AdmiraltyƒƒEddington was deferred with the
  express stipulation that if the war should have ended by 1919,
  he should lead one of two expeditions that were being planned
  for the express purpose of verifying Einstein's prediction with
  regard to the gravitational deflection of light....  The Times
  of London for November 7, 1919, carried two headlines: "The
  Glorious Dead, Armistice Observance.  All Trains in the Country
  to Stop," and "Revolution in Science. Newtonian Ideas
  Overthrown."

Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has
published a paper[49] titled "The Einstein Shift ƒƒ An Unsettled
Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse
shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the
wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the
predicted direction!  Further examination of the 1919 and 1922
data  originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to
favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the
manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting
individual stars.
   So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the
world's greatest scientist was based on the Mathematical Magic of
Trimming and Cooking of the eclipse data to present the illusion
that Einstein's general relativity theory was correct in order to
prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced because one of
its distinguished members was close to being declared a
"conscientious objector"!

Chapter 4

                      Publication Politics


   Marilyn vos Savant is listed in the "Guinness Book of World
Records" under highest IQ and publishes an "Ask Marilyn" column
in the Sunday Newspaper Magazine PARADE.  In the May 22, 1988
issue, Jennifer W. Webster of Slidell, La. asks:

  What one discovery or event would prove all or most of modern
  scientific theory wrong?

Marilyn replies:

  Here's one of each. If the speed of light were discovered not
  to be a constant, modern scientific theory would be
  devastated.  And if a divine creation could be proved to have
  occurred, modern scientists would be devastated.

I suspect that Marilyn has hit the nail on the head.  Einstein's
special relativity theory with his second postulate that the
speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds
the whole range of modern physics theories together.  Shatter
this postulate, and  modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!
Along with the creation-science debate being published in the
letters section of Physics Today, there is also a continuing
debate on Einstein's relativity theories.  My first entry[21]
into this debate was as follows:

  Relativity debate continues

  I would like to challenge two statements made by Allen D.
  Allen (November, page 90) in his reply to Wallace Kantor on
  the question of experimental relativity.  Allen states "But
  Kantor is incorrect in claiming that there is a reliable
  experiment that refutes special relativity."  With regard to
  this statement the 1961 interplanetary radar contact with
  Venus presented the first opportunity to overcome
  technological limitations and perform direct experiments of
  Einstein's second postulate of a constant light speed of c in
  space.  When the radar calculations were based on the
  postulate, the observed-computed residuals ranged to over 3
  milliseconds of the expected error of 10 microseconds from
  the best fit the Lincoln Lab could generate, a variation
  range of over 30,000%.  An analysis of the data showed a
  component that was relativistic in a c+v Galilean
  sense.[18,19]  With regards to Allen's statement "Einstein's
  original contribution here was to assume that there just is
  no ether, that is, no frame R such that one's speed with
  respect to R affects the speed of light," Einstein and Infeld
  state "This word ether has changed its meaning many times in
  the development of science.  At the moment it no longer
  stands for a medium built up of particles.  Its story, by no
  means finished, is continued by the relativity theory."[20
  p.153,21]

Part of my second letter[22] on this matter, goes as follows:

  ...Concerning Dehmer's comment "In choosing appropriate persons
  to review the numerous manuscripts, the journal editors use
  various methods that reflect their own style and areas of
  expertise," I would like to present the following example of
  how this has worked for me.  On 3 June 1969, I submitted a
  paper, "An Analysis of Inconsistencies in Published
  Interplanetary Radar Data," to PRL.  The last paragraph of the
  referee report sent back August 15 states "It is suitable for
  Physical Review Letters, if revised, and deserves immediate
  publication if the radar data can be compared directly to
  geocentric distances derived from optical directions and
  celestial mechanics."  I revised the paper as the referee
  recommended and resubmitted it 21 August.  The editor, S. A.
  Goudsmit, sent me a reply 11 September, in which he stated that
  the paper had been sent to another referee and rejected.  I
  sent a letter 13 September, complaining about the use of the
  second referee.  I received a reply from Goudsmit on 23
  September, in which he then stated that he had made a mistake
  in saying the paper had been sent to a second referee and that
  it had actually been sent back to the first one.  He did this,
  in spite of the fact that there was absolutely no
  correspondence between the two reports.  They were obviously
  typed on different typewriters, the first was completely
  positive, while the second was strongly negative and made no
  mention of the first report!  I eventually published a revised
  version "Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in
  Space" in a less prestigious journal.[18]  At the December 1974
  AAS Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, E. M. Standish Jr of JPL
  reported that significant unexplained systematic variations
  existed in all the interplanetary data, and that they are
  forced to use empirical correction factors that have no
  theoretical foundation.  In Galileo's time it was heresy to
  claim there was evidence that the Earth went around the Sun, in
  our time it is heresy to claim there is evidence that the speed
  of light in space is not constant....

The above unfair treatment I received in trying to publish a
paper challenging Einstein's relativity theories, is not an
isolated incident.  As an example, as I mentioned in Chapter 6,
in a June 1988 letter I received from Dr. Svetlana Tolchelnikova
from the USSR, she wrote that thanks to PERESTROIKA she was
writing me openly, but that her Pulkovo Observatory is one of the
outposts of orthodox relativity.  Two scientists were dismissed
because they discovered some facts which contradicted Einstein.
It is not only dangerous to speak against Einstein, but which is
worse it is impossible to publish anything which might be
considered as contradiction to his theory.  It seems the same
situation is true for her Academy.  Lest one thinks that this
sort of repressive behavior with regard to relativity theory
happens only in the USSR, I have heard or read many horror
stories of this happening to scientists throughout the world.  To
document the nature of the problem within the US, I would like to
make several quotes from a book on this problem by Ruggero M.
Santilli who is the director of The Institute for Basic Research:

    This book is, in essence, a report on the rather extreme
  hostility I have encountered in U.S. academic circles in the
  conduction, organization and promotion of quantitative,
  theoretical, mathematical, and experimental studies on the
  apparent insufficiencies of Einstein's ideas in face of an
  ever growing scientific knowledge.[23 p.7]
    In 1977, I was visiting the Department of Physics at
  Harvard University for the purpose of studying precisely non-
  Galilean systems.  My task was to attempt the generalization
  of the analytic, algebraic and geometric methods of the
  Galilean systems into forms suitable for the non-Galilean
  ones.
    The studies began under the best possible auspices.  In
  fact, I had a (signed) contract with one of the world's
  leading editorial houses in physics, Springer-Verlag of
  Heidelberg West Germany, to write a series of monographs in
  the field that were later published in ref.s [24] and [25].
  Furthermore, I was the recipient of a research contract with
  the U.S. Department of Energy, contract number ER-78-S-02-
  4720.A000, for the conduction of these studies.
    Sidney Coleman, Shelly Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and other
  senior physicists at Harvard opposed my studies to such a
  point of preventing my drawing a salary from my own grant for
  almost one academic year.
    This prohibition to draw my salary from my grant was
  perpetrated with full awareness of the fact that it would
  have created hardship on my children and on my family.  In
  fact, I had communicated to them (in writing) that I had no
  other income, and that I had two children in tender age and
  my wife (then a graduate student in social work) to feed and
  shelter.    After almost one academic year of delaying my
  salary authorization, when the case was just about to explode
  in law suits, I finally received authorization to draw my
  salary from my own grant as a member of the Department of
  Mathematics of Harvard University.
    But, Sidney Coleman, Shelly Glashow and Steven Weinberg and
  possibly others had declared to the Department of Mathematics
  that my studies "had no physical value."  This created
  predictable problems in the mathematics department which lead
  to the subsequent, apparently intended, impossibility of
  continuing my research at Harvard.
    Even after my leaving Harvard, their claim of "no physical
  value" of my studies persisted, affected a number of other
  scientists, and finally rendered unavoidable the writing of
  IL GRANDE GRIDO.*
  * S. Glashow and S. Weinberg obtained the Nobel Prize in
  physics in 1979 on theories, the so-called unified gauge
  theories, that are crucially dependent on Einstein's special
  relativity; subsequently, S. Weinberg left Harvard for The
  University of Texas at Austin, while S. Coleman and S.
  Glashow are still members of Harvard University to this
  writing.[23 p.29]

Even Albert Einstein was not immune from pressure from the
established politicians in the physics community with regard to
the sacred nature of the original special relativity theory,
especially with respect to the postulate of the constant speed of
light.  For example the following quote is from a letter by Dr.
E. J. Post in a continuation of the relativity debate:

    At the end of section 2 of his article on the foundations
  of the general theory, Einstein  writes: "The principle of
  the constancy of the vacuum speed of light requires a
  modification."[26]  At the time, Max Abraham took Einstein to
  task (in a rather unfriendly manner) about this deviation
  from his earlier stance.[27]

With regard to the scientist's image of himself, Dr. Spencer
Weart writes:

    A number of young scientists and science journalists,
  mostly on the political left, declared that the proper way to
  reshape society was to give a greater role to scientifically
  trained peopleƒƒthat is, people like themselves.[17 p.31]

An excellent example of a physicist politician in action was
given by President Reagan's former national security adviser Dr.
John M. Poindexter who has a doctorate in nuclear physics from
the California Institute of Technology, in the 1987 US Senate
Iran-Contra hearings.  Asked about his destruction of the
presidential order, known as a finding, that authorized the
November 1985 shipment of missiles to Iran and described it as an
arms-for-hostage swap, Poindexter denied that he did it to give
the President "deniability."  "I simply did not want this
document to see the light of day," Poindexter said, puffing on
his pipe.  Sen. Warren B. Rudman, the vice chairman of the Senate
panel, said Poindexter's stress on secrecy and deception was
"chilling."    As a second example of the open arrogance and lack
of objectivity and integrity of the modern physicist politician,
I would like to quote from the published retirement address of
the particle physicist Dr. Robert R. Wilson, the 1985 president
of the American Physical Society:

    Just suppose, even though it is probably a logical
  impossibility, some smart aleck came up with a simple, self-
  evident, closed theory of everything.  Iƒƒand so many
  othersƒƒhave had a perfectly wonderful life pursuing the
  will-o'-the-wisp of unification.  I have dreamed of my
  children, their children and their children's children all
  having this same beautiful experience.
    All that would end.
    APS membership would drop precipitously.  Fellow members,
  could we afford this catastrophe?  We must prepare a crisis-
  management plan for this eventuality, however remote.  First
  we must voice a hearty denial.  Then we should ostracize the
  culprit and hold up for years any publication by the use of
  our well-practiced referees.[28 p.30]

It might appear that Wilson was just trying to be funny, and that
his arguments do not have a remote possibility of being true.  I
have learned over the years that many of the more prominent
politicians in physics love to clothe serious arguments with
humor.  Wilson is well aware of the fact that APS editors go out
of their way to censor controversial material that could damage
the status and careers of the established politicians, such as
himself.  To demonstrate Wilson's awareness and hypocrisy on this
question, I would like to quote from a letter I published in the
journal SCIENTIFIC ETHICS entitled SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM:

    I attended the American Physical Society Council meeting at
  the 1985 Spring APS meeting in Washington,D.C.  The only real
  debate that took place during the meeting was over the motion
  to set up a million dollar contingency fund from the profits
  derived from library subscriptions to the Physical Review
  Journals.  The point was that there was no real problem
  raising large amounts of money.  Toward the end of the
  meeting, the President, Robert R. Wilson, expressed concern
  over the problem of government censorship of publication and
  presentation of papers at meetings.[29]  The current increase
  in censorship dealt mainly with various aspects of
  lasers,[30] which apply to "Star Wars" research.[31]  Wilson
  proposed the idea that he could write letters to the
  concerned government officials stating the APS Council's
  resolution that "Affirms its support of unfettered
  communication at the Society's sponsored meetings or in its
  sponsored journals of all scientific ideas and knowledge that
  are not classified."
    I stated that it would be hypocrisy for him to send such a
  letter since the Council does not practice what it preaches.
  The Society's PR journals openly censor publication of papers
  based on the philosophical prejudice of editors and anonymous
  referees.  Wilson dryly remarked that, "You have made your
  point!"[32]

The point being that I had used the same argument in the
following letter published in Physics Today:

  Scientific freedom

  I would like to comment on Robert Marshak's editorial "The
  peril of curbing scientific freedom" (January, page 192).  At
  an APS symposium in Washington, D.C., in 1982, our Executive
  Secretary William Havens gave an invited paper whose
  arguments were similar to those presented in Marshak's
  editorial.  In answer to my comments, which concerned the
  inconsistency of his arguments in view of the fact that the
  Physical Review journals used a policy of censorship similar
  to that proposed by the government, Havens agreed with the
  argument that there is no such thing as an objective
  physicist, but defended the Physical Review policy on the
  grounds that it saves paper and people are free to start
  their own physics journal.  I suspect that the government
  officials concerned with creating the new censorship policy
  who attended the symposium probably felt that national
  security is a better reason for censorship than saving paper,
  and, after all, anyone is free to move to a different
  country.
    The APS Council has approved a POPA resolution on open
  communication (January,page 99).  The resolution states that
  the Council "Affirms its support of the unfettered
  communication at the Society's sponsored meetings or in its
  sponsored journals of all scientific ideas and knowledge that
  are not classified."  The policy of unfettered communication
  at APS-sponsored meetings is an established practice, but it
  has not been the policy of the APS Physical Review journals.
  A Physical Review Letters editor has arbitrarily rejected a
  current paper I submitted without sending it to a referee.  I
  suspect the true reason for the rejection was the fact that I
  had the audacity to publish a letter in PHYSICS TODAY that
  was critical of the journal's editorial policy (January 1983,
  page 11).  If the Council follows up on its resolution by
  adopting a policy of allowing APS members the right to
  publish in the Physical Review journals, the concerned
  government officials will see that the resolution is more
  than hypocritical rhetoric, and may see the wisdom of
  adopting a similar policy![33]

Despite the hypocrisy, Wilson published an editorial titled "A
threat to scientific communication" in the July 1985 issue of
Physics Today that includes the following:

  Membership in The American Physical Society is open to
  scientists of all nations, and the benefits of Society
  membership are available equally to all members.  The
  position of The American Physical Society is clear.
  Submission of any material to APS for presentation or
  publication makes it available for general dissemination.  So
  that there could be no doubt as to where our Society stands
  on the question of open scientific communication, the Council
  adopted a resolution on 20 November 1983 that concludes:

    Be it therefore resolved that The American Physical
    Society through its elected Council affirms its support
    of the unfettered communication at the Society's
    sponsored meetings or in its sponsored journals of all
    scientific ideas and knowledge that are not
    classified.[34]

A few months after the publication of my above "Scientific
freedom" letter that tended to show the APS Executive Secretary
in a bad light, the editor resigned!  He was well known for his
editorials on just about every subject of interest to modern
physics, yet he wrote nothing about his intention to resign or
his long tenure as editor.  The only mention of his resignation
was the following short notice:

  Search committee established for Physics Today editor

  At the end of 1984, the tenure of Harold L. Davis as editor
  of PHYSICS TODAY came to an end.  He has left the American
  Institute of Physics to pursue other interests.  AIP
  director H. William Koch noted that during Davis's 15-year
  stint as editor, PHYSICS TODAY became an important vehicle
  for communication among physicists and astronomers and
  reached a larger public as well.  The magazine, he said, has
  earned its reputation as authoritative, accurate and
  responsive to the needs of the science community it
  serves.[35]

Since then, I've been unable to publish any further letters in
Physics Today, no matter how important the subject.  For example,
I made the startling discovery that the NASA Jet Propulsion
Laboratory was basing their analysis of signal transit time in
the solar system on Newtonian Galilean c+v, and not c as
predicted by Einstein's relativity theory.  There is a short
mention of the major term in the equation as the "Newtonian light
time" but no emphasis on the enormous implications of this fact!
I tried to force this issue out into the open by submitting a
letter to Physics Today 9 July 1984, with the cover letter to the
editor indicating that I had sent a carbon copy to Moyer at JPL
for his comment on the matter.  The following is the text of the
letter I submitted:

  The speed of light is c+v

    During a current literature search, I requested and
  received a reprint of a paper[36] published by Theodore D.
  Moyer of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  The paper reports
  the methods used to obtain accurate values of range
  observables for radio and radar signals in the solar system.
  The paper's (A6) equation and the accompanying information
  that calls for evaluating the position vectors at the signal
  reception time is nearly equivalent to the Galilean c+v
  equation (2) in my paper RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE
  VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE.[18]  The additional terms in the
  (A6) equation correct for the effects of the troposphere and
  charged particles, as well as the general relativity effects
  of gravity and velocity time dilation.  The fact that the
  radio astronomers have been reluctant to acknowledge the full
  theoretical implications of their work is probably related to
  the unfortunate things that tend to happen to physicists that
  are rash enough to challenge Einstein's sacred second
  postulate.[22] Over twenty-three years have gone by since the
  original Venus radar experiments clearly showed that the
  speed of light in space was not constant, and still the
  average scientist is not aware of this fact!  This
  demonstrates why it is important for the APS to bring true
  scientific freedom to the PR journal's editorial policy.[33]

I received a reply 4 January 1985, from Gloria B. Lubkin, the
Acting Editor following the Davis resignation, in which she said
they reviewed my letter to the editor and have decided against
publication.  Since that time I've had two more rejections.  On
14 January 1988 I submitted the following letter that contained
important published  confirmation of my c+v analysis from a
Russian using analysis of double stars:

  Relativity debate continues

  In a letter in the August 1981 issue (page 11) I presented
  the argument that my analysis of the published 1961 radar
  contact with Venus data showed that the speed of light in
  space was relativistic in the c+v Galilean sense.  On 17
  October 1987 I received a registered letter from Vladimir I.
  Sekerin of the USSR.  The translation of the letter by Drs.
  William & Vivian Parsons of Eckerd College states:

    "To me are known several of your works, including the work
  on the radar location of Venus.  Just as you do, I also
  compute that the speed of light in a vacuum from a moving
  source is equal to c+v.
    I am sending you my article "Gnosiological Peculiarities in
  the Interpretation of Observations (For example the
  Observation of Double Stars)", in which is cited still one
  more demonstration of this proposition.  It is possible that
  this work will be of interest to certain astrophysicists in
  your country."

  On 13 January 1988 I received a final translation of the
  paper which was published in the Number IV 1987 issue of
  CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE AND REGULARITY ITS DEVELOPMENT from
  Robert S. Fritzius.  The ABSTRACT states:

  "de-Sitter failed disprove Ritz's C+V ballistic hypothesis
  regarding the speed of light.  C+V effects may explain
  certain periodic intensity variations associated with visual
  and spectroscopic double stars."

Since I realized that there was little chance that Physics Today
would publish the letter, after the passage of about 3 months, I
submitted a similar letter to the journal Sky & Telescope.
Within 2 days of mailing the letter, I received a reply from the
Associate Editor Dr. Richard Tresch Fienberg, in which he stated
that if a research result as unusual as this is being confirmed
by Soviet scientists, then the appropriate department of SKY &
TELESCOPE for the announcement is News Notes, not Letters.
Accordingly, he wanted me to send him copies of my original paper
and the English translation of the new Soviet work. I sent the
requested material, and within several weeks received a letter
from him saying that they have decided not to review my papers on
the relative velocity of light in their News Notes department at
this time.  Dr. Fienberg was a co-author of a recent paper
published in the journal that states that their Big Bang
arguments are based on Einstein's general theory of
relativity![146]
   Since Einstein's theories and his status as a scientist are at
the core of the problem of modern physics being an elaborate
farce, I will quote from various statements he has made with
regard to the issues that have been raised.  In a June 1912
letter to Zangger he asked the question:

  What do the colleagues say about giving up the principle of the
  constancy of the velocity of light?[37 p.211]

  With reference to the question of double stars presenting
evidence against his relativity theory, he wrote the Berlin
University Observatory astronomer Erwin Finlay-Freundlich the
following:

  "I am very curious about the results of your research...," he
  wrote to Freundlich in 1913.  "If the speed of light is the
  least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my
  whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
  [38 p.207]

In a 1921 letter concerning a complex repetition of the
Michelson-Morley experiment by Dayton Miller of the Mount Wilson
Observatory, he wrote:

  "I believe that I have really found the relationship between
  gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller
  experiments are based on a fundamental error," he said.
  "Otherwise the whole relativity theory collapses like a house
  of cards."  Other scientists, to whom Miller announced his
  results at a special meeting, lacked Einstein's qualifications.
  "Not one of them thought for a moment of abandoning
  relativity," Michael Polanyi has commented.  "Insteadƒƒas Sir
  Charles Darwin once described itƒƒthey sent Miller home to get
  his results right."[38 p.400]

With regard to the question of scientific objectivity he states:

     The belief in an external world independent of the
  perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science.  Since,
  however, sense perception only gives information of this
  external world or of "physical reality" indirectly, we can only
  grasp the latter by speculative means.  It follows from this
  that our notions of physical reality can never be final.  We
  must always be ready to change these notionsƒƒthat is to say,
  the axiomatic basis of physicsƒƒin order to do justice to
  perceived facts in the most perfect way logically.  Actually a
  glance at the development of physics shows that it has
  undergone far-reaching changes in the course of time.[39 p.266]

With respect to his own status he argues:

     The cult of individuals is always, in my view, unjustified.
  To be sure, nature distributes her gifts unevenly among her
  children.  But there are plenty of the well-endowed, thank God,
  and I am firmly convinced that most of them live quiet,
  unobtrusive lives.  It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad
  taste, to select a few of them for boundless admiration,
  attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them.
  This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular
  estimate of my powers and achievements and the reality is
  simply grotesque.[39 p.4]

In an expansion of this argument, he states:

     My political ideal is democracy.  Let every man be respected
  as an individual and no man idolized.  It is an irony of fate
  that I myself have been the recipient of excessive admiration
  and reverence from my fellow-beings, through no fault, and no
  merit, of my own.  The cause of this may well be the desire,
  unattainable for many, to understand the few ideas to which I
  have with my feeble powers attained through ceaseless struggle.
  I am quite aware that it is necessary for the achievement of
  the objective of an organization that one man should do the
  thinking and directing and generally bear the responsibility.
  But the led must not be coerced, they must be able to choose
  their leader.  An autocratic system of coercion, in my opinion,
  soon degenerates.  For force always attracts men of low
  morality, and I believe it to be an invariable rule that
  tyrants of genius are succeeded by scoundrels.[39 p.9]

On the question of scientific communication, he states:

  For scientific endeavor is a natural whole, the parts of which
  mutually support one another in a way which, to be sure, no one
  can anticipate.  However, the progress of science presupposes
  the possibility of unrestricted communication of all results
  and judgmentsƒƒfreedom of expression and instruction in all
  realms of intellectual endeavor.  By freedom I understand
  social conditions of such a kind that the expression of
  opinions and assertions about general and particular matters of
  knowledge will not involve dangers or serious disadvantages for
  him who expresses them.  This freedom of communication is
  indispensable for the development and extension of scientific
  knowledge, a consideration of much practical import.[39 p.31]

With regard to Einstein's opinion on peer review of scientific
papers:

     In the course of working on this last problem, Einstein
  believed for some time that he had shown that the rigorous
  relativistic field equations do not allow for the existence of
  gravitational waves.  After he found the mistake in the
  argument, the final manuscript was prepared and sent to the
  Physical Review.  It was returned to him accompanied by a
  lengthy referee report in which clarifications were requested.
  Einstein was enraged and wrote to the editor that he objected
  to his paper being shown to colleagues prior to publication.
  The editor courteously replied that refereeing was a procedure
  generally applied to all papers submitted to his journal,
  adding that he regretted that Einstein may not have been aware
  of this custom.  Einstein sent the paper to the Journal of the
  Franklin Institute and, apart from one brief note of rebuttal,
  never published in the Physical Review again.[37 p.494]

On the question of peer review, I would like to make some
comments with regard to the article APS ESTABLISHES GUIDELINES
FOR PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT that was published in the journal
PHYSICS TODAY.[137]  My first comment on the American Physical
Society guidelines concerns the fact that the C. Peer Review
section tends to contradict the intent of the guidelines on
ethics.  In the second paragraph of the section we find the
sentence:

  Peer review can serve its intended function only if the members
  of the scientific community are prepared to provide thorough,
  fair, and objective evaluations based on requisite expertise.

With reference to this point, as shown by my quotation of my
published letter,[33] the former APS Executive Secretary William
Havens agreed with the argument that there is no such thing as an
objective physicist, but defended the Physical Review policy on
the grounds that it saves paper and people are free to start
their own physics journal.  I would like to point out the obvious
fact that if there is no such thing as an objective physicist, it
follows that there is no such thing as an objective peer review
of a physics paper!  While it may be true that the APS Physical
Review policy saves paper for the journal, people are free to
start their own physics journals, and many of them have done so.
The result has created a crisis situation, not only for physics,
but for the rest of science as well.  An illustration of this
problem is an article published in the New York Times newspaper
by William J. Broad titled Science publishers have created a
monster, the article was reprinted on page 1D of the February 20,
1988 edition of my local St. Petersburg Times newspaper.  The
article starts:

     The number of scientific articles and journals being
  published around the world has grown so large that it is
  starting to confuse researchers, overwhelm the quality-control
  systems of science, encourage fraud and distort the
  dissemination of important findings.
     At least 40,000 scientific journals are estimated to roll
  off presses around the world, flooding libraries and
  laboratories with more than a million new articles each year.

An abstract of some statements taken from the rather large
article are as follows:

  ..."The modern scientist sometimes feels overwhelmed by the
  size and growth rate of the technical literature," said Michael
  J. Mahoney, a professor of education at the University of
  California at Santa Barbara who has written about the journal
  glut....Belver C. Griffith, a professor of library and
  information science at Drexel University in Philadelphia, said:
  "People had expected the exponential growth to slow down.  The
  rather startling thing is that it seems to keep rising...."But
  experts say at least part of it is symptomatic of fundamental
  ills, including the emergence of a publish-or-perish ethic
  among researchers that encourages shoddy, repetitive, useless
  or even fraudulent work....Surveys have shown that the majority
  of scientific articles go virtually unread....It said useless
  journals stocked by university libraries were adding to the
  sky-rocketing cost of college education and proposed that
  "periodicals go first" in a bout of "book burning."...An added
  factor is that new technology is lowering age-old barriers to
  science publication, said Katherine S. Chiang, chairman of the
  science and technology section of the American Library
  Association and a librarian at Cornell University....
  Researchers know that having many articles on a bibliography
  helps them win employment, promotions and federal grants.  But
  the publish-or-perish imperative gives rise to such practices
  as undertaking trivial studies because they yield rapid
  results, and needlessly reporting the same study in
  installments, magnifying the apparent scientific output....In
  some cases, authors pad their academic bibliographies by
  submitting the same paper simultaneously to two or more
  journals, getting multiple credit for the same work....A final
  factor is the growth of research "factories," where large teams
  of researchers churn out paper after paper....

An article titled Peer Review Under Fire states the following:

  ...Despite its crucial role in the era of "publish or perish,"
  scientific peer review today limps along with its own disabling
  wounds, asserts Domenic V. Cicchetti a psychologist with the
  Veterans Administration Medical Center in West Haven, Conn.  In
  his comparative review of peer-review studies conducted over
  the past 20 years by various researchers, Cicchetti finds
  consistently low agreement among referees about the quality of
  manuscript submissions and grant proposals in psychology,
  sociology, medicine and physics....The belief that basic
  research deserves generous funding because new understanding
  springs from unexpected, serendipitous sources ƒƒ a cherished
  argument in scientific circles ƒƒ implies that no one can
  accurately forecast which work most needs financing and
  publication, points out J. Barnard Gilmore, a psychologist at
  the University of Toronto in Ontario....Gilmore envisions a
  future in which journal and grant submissions reach a far-flung
  jury of scientific peers through computerized electronic mail.
  Rather than jostling for space in prestigious journals, authors
  would vie for the attention of prestigious reviewers and other
  readers who subscribe to the electronic peer network.
  Reviewer's computerized suggestions and ratings would determine
  a submission's funding or publication destiny....[138]

I believe that Gilmore's idea holds the key to the resolution of
the problem of scientific communication, except it would be far
more effective to have a hard copy paper journal that would be a
permanent archival record of the democratic debate of the far-
flung scientific peers.  The computer far from being the cure, is
actually the major source of the problem.  A word processing
program on a computer is a creative writing tool that makes it
possible to create a vast array of different very involved
abstract hard to understand articles using the same data base.
This business of acquiring status by publishing in a prestigious
journal after a peer-review is the core element of the problem.
If one acquired status by obtaining a large positive vote from
one's peers, one would try to write easy to understand
comprehensive articles with significant results and arguments,
thereby diminishing the size and cost of the scientific
literature.
   My second comment is based on the following paragraph that
starts the D. Conflict of Interest section of the APS article:

  There are many professional activities of physicists that have
  the potential for a conflict of interest.  Any professional
  relationship or action that may result in a conflict of
  interest must be fully disclosed.  When objectivity and
  effectiveness cannot be maintained, the activity should be
  avoided or discontinued.

On page 1337 of a December 19, 1980 news article published in
SCIENCE you will find the following statements:

     It was quite an admission, but there it was in a December
  1979 editorial in the Physical Review Letters (PRL), the
  favorite publishing place of American physicists: "...if two-
  thirds of the papers we accept were replaced  by two-thirds of
  the papers we reject, the quality of the journal would not be
  changed."...The fact that only 45 percent of the papers
  submitted to PRL were accepted for publication helped the
  journal gain an unintended measure of prestige.  In the end,
  the prestige associated with being published in PRL outweighed
  the original criteria of timeliness and being of broad
  interest....

Peer review in like communism, it sounds good in theory, but
because of human nature, does not work very well in actual
practice.  If the APS Council is serious about scientific ethics,
they would eliminate the section of on peer review, and do their
best to wean physicists away from this destructive practice in
the PR journals.  Perhaps they could publish versions of the
journal where the authors would be completely responsible for the
content of their papers.  The journal could reduce costs and
response time by having the authors submit camera ready
manuscripts that could be reduced to 1/4 size, and there would be
no reprints, but anyone, including the author, would have the
right to make as many copies as they wanted.  I suspect that such
a journal would flourish, and even replace many of the so-called
prestigious journals.  I would not be surprised to find its
format copied by many of the remaining journals, and that this
new trend would help resolve the current scientific communication
and ethics problems.
  There seems to be a growing willingness of US newspapers to
print articles critical of relativity theory.  For example, I
came across an article in the 3/10/91 edition of my local
newspaper that was reprinted from The New York Times.  The title
of the article was Einstein's theory flawed? and the article
starts with:

     A supercomputer at Cornell University, simulating a
  tremendous gravitational collapse in the universe, has startled
  and confounded astrophysicists by producing results that should
  not be possible according to Einstein's general theory of
  relativity....

In the body of the article Prof. Wheeler was mentioned as
follows:

     Dr. John A. Wheeler, an emeritus professor of physics at
  Princeton University and an originator of the concept of black
  holes, said: "To me, the formation of a naked singularity is
  equivalent to jumping across the Gulf of Mexico.  I would be
  willing to bet a million dollars that it can't be done.  But I
  can't prove that it can't be done."

In a 5/22/91 telephone call from Robert Fritzius, the man I
mentioned in Chapter 6, who accompanied me to the 1st Leningrad
Conference, he said that he had sent a reprint of his recently
published paper[142] to Prof. Wheeler, and that Wheeler had sent
back a very nice reply.   The title of the paper was The Ritz-
Einstein Agreement to Disagree and mainly concerned the 1908 to
1909 battle between Ritz and Einstein that ended with a joint
paper.[143]  In the 5. CONCLUSIONS Robert states:

  ...The current paradigm says that Einstein prevailed, but many
  of us never heard of the battle, nor of Ritz's electrodynamics.
  So if an earlier court gave the decision to Einstein, it did so
  by default.  Ritz, at age 31, died 7 July 1909, two months
  after the joint paper was published.

An extremely interesting part of the paper was the 4. SECOND
THOUGHTS? section where Robert writes:

     Einstein, in later years, may have had second thoughts about
  irreversibility, but because of his revered position with
  respect to the geometrodynamic paradigm was probably prevented
  from expressing them publicly.  We do have three glimpses into
  his private leanings on the subject.  In 1941 he called Wheeler
  and Feyman's attention to Ritz's (1908) and Tetrode's (1921)
  time asymmetric electrodynamic theories.  [This was while
  Wheeler and Feynman were laying the groundwork for their less
  than successful (1945) time-symmetric absorber theory,[144]
  which was really emission/absorber theory, with a lot of help
  from the future.  They could not embrace time asymmetry, but
  Gill[145] now proposes to revitalize absorber theory by
  creating a generalized version without advanced interactions.]
  Two pieces of Einstein's private correspondence touch
  indirectly on the subject of time asymmetry.[37 p.467]  In
  these letters Einstein expresses his growing doubts about the
  validity of the field theory space continuum hypothesis and all
  that goes with it.

   To understand the nature of the problem you need to understand
20th century science as it really is, and not what it pretends to
be.  An excellent article on this was published in Science by
Prof. Alan Lightman and Dr. Owen Gingerich.  In the Discussion
section of the paper we find the following paragraph:

     Science is a conservative activity, and scientist are
  reluctant to change their explanatory frameworks.  As discussed
  by sociologist Bernard Barber, there are a variety of social
  and cultural factors that lead to conservatism in science,
  including commitment to particular physical concepts,
  commitment to particular methodological conceptions,
  professional standing, and investment in particular scientific
  organizations.[147]

Dr. Chet Raymo, a physics professor at Stonehill College in
Massachusetts, and the author of a weekly science column in the
newspaper the Boston Globe, in a FOCAL POINT article published in
Sky & Telescope, expands on the above paper with the following
arguments:

     Science has evolved an elaborate system of social
  organization, communication, and peer review to ensure a high
  degree of conformity with existing orthodoxy...
     In a recent article titled "When Do Anomalies Begin?"
  (Science, February 7th), Alan Lightman of MIT and Owen
  Gingerich of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
  describe the conservation of science.  They acknowledge that
  scientist may be reluctant to face change for the purely
  psychological reason that the familiar is more comfortable than
  the unfamiliar...
     Usually, say Lightman and Gingerich, such anomalies are
  recognized only in retrospect.  Only when a new theory gives a
  compelling explanation of previously unexplained facts does it
  become "safe" to recognize anomalies for what they are.  In the
  meantime scientist often simply ignore what doesn't fit...
     For some people outside mainstream science, the path toward
  truth seems frustratingly strewn with obstacles.  Like everyone
  else, scientist can be arrogant and closed-minded...[148]

The editor of the American Physical Society journal PHYSICS AND
SOCIETY, Prof. Art Hobson, wrote an editorial titled Redefining
Physics, and it starts as follows:

     My friend Greg burst into my office the other day shaking
  his head and asking "What are physicist good for, Hobson?  Why
  would anybody want to hire one?  What is special about
  physics?"  He complained that PhD programs prepare graduates
  who do things that only physicists care about, graduates who
  settle into other departments where they prepare other students
  to do the same thing.  How can we change the barely self-
  perpetuating system?  Even relatively small reforms, such as
  the Introductory University Physics Project's recommendations
  for bringing introductory physics into the twentieth century
  (let alone the twenty-first), are difficult.  The system has
  great inertia.
     Greg is a successful quantum optics experimentalist.  He
  loves physics.  He is one of our department's best teachers.
  Despite having every reason to feel good about the future of
  physics, he doesn't.  He is not an isolated case.  Judging from
  recent surveys conducted by Leon Lederman and others, evidence
  of low morale in the entire scientific community has been
  building lately.

Within the body of the editorial, Prof. Hobson writes:


     Congressman George Brown, Chair of the House science and
  technology committee and one of science's best friends in
  Congress, has recently written on these matters.  Excerpts from
  one of his articles are reprinted above.  His strong words are
  worthy of our attention.[149]

Some of the more interesting excerpts from one of Congressman
Brown's articles are as follows:

     For the past 50 years, U.S. government support for basic
  research has reflected a widespread but weakly held sentiment
  that the pursuit of knowledge is a cultural activity
  intrinsically worthy of public support...
  ...Lobbyists for the scientific community have been perhaps
  excessively willing to bolster this rhetoric by claiming for
  basic research an exaggerated role in economic growth...
  ...In fact, there are many tangible and intangible indicators
  of a decline in the standard of living in the United States
  today, despite 50 years of increasing government support for
  research...
  ...In the absence of pluralistic democratic institutions,
  science and technology can promote concentration of power and
  wealth and even autocratic and dictatorial conditions of many
  kinds.  An excessive cultural reverence for the objective
  lessons of science has the effect of stifling political
  discourse, which is necessarily subjective and value-laden.
  President Eisenhower recognized this danger when he stated that
  "In holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we
  should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger
  that public policy could itself become the captive of a
  scientific-technological elite."...
     The fundamental challenge for all of us is not to increase
  funding for research, it is to enhance the societal conditions
  that permit research to thrive: educational and economic
  opportunity, freedom of intellectual discourse, and an
  increased capacity for all human beings to achieve their
  individual potential within a just and humane global
  society.[150]

Chapter 5

                          Light Lunacy


   At first I did not realize the military implications of
realistic knowledge of the nature of the relative velocity of
light in space.  The article that opened my eyes on this matter
was titled "The Search for a Nuclear Sanctuary (II)", and it was
published in the journal Science in 1983.[58]  The following
quotations are from that article:

     Buried inside the Defense Department's bureaucracy is a
  small, well-run program of enormous significance in the
  ongoing debate over whether or not the United States should
  construct a large-scale antiballistic missile system, as
  President Reagan proposed in his widely publicized "Star
  Wars" speech last March.  It is known as the Advanced
  Strategic Missile System (ASMS) program, and almost
  everything that falls under its jurisdiction is considered
  secret....
     For roughly two decades, the technical managers of ASMS
  and its bureaucratic antecedents have analyzed potential
  Soviet strategic defenses and devised the means to defeat
  them....
     ASMS, along with several newer Pentagon programs aimed
  specifically at countering potential Soviet space-based laser
  systems, will have a significant impact on the strategic
  balance in the event that the United States proceeds with
  Reagan's plan to "counter the awesome Soviet missile threat
  with measures that are defensive."...
  The Air Force, which directs the ASMS program, does not like
  to crow about the program's technological successes,
  preferring that the Soviets, and perhaps the general public,
  be kept in the dark about what is obviously one of its most
  sensitive scientific endeavors....
     The active decoy is a product of substantial wizardry in
  microelectronics and computing, engineered by MIT's Lincoln
  Laboratories and by the General Electric Company....

   In 1968, Dr. Thornton Page, a prominent astrophysicist,
reviewed my original c+v analysis paper titled INCONSISTENCIES IN
RADAR DISTANCES TO VENUS.  At that time, Page was Director of the
Van Vleck Observatory, Chairman of the Astronomy Department of
Wesleyan University, Associate Director of the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory, Vice President for Astronomy of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, and an
Associate Scientist with NASA.  He chopped the paper down to at
least half its original size, making many significant changes.
Page also helped me to present arguments with regard to the work
to many prominent scientists he introduced me to at the Fourth
Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics that was held in
Dallas Texas in 1968.  He concentrated mainly on radio
astronomers and had advised me not to answer questions in the
conclusive sense but always in the possible sense.  A fair number
of the scientist asked for preprints of the paper.
   On the fourth day of the Symposium, Dr. Irwin I. Shapiro
presented a talk titled OBSERVATIONAL TESTS OF RELATIVITY.
Shapiro was the principal investigator for the above mentioned
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory's
analysis of the interplanetary radar data that came from radar
stations scattered throughout the world, and his research was
funded by the Air Force.  In the talk, Shapiro presented the
illusion that the radar data was consistent with Einstein's
general relativity theory.  The talk was essentially the same as
the paper titled "Radar Observations of the Planets" which he had
published in the prestigious journal Scientific American.[59]  In
my debate with Shapiro, in the comment session that followed his
talk, he admitted that all his calculations were based on a
constant speed of light c (the wave in ether model), and he had
not tested c+v (the particle model).  He did this, in spite of
the fact, that the major problem in modern physics, is the wave-
particle paradox.  That is, in some experiments light seems to
behave like a wave, and in other experiments it seems to behave
as a particle.  He admitted the fact that the published radar
analysis showed very large impossible variations in the
calculated value of the astronomical unit (the mean distance
between the earth and the sun), that were far larger than their
maximum estimate of all possible errors.  The graphed calculated
values of the astronomical unit contained a daily component that
was proportional to the relative velocity due to the Earth's
rotation, a 30-day component, related to the Earth-Moon rotation,
and a component related to the relative solar orbital velocities
of the Earth and Venus.[60]  The variations in the calculated
value of the astronomical unit are what one would expect to find
if the speed of light was c+v, and the calculations were based on
c. The astronomical unit is the basic unit of measurement used by
astronomers for the solar system.  The telescopic methods used to
determine its value, had an uncertainty of as much as 170,000
miles (273,589 kilometers), due to the fact that until the
interplanetary radar observations became technologically
possible, the only way to measure distances was by the indirect
method of analysis of the angular positions of bodies in the
solar system.[61]  The radar observations were estimated to be
capable of measuring the distance to Venus with an accuracy of
within 1.5 kilometers, the only important variable being the
relative velocity of light in space.  The Earth's rotation could
cause a maximum difference in calculated distance between the two
theories of 260 kilometers when two radar stations, one on either
side of the Earth, observe Venus at the same time when the planet
is at its closest point to the Earth.  This difference would
increase as the distance between the Earth and Venus increased.
An analysis of the data based on the incorrect theory would show
the center of Venus to be at different distances from the center
of the Earth at the same time.  The analysis of the data
published by Shapiro's research group also presents evidence
against the c theory from observations made at the same time from
different points on the Earth.  The Lincoln Laboratory made a
complete c analysis of all the radar data up to 1966.  The
Einstein general relativity time delay goodness-of-fit for the US
Massachusetts radar station was 1.57, the value for the Puerto
Rico station was .97, the value for the USSR Crimean station was
7.10.  The article[62] states:

  Although not apparent from inspection of Fig. 4, the
  residuals of the U.S.S.R. time-delay are systematically
  negative relative to the Arecibo and Lincoln Laboratory
  residuals during the time period (June 1964) when all three
  groups were observing Venus.  This incompatibility cannot be
  removed by assuming simply that different units of time were
  used by the different observatories.

In his chapter of the book[63] "Radar Astronomy", Shapiro states:

  If the theory is wrong, the values of the parameters will
  selected from the data in a manner that tends to cover up the
  inadequacies of the theory (for example, if least-mean-square
  fitting is employed).

I told Shapiro that my analysis of the published 1961 Venus radar
data[18] showed a much better fit to the Newtonian particle c+v
model for light than for the Einstein wave c model.  I stated
that my analysis would have been far more impressive if I had
more than the sparse set of data that was published.  Shapiro
made no effort to challenge any of my arguments, and promised to
send me any data I would require to make a more in depth analysis
of the relative velocity of light in space.  Thornton Page was
furious over the corrosive nature of my arguments and the tone of
voice that I had used, and let me know about it in no uncertain
terms!  From that point on, Page has not given me any further
assistance in my efforts to bring scientific objectivity and
integrity to the question of the relative velocity of light in
space.  The loss of Page's support has proven to be a devastating
blow to this cause.  For example, Walter Sullivan, the science
editor of The New York Times, was at the Symposium and had shown
an interest in publishing an article on my results.  In a short
letter sent 13 March 1969, he thanked me for sending him copies
of my exchanges with Shapiro.  He stated he was far from being
qualified to assess the merit of my case and would have to depend
on old friends who areƒƒincluding Thornton Page.  Needless to
say, Sullivan never wrote the article.  To show the impact that
this article could have had, I would like to quote from Michael
Riordan's recent book[64 p.180] "The Hunting of the Quark":

     One might question all this concern over a mere newspaper
  article, but The New York Times, as the nation's foremost
  daily, informs scientists in other fieldsƒƒand especially
  Washington policymakersƒƒabout new discoveries.  In a science
  so dependent upon government money for its continued
  progress, Sullivan's front-page article was a valuable trump
  card in the annual budget scramble.

With regard to the correspondence with Shapiro mentioned by
Sullivan, my first letter of 26 December 1968 states:

     Enclosed you will find a copy of my paper "Inconsistencies
  In Radar Distances To Venus" that I promised to send you.
  Dr. Heinrich K. Eichhorn checked the calculations and Dr.
  Thornton L. Page suggested how to write it and reviewed and
  edited it.  I have sent copies to most of the research
  centers and observatories in the U.S. as well as a few other
  countries.  Enclosed you will also find a small sample of the
  answers I have received.

In Shapiro's answer of 13 January 1969, he thanked me for sending
him a preprint of my paper, and said he found himself in
agreement with the comments of Prof. Dingle.  The Prof. Dingle
Shapiro spoke of, was the Herbert Dingle I had mentioned earlier,
who had published the article in Nature concerning the
inconsistent logic in Einstein's Special Relativity theory.[47]
With regard to the problem of Dingle's understanding the
interplanetary radar paper, Dingle wrote in his letter of 16
August 1968 that he agreed that Dr. Page (whom he knew) has
condensed the account too muchƒƒat any rate for the understanding
of those who are not primarily dynamical astronomers but are
concerned with that subject in relation to their own interests.
In Shapiro's letter of 17 January, he states that the radar data
are not consistent with the "ballistic theory" of light, but are
consistent with general relativity (cf. their article on the
verification of the second-order Doppler shift in Phys. Rev.
Letters circa. October 1966).

An interesting side note is the fact that Dr. Svetlana A.
Tolchelnikova-Murri, a professional Russian astronomer and
mathematician working at the Pulkovo Observatory, has published a
paper titled The Doppler Observations of Venus Contradict the STR
in the US journal GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS.[151]  Dr.
Tolchelnikova delivered a Russian version of that paper at a 1991
Conference that I talk of in the next chapter.  In my answer to
Shapiro of 23 January, I wrote:

     With reference to your letter of January 17, I read the
  article you referred me to.  You should know by now you can't
  bluff me.  The article does not support your argument and you
  know it.
     You admitted at the symposium in front of 500 scientists
  that all your calculations were based on c.  How can you
  state that the radar data is not consistent with the
  "ballistic theory"?  Prove it, and then publish it.
  Considering the capabilities of the Lab. and the importance
  of the question, this is the most responsible thing you can
  do.
     You state the radar data is consistent with general
  relativity, yet when the observing time is varied you get
  variations that are far larger then the maximum possible and
  the variations are proportional to the change in the
  observing time.  The variations disappear when the observing
  time is held constant but variations between radar stations
  that are proportional to the distance exist.  These facts are
  documented by articles published by your group in "The
  Astronomical Journal."
     You lost the fight when you did not challenge me at the
  symposium.  This fact has made a impression on a large number
  of scientists.  Your only hope is to finish a half-finished
  job, and make a complete and fair analysis of the radar data
  based on the ballistic model before someone else does.
     I brought the matter out in the open, now you must decide
  to sink or swim.  Good luck!

In my 13 February letter to Shapiro, I wrote:

    Dr. Wilbur Block is a radio astronomer who is doing
  research on radio radiations from Jupiter.  He has
  collaborated with others in publishing a number of papers on
  this subject.  He was the one who invited me to give a
  lecture at his college on radar testing of Special
  Relativity.
     I told Block that you had promised to send me all the data
  I needed.  He wants to do research on this himself.  If he
  limits his analysis to a test of relativity and does not get
  involved in a deep analysis of Venus' orbit, he will probably
  be the first one to publish verification of my work.
     He would like the data from about five consecutive days
  during inferior conjunction.  He needs transit time and
  Doppler shift from three observations each day, one at the
  earliest time, one at 12:00 UT and one at the latest time,
  all from your station.  The larger the difference between
  observing times, the more dramatic will be the results.  He
  would also like the geographic location and data for 12:00 UT
  for the same five days from the U.S.S.R. station.
     Please send it as soon as possible.  From the way the
  other radio men were talking at the symposium he may not have
  much time.
     Here is his address:...

In Shapiro's letter of 27 March, he wrote that unfortunately the
data did not exist in the form in which I wanted them and, hence,
he could not honor my request.  In my reply of 3 April, I wrote:

     You promised to send me all the data I would need, yet
  when I requested a limited amount, you ignored the request in
  two letters and offer an excuse for not doing so when I make
  an issue of it.
     I have quoted your remarks as I remembered them.  The main
  reason that your newer results appear to look better, is that
  your group found it could eliminate the large daily
  variations by changing to a constant observing time (12:00
  UT), even when the planet was not observed or in some cases
  was not even visible.(J. V. Evans, etal., Astron. J. 70, 486
  - 1965)  Of course there is a second-order difference in the
  Doppler formulas between c and c+v, but it is obviously
  irresponsible to state that a solution based on c that is
  valid only for a constant observing time and a single radar
  station, proves that the velocity is c.
     I will tell you what more one could ask.  One could ask
  for a complete and honest evaluation of the data based on c
  and c+v.  Then one would have sufficient information to make
  a valid and intelligent comparison of c and c+v.

Since the Department of Defense had funded the research, I wrote
a letter to Dr. John Foster, Jr. the Director of Defense Research
and Engineering, requesting the data.  In reply to the request, I
received a letter dated 29 September from Dr. Lowell M.
Hollingsworth, Technical Advisor for Electronics, Department of
the Air Force, Headquarters Air Force Cambridge Research
Laboratories.  Hollingsworth wrote that he spoke with Dr. Shapiro
regarding the data requested by me on radar observations of
Venus.  The data in the form I requested did not exist.  However,
if the data in the form in which it did exist would be of value
to me a deck of IBM cards could be prepared from which I could by
analysis obtain the data I desired.  This deck would be a stack
of IBM cards totalling an inch or so in thickness.  For machine
computation the data resides in the holes punched in the cards
but pertinent data would appear typed on the cards.  Thus I would
be able to read the cards visually for the purpose of my
analysis.  I wrote Hollingsworth 1 October, stating:

     With reference to your letter of September 29, please send
  the IBM cards containing the radar data.  They will make
  possible a far more conclusive test of the relative velocity
  of light in space.  I have read Fox's 1965 article and have a
  correspondence with him.  He is enthused about the results
  from my radar analysis.

And I closed my letter with the sentence:

  I plan to attend the AAAS meeting in Boston in December.  I
  would be interested in talking to you on this subject.

I wrote Shapiro 4 October stating:

     Wilbur Block has suggested to me that I offer to
  collaborate with you and the Lincoln Lab., in a full
  investigation of the relative velocity of light in space and
  celestial mechanics.  I am willing, if you are.  It is
  obvious that continued opposition will be mutually
  destructive to both of us.  On the other hand, collaboration
  is bound to be mutually beneficial.

Shapiro's reply of 13 October asked if I would be more explicit
as to exactly what form I would wish the collaboration to take?
In my letter to Shapiro of 18 October, I start out with:

     Your letter of October 13 has caused me to make a fast
  rewrite of the lecture I am going to give October 30, at
  Florida Presbyterian College.  I had planned to be rather
  hard on both you and the Lincoln Lab, but it would not be
  wise to try and hurt the credibility of a potential ally.
  The lecture will be publicized and open to the public.  I am
  hoping for enough publicity to bring this thing out into the
  open.

further into the letter, I wrote:

     L. M. Hollingsworth sent the radar data I wanted and he
  asked me to call him when I get to Boston in December so that
  we can get together.  I think there is a good possibility
  that the data will make a more impressive test of c.  I will
  send you the results of the analysis.  Perhaps you would like
  a joint paper on this?  Both our names on the same paper
  would be mutually beneficial; it would tend to repair any
  damage I may have done to your reputation and help me by
  making it easier to overcome the remaining psychological
  barrier that exists on this question.

Shapiro's answering letter of 6 November stated that he was
pleased to hear that I had received the radar data that they had
sent me, and he hoped that I would find them useful.  In my reply
of 12 November, I stated:

     I am sorry to say that the data you sent me can't be used
  for a test of the relative velocity of light in space.  There
  was no significant difference in the location of the stations
  or the observing time, so there would have been no
  significant difference between a c and c+v analysis.
     How about us having a private get together when I am in
  Boston this December?

Shapiro's answer of 28 November states that he could not
understand why I concluded that the Venus data sent to me was
inappropriate for my purpose.  In my letter to Hollingsworth of
25 October, I wrote:

     I am afraid that Shapiro has pulled a fast one on us, the
  data you sent me can't be used for a test of the relative
  velocity of light in space.  There is very little difference
  in the distance between the radar stations so I can't show
  that the false theory shows the planet Venus in different
  places at the same time while the true theory shows it in the
  same place.  There is almost no difference in the observing
  time so I can't show that the false theory shows Venus doing
  a jig while the true theory shows it moving in a rational
  manner.
     Analysis of Shapiro's article in The Astronomical Journal
  (72, 338 - 1967) shows that the Lincoln Lab has the data that
  I would need.  Page 343 shows that they had data from both
  their station and the U.S.S.R. station for June 1964 and
  Figure 4 on this page shows considerable daily variations for
  1964 indicating data at different observing times.  The only
  possible way they could have eliminated the synodic variation
  from the General Relativity Fit part of Figure 4 was by using
  empirical corrections similar to Duncombe's corrections.
  They eliminated the daily variations for later years by
  observing for only a short time at the same time each day.
  The early articles published by the Lincoln Lab group are
  open and above board, but the later articles are little more
  than misleading fabrications and I am sure that Shapiro knows
  this.  They started out by believing that c was a proven fact
  so they made no attempt to treat the velocity of light as a
  variable.  After several years of not being able to make
  sense out of the data, they were probably under considerable
  pressure.  So they used empirical methods to overcome the
  inconsistencies they did not understand.  I do not think that
  one should blame them.  For all practical purposes Einstein's
  Theory is based on empirical ad hoc equations that were
  designed to save the ether theory from the Michelson-Morley
  experiment.  The ballistic theory explains the results of
  that experiment in a simple manner without any ad hoc
  assumptions.  They had a precedent in the fact that the
  Duncombe empirical corrections were already used to correct
  similar variations in the optical data when all the
  calculations were based on c.  The only real difference is
  the higher accuracy of the radar measurements made the
  inconsistencies more obvious.
     Shapiro has already shown an interest in collaborating in
  a full analysis of the relative velocity of light in space.
  Considering the resources and capability of the MIT Lincoln
  Lab group, they would be the ideal ones to conduct this
  investigation.  It would be great if it were possible for you
  to persuade them to do this.

In Hollingsworth's reply of 7 November, he wrote that there were
a number of reasons why it is impossible for him to persuade Dr.
Shapiro or other Lincoln Laboratory people to prove that the
velocity of light in space can be measured as anything else than
a constant value c, and that he I looked forward to talking with
me when I would be in Boston that December.  In my letter to
Shapiro of 5 December, I wrote:

     I received another letter from Hollingsworth.  He is
  looking forward to talking to me on this during the week I
  will be in Boston.  I am going to try and get him to
  recommend to the Air Force that they finance a full c+v
  investigation.  Would you be interested in heading this
  investigation?  This sort of thing is just not my cup of tea.
  Of course, I would be available to help in case there were
  any difficulties.

Shapiro's reply of 9 December 1969 states that he was at present
too much occupied with university matters to direct any large-
scale investigation.  When I attended the AAAS meeting in Boston
that December, Hollingsworth drove through a snow storm to meet
with me in my hotel room.  It was a long and interesting meeting
that lasted for about four hours.  I found him to be far more
reasonable in person than he had been in his correspondence.  I
had brought with me copies of all the referenced articles, as
well as a copies of correspondence with scientists on this matter
from around the world.  Hollingsworth admitted that while the
Lab's published center value for the astronomical unit had stayed
virtually unchanged, the graphed individual values ranged over
thousands of kilometers, and that the variations were related to
the relative velocities.  He also admitted that the data I wanted
existed, but he refused to release it without Shapiro's
permission.  I now suspect that he was just giving me the run
around and the real reason he would not release the data was
military secrecy.
   I now think that it is most probable that the Soviet military
is not involved in the speed of light coverup, and that the main
force behind the coverup is the US military "Star Wars"
adventure.  The many conversations and the evidence of text books
that were little more than translations of US text books, that I
saw during my visit to the USSR in 1989, seemed to show that the
dominant trends of Soviet physics and astronomy, are little more
than copies of their US counterparts.  Then there was my
conversation with the young man with the long nose and fancy
suit, that came to sit beside me during the Pulkovo Observatory
conference.  He asked for information with regard to the articles
I had published in regard to this matter.  When I told him I
would be glad to send him reprints, he stated that his
institution had a very extensive library that contained all the
western journals, and he only needed the journal names, dates,
etc.  He seemed genuinely concerned about the fact that he had
not heard these arguments before.  Svetlana told me that he
worked at an small elite institution in Moscow, and that the
people working there were high paid, and she did not know what
work was done at the institution.  I suspect that the work
involves the Soviet military, and they are about to find that
they had been duped with regard to this matter.
   Actually it is easy to see how this was done, the (2) equation
of my 1969 paper shows the radar evaluated c+v Newtonian distance
to the planet to be D = t(c+v)/2 - tv/2 = tc/2 for the time the
beam returns to the transmitter.  The fact that the +v in the
first term which is related to the motion of the photon relative
to the transmitter, can be canceled by the -v of the second term
which is related to the motion of the target relative to the
transmitter, presents the illusion that the combined term of tc/2
is relativistic in the Einstein relativity c sense.  But the true
Einstein c equation for the distance to the target at the time
the beam returns to the transmitter is D = tc/2 - tv/2, and the
two equations differ in magnitude by the second term of tv/2.
Dr. T. D. Moyer of the JPL, in his 1981 Celestial Mechanics
paper[36] evaluates the distance at the time the signal returns
to the transmitter, does not include the -tv/2 term that would
make the evaluation relativistic in the Einstein c sense, renames
the terms and rearranges the equations, adds the smaller
corrections due to time dilation, gravity, and the troposphere
and charged particles in the beam path, and correctly identifies
his major term as the Newtonian light time.  What Moyer does not
do is clearly explain the enormous implications of his
mathematics, or explain how the transit time of light signals in
the solar system is the ultimate test of the Einstein wave in
ether c model and the Newtonian particle c+v model of light.  The
fact that he does not present an analysis that compares the
results of the c and c+v models tends to maintain the illusion
that there is nothing wrong with the Einstein general relativity
model!  I have sent Moyer reprints of the articles I've published
that present the argument that his mathematics is relativistic in
the c+v sense, and he has not chosen to rebut this argument
either by correspondence or publication.  Moyer's sin is the sin
of omission, he has not lied, but has simply refused to present
the full truth.  Of course, a half truth that presents the
illusion of a lie, is for all intents and purposes, a lie.
   In my 1969 paper[18] I quote Shapiro as stating "If the theory
is wrong, the values of the parameters will usually be selected
from the data in a manner that tends to cover up the inadequacies
of the theory", so you see, even Shapiro does not state outright
lies, if you carefully read everything he has published on this
matter, he only presents the illusion of a lie.  But the funding
for all this research comes from the US Department of Defense,
and they have strict control over all information that results
from research that they fund.  So one of the questions one could
ask is it wrong for a scientist to publish the illusion of a lie
to preserve a military secret?  Years ago I worked on top secret
defense work, and this sounds like a classic case of how the
system works.  All top secret information is handled on a need to
know basis, it does not matter how high a position you hold, if
you do not have a need to know the information in order to help
you in your work, you cannot obtain access to that information.
This would also tend to explain Shapiro's refusal to challenge my
arguments published in journals or presented at meetings, it is a
federal crime to confirm or deny top secret information, even if
it is published in journals or newspapers.  In an expansion of
the military secret argument, a recent article[75] titled THE
BIRTH OF THE LASER states on page 27:

    In July 1958 Townes applied to the Air Force Office of
  Scientific Research for funds to initiate work on a potassium
  laser at the Columbia Radiation Laboratory.

and on page 28:

    One agency TRG approached was the Advanced Projects
  Research Agency, which had been set up after Sputnik in the
  secretariat of the Department of Defense and oriented in 1959
  toward exploration of innovative weapons technologies.  ARPA,
  which had more money than it could easily spend, proved a
  good choice:  TRG made a request for $300 000 but ARPA, which
  was interested, inter alia, in the possibility of beam
  weapons, awarded it a $999 000 contract for a secret program
  leading to operating lasers.

and on page 32 we find:

  The high energy density in a laser beam interested ARPA,
  which was then investigating every plausible scheme for anti-
  missile defense.

In a current article[76] titled HOW THE MILITARY RESPONDED TO THE
LASER, on page 36 we find:

  "I feel as do others here that the LASER may be the biggest
  breakthrough in the weapons area since the atomic bomb."
  This statement, made in 1962 in a letter by Major General
  August Schomburg, head of the Army Ordnance Missile Command,
  reflected an attitude that was pervasive in the military in
  the first years after the birth of the laser.

and further on page 36 we find:

  By forcing a change from small to big science, from academic
  to in-house and contract laboratories and from open research
  to classified development, military interest in the laser
  transformed the nature of laser research and development.

on page 37 we find the paragraph:

     The laser offered a coherent, directed, concentrated beam
  of light that promised to realize an ancient dream,
  epitomized in Archimedes's idea to attack the Roman fleet at
  Syracuse by using mirrors and lenses to focus burning solar
  rays on ships at sea.  Science fiction's preoccupation with
  burning "death rays" added modern sanction to the ancient
  dream.  The Soviet Union's large boosters, which lofted
  Sputnik and the first cosmonauts into space and might equally
  well launch warheads, provided suitable targets for the rays.
  The promise of beam weapons enhanced the services' interest
  in lasers and launched a number of industry and service
  research programs that transcended the interest in laser
  ranging, communication and detection.

on page 38 we find the statement:

  "Defense at the speed of light!" became a rallying cry for
  the military-industrial complex.

As an example of military secrecy with regard to lasers, or
anything connected to them such as the relative velocity of light
in space, I present the following taken from the front of an
article[135] titled "Incident over SPIE papers muddies scientific
secrecy issue":

  Just when it seemed the furor over Defense Department
  restrictions on certain scientific papers had been quelled, the
  situation flared up again.  The fracas this time involved an
  international symposium of the Society of Photo-Optical
  Instrumentation Engineering (SPIE) meeting in Arlington,
  Virginia, on 8-12 April.  Two weeks before the meeting, DOD
  informed SPIE officials that 20% of the 219 scheduled papers
  could not be presented, even in a "controlled" session.  Until
  then, SPIE organizers were so confident the reports of work
  done under military contracts had been cleared by the DOD that
  titles, and in some cases abstracts, were printed in the
  program.  But it turned out that some authors had failed to
  follow all the Pentagon procedures for clearing their papers
  and others were unaware of the new authority that Congress had
  provided in the 1984 Defense Authorization Act to deny public
  access to technical data under DOD control that are judged to
  possess military or space applications of use to the Soviet
  Union and its Warsaw Pact neighbors.
     About 100 papers were submitted to DOD for clearance.  Of
  these, 45 raised security problems.  On closer reading, DOD
  reviewers decided that 16 papers, most by defense scientists,
  contained classified information and another 6, by scientists
  at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, required special releases
  for foreign disclosure.  What's more, presentation of the other
  papers at an open session, DOD officials argued, would violate
  US export controls.
     `Star Wars' connection.  Most of the papers had originally
  been scheduled for a classified session on synthetic aperture
  optical systems and laser beams to be held at the Naval
  Research Laboratory, across the Potomac River from the main
  SPIE meeting.  Another SPIE session on adaptive optics was set
  for the Corps of Engineers offices in nearby Alexandria,
  Virginia.  It came off without a hitch.  Although these fields
  are important to astronomy, most applications are military,
  dealing with high-energy laser optics and space surveillance
  that could benefit the Strategic Defense Initiative, more
  commonly known as the "Star Wars" program.

   Current documentation of the nature of this coverup was
published in a news article[77] titled Reactors in Space Threaten
High-Energy Astronomy.  In 1976 satellites started to record
very-high energy radiation.  Then in 1979 a NASA scientist
received a call from the military saying the information was
classified and not to be published.  Amid growing discontent at
NASA, the classification was lifted last August.  It turns out
that the radiation that had hampered US high-energy astronomy
programs and even damaged some detectors was from the nuclear
reactors powering Soviet spy satellites, and the Soviets
obviously know of the problem because their current detectors
will orbit far above the interference.
   With regard to USSR military laser research, there is an
interesting paragraph in a recent article[78] titled US
PHYSICISTS PAY FIRST VISIT TO CHERNOGILOVKA SOLID STATE INSTITUTE
on page 74 as follows:

  The invitation to visit the Institute for Solid State Physics
  came after the conference had begun in Moscow, and on 2 June
  the ten US participants piled into a bus and were driven by a
  somewhat circuitous route to a spot about 50 km east-
  northeast of Moscow.  The standard explanation for why no
  previous visit by Westerners had been allowed was that
  Chernogolovka is situated in the first ring of ballistic-
  missile defenses that surround Moscow.  Another explanation
  was that an institute doing work on high-power chemical
  lasers may be situated at Chernogolovka.

on page 76 is the paragraph:

     The group also was impressed, more generally, by the
  freedom with which their Soviet counterparts talked about
  politics and expressed critical opinions in public.  "Most
  striking...is the new freedom of people to know and speak the
  truth.  For us, this removes several layers of barriers in
  our relationship with Soviet scientists," Worlock observed.

There is a possibility that the Soviet military is aware of the
exact nature of the relative velocity of light in space.  The
American Institute of Physics publishes translation journals of
the major Soviet journals, and some of these journals are carried
by the University of South Florida Library in nearby Tampa.  One
finds many hints to the fact that Einstein's general relativity
does not give a proper explanation to the transit of light
signals in the solar system.  For example, in the abstract of an
article[79] titled "Measurements of delay time and Doppler
correction in radar observations of Venus in 1975", we find:


  It is shown that the discrepancies between the actual
  position of Venus and the position calculated on the basis of
  the existing theory of motion of the planets at different
  inferior conjunctions have different characters.

The concluding sentences of the article state:

  An analysis of the data presented shows that the differences
  between the measured and calculated delay times have
  different dependence on the time in the different
  conjunctions and reach 3500 microseconds, which when
  converted to the distance from the earth to Venus comprises
  500 km.  The presence of such errors in the prediction of the
  position of Venus relative to the earth on the basis of the
  existing theory of motion of the planets in the absence of
  radar measurements could hinder considerably the successful
  performance of the terminal stages of flights of automatic
  interplanetary stations to Venus, landing on its surface, and
  the insertion of artificial satellites of Venus.

Along with my campaign to discredit QCD that I mentioned in
Chapter 2, I've also been involved in a campaign to discredit
"Star Wars."  As part of this effort I published the following
letter[31] titled "Directed-energy weapons":

  At the 1981 APS Spring Meeting, we had a Symposium of the Forum
  on Physics and Society on directed-energy weapons that was
  filmed by the BBC for a documentary on the arms race.  The
  first speaker, Douglas T. Tanimoto of the Defense Advanced
  Research Projects Agency, showed a film of a propeller-driven
  dark red drone plane that was destroyed by an infrared laser
  that focused on it for a period of several seconds as it slowly
  circled at a relatively close distance.  I asked Tanimoto if it
  was not cheating to use a close, slow-moving, dark red drone to
  simulate a large number of fast-moving, distant, polished metal
  targets, and he admitted that it was cheating "a little."  The
  last speaker, Kosta Tsipis of MIT, presented conclusive
  evidence that the technology needed to develop effective ABM
  Directed Energy Weapons did not now, and probably never would
  exist!
     At the 1982 Spring meeting, I attended the APS Council
  Meeting and learned that they intended to hold off on taking a
  stand on the nuclear freeze issue until after hearing the
  results from the Forum Symposiums on this question.  One of the
  Forum speakers, Hans Bethe, gave a talk that showed beyond a
  reasonable doubt that the US was the aggressor in the nuclear
  arms race and that the Russians have been desperately trying to
  catch up!  At the final Forum meeting I called for a vote on
  the question of a nuclear freeze, and there was almost a 100%
  show of hands!
     At the 1983 Spring meeting, George A. Keyworth II, President
  Reagan's science adviser and the director of the Office of
  Science and Technology Policy, gave a talk in which he asked
  for help from the physics community to develop the technology
  for future antiballistic missile systems.  I was the first to
  comment on his talk, and I argued that development of these
  types of weapons would expand the arms race and bankrupt the
  economy!  The loud applause in support of my argument left
  little question that a large majority of the physicists have
  had enough of the arms race and would not support the
  development of Reagan's "Star Wars" weapons.

   In my local newspaper there was also a 2/3/91 article titled
NASA scientist to speak at SPJC, and the content of the article
was as follows:

     The man who headed NASA's planetary astronomy program for
  almost 20 years will speak on future Venus and Mars missions
  Wednesday at the St. Petersburg Junior College's St. Petersburg
  campus.
     Dr. William E. Brunk directed the programs from 1964 through
  1982.  He was also program scientist for the Voyager mission to
  the outer planets.  He retired from NASA in 1985.
     Brunk will appear as a Harlow Shapely Lecturer of the
  American Astronomical Society.  The speech, open to the public,
  begins at 7:30 p.m. in the Lynch Auditorium, 6605 Fifth Ave. N.

I went to Brunk's speech, and during the questions and answer
period, asked Brunk the following question:


  Considering the importance of the wave-particle paradox of
  light in modern physics, I am surprised by the lack of
  scientific objectivity and integrity of the concerned NASA
  scientists on the question of the relative velocity of light in
  the solar system.  My 1969 published analysis of the first
  published Venus radar contact data showed that the best fit to
  the data was for the Newtonian c+v particle model, and not the
  Einstein general relativity c wave model.  The equations in T.
  D. Moyer's JPL NASA 1981 Celestial Mechanics journal article
  were based on the c+v particle model, and Moyer called the main
  term the Newtonian light time, yet the lack of emphasis of the
  importance of this fact, means that the average person does not
  know of the overwhelming evidence against the Einstein special
  and general relativity theories. What is your comment on this
  matter?

Brunk's answer was that the analysis of the data and publication
of the results, was the responsibility of the individual involved
scientists, and that NASA was only the bus driver.  I suspect
that when the final history of science in the 20th century will
be written, NASA's greatest blunder will be considered to be the
lack of objectivity and integrity on the question of the relative
velocity of light in space, and not the 1986 Challenger space
shuttle explosion, or the flawed mirror on the $1.5-billion
Hubble Space Telescope!
Chapter 6

                      Relativity Revolution

   There is an interesting article[80] titled SOVIET SCIENTISTS
TELL IT LIKE IT IS, URGING REFORMS OF RESEARCH INSTITUTES, that
starts as follows:

  A specter is haunting the Soviet Unionƒƒthe modernization of
  virtually every part of Soviet society.  The Russian
  catchword for this is perestroika, which translates as
  "restructuring" or "reform."  The concept has been described
  in recent books and statements by General Secretary Mikhail
  S. Gorbachev and by his favorite economist, Abel G.
  Aganbegyan, who is director of the economics section of the
  Soviet Academy of Sciences.  Its implications for science and
  technology in the Soviet Union, observes Loren Graham, a
  longtime MIT history of science professor, "are as sweeping
  as anything undertaken by Peter the Great or Lenin.  Like
  those historic figures, Gorbachev hungers to improve the
  country's science and technology.  All of them realized that
  if significant advances weren't made, the country would be
  left permanently behind."
    Gorbachev's program, which combines perestroika with
  glasnost, or "openness," already has gone further than the
  revisions another Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, tried to
  introduce 30 years ago.


on page 98 we find the statement:

  Accordingly, say US observers of Soviet science such as MIT's
  Graham, the obvious aim of perestroika is to remove the heavy
  hand of the bureaucratic old guard, to "democratize" the
  scientific establishment and to restructure basic research by
  strengthening a diversity of disciplines and making these
  more relevant to industry.  This is also the message
  delivered in Sagdeev's essay in the current Issues in Science
  and Technology, a quarterly journal published by the US
  National Academies of Sciences and of Engineering.  In it,
  Sagdeev calls for breaking up many of the research institutes
  that he labels "bureaucratic dinosaurs" into smaller, more
  flexible and more responsive operations, declassifying much
  of the research that the Kremlin still considers militarily
  significant and relaxing restrictions on international
  scientific cooperation.

and on page 99 the article closes with the following paragraph:

    Indeed, says another Carnegie Endowment senior analyst,
  Andrew Nagorski, Soviet science is compartmentalized, "so
  that military applications get first call and the civilian
  economy is left to rot.  The Soviet Union is a military
  superpower, but not an economic superpower."  It is somewhat
  ironic, he observes, that in order to save his science
  establishment, Gorbachev must first buck it.

   In October of 1987, I received a registered letter from a Dr.
Vladimir Ilich Sekerin of the Russian science city of
Novosibirsk.  The translation of the letter by Drs. William &
Vivian Parsons of Eckerd College states that he knew several of
my works, including the work on the radar location of Venus.
Just as I did, he also computed that the speed of light in a
vacuum from a moving source is equal to c+v, and he included a
copy of his article "Gnosiological Peculiarities in the
Interpretation of Observations (For example the Observation of
Double Stars)", in which is cited still one more demonstration of
this proposition.
   In July of 1988, I received a letter, written in English, from
a Dr. Svetlana Tolchelnikova-Murri of Pulkovo Observatory.  In
the letter she said that she got a copy of my paper "Radar
Testing of Relative Velocity of Light in Space" from Dr. Vladimir
Sekerin in Novosibirsk.  It was very interesting to her.  She was
working with Pulkovo Observatory, and her field was astrometry.
She felt that the intrusion of relativistic theories into
fundamental astrometry was quite a failure, that was not yet
comprehended by the majority.  Thanks to PERESTROIKA she was
writing me openly, but their (Pulkovo) Observatory is one of the
outposts of orthodox relativity.  Two scientists were dismissed
because they discovered some facts which contradicted Einstein.
It is not only dangerous to speak against Einstein, but which is
worse it is impossible to publish anything which might be
considered as contradiction to his theory.  It seems the same
situation is true for their Academy.  In February 1989 in
Leningrad, they planned to organize a conference (during two
days) "The Problem of Space and Time in Modern Science."  Its
real goal was hidden under the philosophical covering.  Their
only desire was to publish the results.  There were only 6
reports in a schedule, but the lectors were of a middle (or low)
scientific grade (rank) and now two official participants
philosophers were added by the directors of their institutes.
It was out of her power to invite me, but she could send me
afterwards the copies of the reports in Russian if I was
interested.  She asked if I had ever been to Leningrad?  If not
she thought I should come.  Her friends and her were very
interested in my work after 1969.  Under a separate cover she was
sending me a book with several papers which might be interesting
to me.  In my reply to Svetlana, I sent her reprints of all the
material I had published over the years.  Since her original
letter, I've had an extensive correspondence with Svetlana, and
in a November 1988 letter she wrote that on the 13th of March
1989 during three days there would be a conference in Leningrad
"The Problem of Space and Time in Natural Science" with
participants from other cities of the USSR, and it would be
alright for me or any of my friends from the USA to come to this
conference.  They hoped to invite TV and a journalist in order to
raise the question of scientific ethics in their scientific
community.  The best guarantee that their scientific papers will
be published not in ten or thirty years, but now, will be the
presence of some objective observers or participants from my
country at the conference, and it would be easier for them not to
use Aesopian language.
   In an effort to comply with Svetlana's request to bring
western scientists and journalists to the conference, I used my
personal copy machine, computer, and daisy wheel printer to send
a 4 page personal letter to 23 journalists and 43 scientists,
along with a copy of her letter that contained the conference
invitation and information.  The following is a sampling of some
of the replies: Paul C. Tash, the Metropolitan Editor of the
local newspaper, the St. Petersburg Times wrote that
unfortunately, circumstances did not permit them to accept our
offer.  However, if there should be developments at the
conference that I considered newsworthy, please contact their
reporter David Ballingrud, who covers science and aerospace;
Walter Sullivan of The New York Times, whom I mentioned earlier
in Chapter 4, wrote that he had not been to Pulkovo for many
years and would love to return, but is retired now and could not
justify the trip;  Dr. David Lazarus, the Editor-in-Chief of The
American Physical Society wrote he was sorry not to be able to
accept our invitation to attend your upcoming meeting in the
USSR.  It might be enjoyable as well as enlightening.  In his
role as Editor-in-Chief, however, he must constrain himself to a
totally hands-off or arm's-length posture regarding any field of
research;  Dr. Jean Pierre Vigier of the Institut Henri PoincarÇ
in France, wrote that in his present situation it is absolutely
impossible for him to attend the Pulkovo Conference unless he
received an official invitation, which is also necessary to
obtain a Soviet visa and raise the travel expenses.  He has
always had his doubts on Prof. Shapiro's observations and would
appreciate a discussion on the radar experiments.  The Sekerin
results were unknown to the experts in Paris and he hoped I can
inform them after my trip to Leningrad.  If I or some soviet
observer has new significant results on our problem he would be
happy to consider them for publication in Physics Letters A of
which he was an Editor;  Dr. Louis Essen of England, whom I
mentioned in Chapter 2, wrote that it would have been interesting
to attend the meeting at Pulkova Observatory - which he visited a
long time ago, but health problems prevent him from travelling -
quite apart from the expense.  He hoped that Svetlana and I did
not expect too much from the meeting.  Many criticisms of
relativity theory have been published without having any effect
on the Establishment, showing that publication is not enough.
Indeed the more the theory is criticized the more strident the
support is maintained - a common feature of all irrational
beliefs.  He had heard a former Director from there give a paper
in which he showed that a careful analyses of the 1915 eclipse
results did not support Eddington's claim, on the Relativity
Theory.
  In her letter of 2/12/89 Svetlana wrote that if 1/5 of the
people I had invited will come it would cost her head.  During my
visit I learned that the Observatory had received a large number
of letters from western scientists, that expressed dismay over
the fact that such a conference was being held.  I now know that
the ease of which I obtained my Visa was the exception and not
the rule.  It seems that my visit was sponsored by the Academy of
Sciences of the USSR, and since it was an unusual Visa, no one at
the Observatory knew how to handle it, in particular, Svetlana
could not determine where or if I needed to register my arrival
at my destination.   The only one I found to accompany me to the
conference was Robert Fritzius of the Magnolia Scientific
Research Group at Starkville Mississippi.  Even though Svetlana
sent him a personal invitation to the conference, and told him he
could stay at the guest quarters at the Observatory, he was
forced to get his Visa thru Intourist which cost him an extra
$200, and he had to stay at the Moscow Hotel in Leningrad which
cost an additional $1000.
   Robert kept an extensive log that contained intimate details
of the trip, and he sent me a copy of it.  He intended to use the
log to help him translate the papers and other information that
came from the conference.  He translated the original c+v double
star paper Vladimir Sekerin sent me in 1987, and has now also
finished the translation of Vladimir's book.  I found from his
log, that with regard to his Visa, he was registered
automatically when he arrived at the hotel, and that the
Intourist person kept his passport and Visa for the first night.
He had to obtain his room key from a lady in charge of his floor
to enter his room, and he had to return the key to her when he
left his room.  In contrast to Robert, I stayed in Svetlana's
daughter's room in her flat at the Observatory.  Her daughter was
14 years old and her name was Katja, and she had pictures of
Western and Eastern rock music stars on the walls.
   I brought my 35mm SLR Pentax camera with me along with 3 rolls
of 36 exposure Kodak Ektachrome 400 slide film, so I now have 108
very nice slides of the tours thru the Hermitage museum,
St.Isaac's Cathedral, a famous cemetery, all the speakers at the
conference, radio and optical telescopes and related equipment at
the Observatory, meals and meetings at different homes, etc.
During my visit I had many intimate conversations with regard to
just about any subject of interest from politics to science, and
in several conversations with people who seemed to have intimate
knowledge of what was happening behind the scenes, I learned that
my correspondence with Svetlana was being monitored and that
Gorbachev had read Vladimir's book STUDIES INTO THE THEORY OF
RELATIVITY, and it was his references to my published papers that
had lead to my unusual Visa.  I told Svetlana that I believed
that we were pawns in a larger game that concerned Gorbachev's
interest in stopping "Star Wars" and the nuclear arms race, and
that revealing intimate knowledge of the c+v relative velocity of
light in space and military secrecy with this regard, were all
elements of this game.  Svetlana was unhappy at the prospect of
being a pawn, and would have preferred to have the illusion of
freedom, but I on the other hand, am happy to be a pawn, just as
long as the game moves in the direction I wish it to go.
   The fact that our correspondence had been monitored was
obvious.  I have observed the wrinkled appearance of the sealed
parts of the envelopes, the gloss of the resealing glue, as well
as the erratic arrival times of our air mail letters.  The
surveillance of our mail had caused a major communication
problem, for instance Robert called the Director Dr. Victor
Abalakin, and was told there was no March conference at the
Observatory.  Since I had not heard from Svetlana for some time,
I called Abalakin and he said the same thing, but added the
suggestion that perhaps it was being sponsored by some other
scientific society in Leningrad.  Abalakin said he would have
someone meet me at the airport, and asked if I would contact Dr.
J. Lieske at the Jet Propulsion Lab for him.  I managed to
contact Lieske at a different number than the one Abalakin had
given me, and he was surprised to find it was a simple matter to
call the USSR, he thought that you had to obtain permission from
the KGB.  The main problem with calling the USSR is the fact that
the lines tend to be very busy, the best time I had found to
place a call turned out to be around 5:30 AM, and I suggested to
Lieske, that because of the larger time difference in California,
the best time for him would probably be around 1:00 AM.
   On 2/1/89 I received 3 letters from Svetlana dated from
11/17/88 to 1/15/89, which tends to illustrate the erratic nature
of our airmail correspondence.  One letter contained a New Years
card that had about 20 signatures of people from around 5
different scientific organizations in Leningrad, another letter
contained 3 postcards, with one card showing the building where
the conference was to take place, the Leningrad Academy of
Sciences which was built in 1873, on the card Svetlana said that
they hoped to organize two lectures for me to deliver, one at the
Academy of Civil Aviation, and the other at the Institute of the
History of Science.  On 2/14/89 I wrote Svetlana of my change in
travel plans, I was to arrive on an Air France flight from Paris
at 3:45 PM instead of the Aeroflot flight from Moscow at 4:20 PM.
She did not received that letter by the time I arrived on March
10, and she was waiting at the wrong building.  Prof. Pavel F.
Parshin, the Chief of the Department of Physics at the Aeroflot
Academy of Civil Aviation, showed up looking for Robert, and
found me instead.  Both Robert and I had arrived on the same
plane, and Intourist had already taken him to his hotel.
Svetlana turned out to be a pleasant looking 52 year old woman
with light red hair, and she greeted me as her soulmate from the
USA.  We drove to her flat at the Observatory, and had a very
elaborate dinner, that was prepared by two of Svetlana's male
associates, and included champagne to celebrate my arrival.  One
of the men fixing the dinner was Dr. Konstantin Manuilov, and he
gave a talk at the conference that was based on his solution to
the n-body problem based on Newtonian mechanics.  We were quickly
on a first name basis, and because of my poor memory, many of the
names, conversations, and events that took place during the visit
were a blur.
   The next day, which was a Saturday, Robert and myself along
with Vladimir Sekerin and his wife Lydia went to visit Pavel and
his wife and son in their apartment in Leningrad.  Robert had a
number of questions concerning his effort to translate Vladimir's
book, then we had in depth discussions about Pavel's work
concerning a modern variation of the Ive's experiment, it seems
that while he was able to publish the details of the experiment
and the resultant data in a prominent USSR scientific journal, he
was not able to publish his theoretical analysis because it was
not consistent with Einstein's special relativity theory. We had
a very elaborate dinner followed by cognac and more discussions.
   The following day, which was a Sunday, Svetlana and Katja,
took Robert, Vladimir, Lydia, and myself on a tour of Leningrad.
We visited a cemetery across the street from the hotel where many
prominent people were buried, than a Russian Orthodox church
service where Svetlana, Katja, and I lit candles, then we went to
the Hermitage Museum.  The Hermitage was a fabulous place with
over a thousand rooms, it would have taken days to visit all of
them, one of the pictures taken was of me standing next to a
portrait of my ancestor Oliver Cromwell.  After that we had
coffee and filled pastry at a Russian version of a fast food
restaurant, and then paid a visit to the Victory Square War
Memorial and Museum dedicated to the World War II 900 day siege
of Leningrad.  That night Svetlana, Katja, Robert, and myself had
dinner at an apartment built during the Khrushchev era which was
the home of one of Svetlana's younger friends, a woman whose
husband was a geophysicist working with marine gravity
measurements, and who had a daughter the same age as Katja.
   The next day was a Monday, and  Svetlana took me to pay an
official visit to the Observatory's front office.  The only
problem was that all the top officials had flown to Moscow, and
there was no one in charge of the Observatory???  Svetlana
arranged to have an Observatory van and driver for us to use, and
then we made a trip to Leningrad to pickup a young woman
physicist named Olga who was to serve as an interpreter for my
lecture that afternoon.  She was given a copy of my famous 1969
"RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE" paper
to familiarize her with the terms I would use in the lecture, and
as we drove along, she was reading the paper and said "this is
madness I can't be reading this, I must be going mad."  That
morning we visited St.Isaac's Cathedral, an unbelievable place,
then we paid a visit to a respected elder scientist, Dr. S. A.
Bazilevsky, who had been unable to publish anti-relativity papers
during his career.  He knew of my 1969 paper and wanted to meet
me, and during our meeting he handed me a carbon copy of one of
his unpublished papers.  One of Svetlana's friends read a paper
of his during the conference, and my 1969 paper was referenced
and it caused quite a stir.  After the visit, we went to the
House of Scientists, a large palace that was still in the process
of restoration, and I delivered my lecture which dealt for the
most part, with the philosophy and history behind Einstein's
relativity theories.  The lecture was well received, with many
comments and questions, and afterwards we went into another room
and attended a banquet in which Robert and I were the guests of
honor.  The banquet ended with two bottles of cognac, and many
toasts, it was a wonderful experience.
   The next day was Tuesday March 14, the 110th. anniversary of
Einstein's birth, and the new starting date of the conference,
which was now being held in a lecture hall at Pulkovo
Observatory.  At the entrance to the hall, Svetlana had set up a
poster display containing a drawing of a dragon and the earth,
and a number of humorous satirical poems and arguments, and
beneath the poster she put a copy of the article "RELATIVITY -
joke or swindle?" which was published by the prominent English
physicist Dr. Louis Essen.[70]  The Director of the  Observatory
flew in from Moscow to deliver the opening address, and then flew
back to Moscow.  Svetlana introduced me to the Director before
the conference started, and he laughed when I told him what
Lieske had said about the KGB.  Abalakin said that shortly after
my call to Lieske, Lieske had called him.  Svetlana was surprised
by the objective tone of Abalakin's speech.  Before he had become
the Director, he had been an anti-relativist, then after he
obtained the position, he switched camps and became a relativist,
and even won a state prize for introducing relativity into
celestial mechanics.   Also under his administration, two of the
other woman anti-relativists had been forced into early
retirement, and now it seems that position has been reversed, and
they are back at work.
   A humorous twist to the conference was the fact that some of
the relativists at the conference complained that they were being
persecuted.  A number of relativists withdrew their papers, and
that changed the length of the conference from 3 to 2 days.
Because of the many changes that had taken place, the printed
program was no longer valid, and due to the lack of a copy
machine at the Observatory, I was unable to match speakers and
papers with my slides, but Svetlana later sent me an updated
program so I could do so.  During the afternoon session, Svetlana
delivered her talk concerning her anti-relativistic views with
regard to positional astronomy.  Svetlana's talk was followed by
Vladimir's talk presenting the binary star evidence showing the
speed of light in space was c+v.  That night there was a meeting
of the conference committee.  It was decided that Robert and
myself would become members of the committee and that there would
be another conference to be held in Leningrad two years later.  I
suggested, and it was accepted that Dr. H. Aspden of England, Dr.
J. P. Vigier of France, and Dr. J. P. Wesley of West Germany be
invited to become members of the committee.  I told the committee
that Vigier was a member of the Institute Henri PoincarÇ in Paris
and an editor of Physics Letters A.  I also said that in his
reply to my letter in regard to the conference, he had expressed
an interest in the results from the conference, and suggested
that participants submit papers to him for possible publication
in his journal.  Svetlana announced that V. N. Bezwerchy had
contacted her and offered to publish the proceedings of the
conference.  I had talked with Bezwerchy a number of times during
my visit, he was an interesting fellow and he seemed to have a
great deal of inside information with regard to political and
scientific matters in the USSR.  I suggested that we consider
publishing the proceedings in English as well as Russian, and it
was agreed to investigate that possibility.
   The following day was Wednesday, and my talk was the last one
of the morning session and Svetlana served as the translator.  I
used overhead projector slides for illustration and to help
prompt me, since I did not have a prepared text, and the title of
the talk was "The Problem of Space and Time in Modern Physics."
Robert's log with his notes on the lecture allowed me to create a
written version which was to be published in the conference
proceedings.  The talk was based on the arguments and information
in my paper[71] "THE GREAT SPEED OF LIGHT IN SPACE COVERUP" and
the followup paper[32] "SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM" which was in part a
reply to I.Shapiro's reply[72] to the first paper.  One of the
many interesting comments and questions that followed the talk,
was where a participant asked me to summarize my opinions with
regard to relativity theory.  I stated that the special
relativity first postulate with regard to detection of
translatory motion, was obviously false, and referenced
Einstein's former research associate's argument in this
regard.[73]  I went on to state that any reasonably objective
physicist should realize that the ultimate test of the second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant, is to
analyze the modern data on the transit times of light signals in
the solar system, and this evidence shows beyond a shadow of a
reasonable doubt that the postulate is also obviously false, and
I cited my above arguments in this regard.  I also mentioned that
the prominent British astronomer Dr. G. C. McVittie in both
publication and correspondence has indicated that he has had the
same sort of problem in trying to obtain meaningful information
from Shapiro, and in a 1970 letter writes that the secrecy with
which Shapiro surrounds his methods and his observational results
makes him wonder whether there is something to be concealed.  In
McVittie's paper, he points out the fact that:

  in the Einsteinian theory of gravitation, an exact solution for
  the gravitational field of a set of discrete bodies is possible
  only when one of the bodies is of finite mass whereas the rest
  are of infinitesimally small mass.  This is in contrast to the
  Newtonian theory of gravitation in which an exact solution for
  the field of two massive bodies is possible, complications
  arising only when three or more bodies are in question...[81]

The fact that Moyer's equation (3) is the "Newtonian"
approximation to the n-body metric, should be considered as
evidence against Einstein's general relativity equivalence
principle.[36]  On the other hand, Dr. J. C. Hafele and Dr. R. E.
Keating have used commercial jet flights and atomic clocks to
present convincing empirical evidence that tends to resolve the
relativistic clock "paradox", and they found that the
relativistic dilation of time was a function of the clock's speed
relative to an absolute coordinate system at rest relative to the
distant galaxies.[74]  I certainly have no problem with E=mc2
since the atomic bomb is ample evidence that it is true.  So in
general, much of relativity theory is true, but many of the
original arguments are not.  The real problem with modern science
is the lack of scientific objectivity and integrity on the part
of many prominent scientists, they are little more than
politicians, and are far more concerned with the advancement of
their careers and status, then the advancement of science.  What
is needed are true scientific journals that publish all arguments
and evidence in a reasonable period of time and at a modest cost.
The peer review should take place after publication, and should
involve all scientists, and not just a privileged few.  The key
to the more rapid advancement of scientific knowledge, is a more
efficient and democratic forum for communication.
   On Thursday, the last day of my visit, I had a tape recorded
interview by a newspaper correspondent from the Soviet science
city of Tomsk.  He was surprised to find that I considered the
most important man alive today to be Gorbachev.  I explained that
his efforts to end the arms race would result in a much safer
world, and would bring vast economic benefits to both the US and
the USSR.  Science would also benefit from the end of the arms
race, since military secrets invariably involve scientific
knowledge.  A major element in the c+v speed of light in space
coverup may have been the military interest in using the laser as
a "Star Wars" weapon.
   After the interview I asked Svetlana if I could take a picture
of the large 26" refractor telescope.  She explained that this
was hard to do since the administration did not like to show off
their equipment to visitors.  She asked her friend Dr. Alexandra
Schpitalnaya, one of the reinstated anti-relativitists, to try
and show me the telescope while she fixed our final lunch.
Alexandra took me to the building where the keys are kept, and
the woman in charge of the keys refused to give them to her, then
Alexandra made a phone call, and a short while latter a man ran
down a large hallway, signed out the keys, and gave them to
Alexandra.  After a fast tour of the radio and optical
telescopes, museum, and library, we returned to Svetlana's, and
found that Katja and her friend Anna had baked me a cake with
"For Your" written on top.  At the airport Svetlana said we would
say goodbye in the Russian way, so we hugged and kissed each
other's cheeks.  As the plane flew into the low lying clouds, my
last view was of the large dome of the 26" telescope at the
Pulkova Observatory, a fitting end to my wonderful visit to the
USSR.
   On my return to the US, the first thing I did was to use the
copy of Roberts notes which he sent me, to generate a paper
concerning my invited talk at the conference.  Then I sent the
paper to Svetlana, so that it could be published in the
conference proceedings.  The next thing I did was to use a slide
copier to make prints from 36 of the slides, which I then sent to
Svetlana and Robert.  Then I wrote a long letter to Walter
Sullivan concerning my visit to the USSR, and also sent copies of
the letter to other people that I thought would find the trip to
be of interest.  One of the more interesting replies was from Dr.
J. P. Wesley of West Germany, who wrote thanking me for the copy
of my exciting saga to Leningrad letter that I wrote for
Sullivan, he also enclosed a list of individuals who would be
interested in space-time physics.  With regard to Wesley's list,
I received a 4 December 1989 letter from Prof. Jorge C. Cure' of
Miami Florida inviting me to an informal gathering in St.
Petersburg Florida on the 27th of December 1989, to put in
practice the old Greek art of exchanging ideas in friendly
dialogues.  He wrote that due to a strange circumstance the state
of Florida had attracted seven free thinkers, that dared to walk
the lonely path of fundamental inquiries.  It seems that Jorge
had gotten the seven names from Paul's list!   The Florida anti-
relativist conference was held at Lewis House on the Eckerd
College campus, and was sponsored by the Academy of Senior
Professionals, of which one of the participants, Earl C. Sherry,
was a member.  The one day conference was video taped by one of
the participants, Francisco Muller.  My talk was the first one,
and was illustrated with 80 35mm color slides.  The first 40
slides were related to my work concerning radar testing  of the
relative velocity of light in space,[18] and research done at
Eckerd College in collaboration with Prof. Wilbur F. Block and
Prof. Richard A. Rhodes II on H- ions,[82] crossed beam electron-
electron scattering at low energy,[83] and computer simulation of
mass dynamics in electrons.[66]  And the last 40 slides were from
my USSR visit and the Pulkovo conference.  The talk was well
received, with many interesting questions and comments from the
participants.
   In a letter dated 6/4/89 Prof. Pavel Parshin informed me that
a Dr. Fedor A. Morochov intended to publish a paper about my talk
at the Pulkovo conference, and in a letter dated 12/14/89, he
informed me of the increasingly large number of anti-relativistic
works being published in the USSR, including a booklet titled
"Miracles of the Relativistic theory" written by a Supreme Soviet
deputy, Dr. A. A. Denisov from the Leningrad Politechnical
Institute.  Pavel also informed me of the special program
"Mirror" of the Leningrad TV that had a show devoted to an "Is
Einstein right?" discussion, and he suggested that I submit an
entry to the program.  I submitted a six page single spaced
letter on this subject, and included copies of my Scientific
Ethics articles on this question.[32,71]  In a letter dated
3/25/90 Svetlana said that Parshin went to Minsk in early
February 1990, where about 40-50 physicists had a five day anti-
relativistic conference.  In my reply to her of 4/9/90, I wrote:

   I have not heard from Parshin about the February conference,
  but you know how unreliable the mail is, he may have written
  but I have yet to receive it.  The anti-relativistic conference
  sounded exciting, 40-50 physicists, and lasting 5 days!  Very
  good.  It confirms my suspicion that the anti-relativity
  Renaissance will come from the USSR.  I expect that the next 20
  years will see a varietal explosion of science and technology
  coming from Russia.  It would be wonderful if it would lead to
  PERESTROIKA and GLASNOST in science in the US and the rest of
  the world as well.  As you say about the results from the
  conference, there are many different variations of anti-
  relativity theory in the US and other Western countries as
  well.  The important thing, is not that there be a consensus of
  opinions, but that there be a free and democratic right to
  voice and publish opinions, the consensus will come in time.
  And it will be a realistic consensus, and not the unrealistic
  authoritarian consensus we now have with regard to Einstein's
  relativity theories.  Since you now have N.2 of GALILEAN
  ELECTRODYNAMICS you have that conference report.  As I was
  writing this letter, the current copy of Physics Essays
  arrived, and the back of this letter contains a copy of that
  report, and I also enclose a spare copy for you to share.

The reports I referred to in the letter were ones that I had
published on the 1989 Pulkovo conference.[83,84]  I have received
a large correspondence that includes many reprint request from
the GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS article.[84]  One of the letters
came from the Editor of the journal APEIRON, who asked if I
thought any of my contacts in Leningrad would like to see his
journal and that contributions were welcome.  In my letter to him
I wrote that Svetlana is the ring leader of the Leningrad anti-
relativists, and writes and speaks English fairly well, and that
he should write her directly to find out if any of them would
like to subscribe or publish in his journal.  One of the more
interesting replies came from Prof. Howard Hayden of the
Department of Physics of the University of Connecticut.  He
started out by requesting a reprint of my 1969 Venus radar paper,
and then wrote that he did not wish to count himself among the
defenders of relativity theory, but he doubted whether the
discovery that the speed of light isn't constant will
revolutionize much physics.  It may "devastate" a few people, but
not the knowledgeable ones, on the other hand, getting a
physicist to say that the speed of light isn't constant is like
trying to exsanguinate a turnip.  It is somewhat futile to argue
with special relativity theory, primarily because it is
inherently irrefutable.  That is, it is supposed to work only in
inertial frames, which are non-existent.  With regard to General
Relativity he closed with the hope that it will die a slow death
at the hand of Ockham's razor.  I received a 3/15/90 letter from
the editor Prof. Petr Beckmann, who wrote that a Palo Alto
physicist, Dr. Eugene Salamin, had sent a long letter arguing
with the papers published so far in Galilean Electrodynamics.
Concerning my report, Salamin's letter contains the following
paragraph:

     "The report on the Soviet Conference claims there is
  evidence from binary stars that the speed of light in space is
  c+v.  This is totally absurd: after thousands of years
  travelling to earth, the light from the different members of
  the binary systems would get out of phase.  If the c+v theory
  were true, some binary systems would exhibit simultaneous red
  shifts from both members, instead of one member red shifted and
  the other blue shifted."

I sent Beckmann the following 3/19/90 reply:

  Eugene Salamin is correct in arguing "If the c+v theory were
  true, some binary systems would exhibit simultaneous red shift
  from both members, instead of one member red shifted and the
  other blue shifted."  In a classic astronomy textbook136 we find
  following ad hoc c argument to explain this observed phenomena:

    Struve concludes that the gas whirlpools cause the seeming
    discrepancy in the behavior of a few eclipsing binaries which
    long puzzled the investigators.  Where the velocity curve of
    the binary implies an orbit of considerable eccentricity, the
    light curve may require a circular orbit.

  Fox has done an extensive investigation of the supposed
  evidence against the Ritz c+v emission theory68 and with regard
  to binary stars argues:

    There are also some difficulties for Struve's hypothesis.
    The model would seem to have consequences similar to those of
    the Ritz theory.

  The analysis of the transit times of light signals in the solar
  system does not suffer from the same ambiguity as that of the
  binary star data.  With this regard I have recently published67
  the following argument:

    Theodore D. Moyer of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has
    published a paper that reports the methods used to obtain
    accurate values of range observables for radio and radar
    signals in the solar system.  Moyer's (A6) equation and the
    accompanying information that calls for evaluating the
    position vectors at the signal reception time is nearly
    equivalent to the Galilean c+v equation (2) in my paper
    'Radar testing of the relative velocity of light in space.'
    With regard to his equation, Moyer states "The first term on
    the right-hand side is the Newtonian light time" but he does
    not go on to explain the enormous implications of this
    statement.  I sent Moyer a reprint of this paper, and to
    date, he has not seen fit to comment on my argument.

I received a 3/27/90 telephone call from Beckmann, and he asked
many questions with regard to my views on this matter, then he
stated that he may not have sufficient room in his journal for my
reply.  In his publication of Salamin's comments in the May/June
1990 issue, he dropped the above paragraph and did not publish my
reply.  I am not surprised that Beckmann did not accept my answer
for publication since he now realizes that the modern solar
system data presents evidence against his theory that light is a
wave in the gravitational field.
   I found my participation in the 1991 II International
Conference on Space and Time Problems in Natural Sciences to be
an exhilarating experience.  The Conference was convened and
organized by the Leningradian Branch of The Academy of Sciences
of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic which was
created in April of 1991 by the Russian parliament.  The
Conference was held at the 15 story 746 room Leningrad Hotel on
the bank of the Neva river, and the participants stayed and had
meals there as well.  From my hotel room window I could see the
cruiser Aurora that fired the shot to signal workers and sailors
to begin their February 1917 victorious assault on the Winter
Palace.  The Palace has become the Hermitage Museum with more
than 3 million works of art, and it was also visible from my
window, and was only a short walk from the hotel.  The food,
lodging, and Cultural programs were all covered by the $270
registration fee, with the only additional expense being the
optional $50 cost of the Friday Conference Banquet.  The
Conference had a total of 114 participants, with 14 of them from
countries outside the USSR.  The Local Organizing Committee
limited the number of Soviet participants to 100 in order to
maintain a more desirable size for the Conference.  The foreign
participants received an English version of the program that
contained abstracts of the papers to be presented, and the
Soviets received a Russian version.  The program underwent
extensive revision, mainly due to the fact that around 26 of the
expected foreigners did not show up, probably because of fear of
what to expect from the recent Soviet coup attempt and the normal
USSR communications problems.  The participants received a radio
receiver and ear phone that allowed them to receive both Russian
and English simultaneous translations, and a staff of translators
were available for translation of conversations between
individuals and small groups and meetings.  Most of the more
important talks were held in the large Grand Hall, and the talks
that the Local Organizing Committee decided were of lesser
importance were held in the afternoon sessions in two smaller
Halls.  Much of the proceedings were televised, and some of the
participants, including myself, received televised interviews.
   The Conference opened at 9:00 AM on Monday September 16th,
with a welcoming address by Prof. Leonid Maiboroda, the chairman
of the Leningradian Branch of the Academy.  There was a Reception
at 6:00 PM that night, with plenty of fancy food and drink.
   Lee Coe of California, delivered an excellent presentation of
his paper GALILEAN-NEWTONIAN RELATIVITY VERSUS EINSTEINIAN
RELATIVITY at 10:40 AM on the Tuesday Plenary Session in the
Grand Hall.  I was one of the chairmen for the session, and I
could see from the podium that his talk had been televised.  I
told Lee, and he was able to obtain a VHS cassette copy for $50.
I received a September 24th phone call from Lee, and he said that
the tape did not play back at the proper speed on his daughter's
VCR but that he would be able to have it transcribed to the
proper US speed for a reasonable cost.  The Tuesday Cultural
program was an afternoon tour of the Hermitage Museum, but I did
not go since I had been there on my last trip, and I had to spend
most of my spare time meeting with groups and individuals.  I
kept the staff of translators busy, and gave most of them small
print copies of a preprint of this book, to express my gratitude
for their difficult task.  I received a large collection of
booklets, reprints, etc. from various individuals, and also gave
them copies of my book in return, for a grand total of 52 book
copies that I gave out during the trip.
   Prof. Petr Beckmann, who I mentioned earlier, was the US co-
chairman of the Conference Scientific Organizing Committee and
one of the chairmen for the Wednesday Plenary Session, and he
announced that unlike the previous sessions, he intended to
rigidly follow the schedule.  He said that each speaker would
have 20 minutes to talk, even though the program listed 30 minute
sections, and the previous talks had been 25 minutes to talk, and
5 minutes for questions and comments?  Svetlana Tolchelnikova's
paper titled VERIFICATION OF EINSTEIN'S SECOND POSTULATE BY MEANS
OF ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS was the second one for the session,
and she had been left a full blackboard from the previous
speaker.  As she was cleaning the board Beckmann announced that
the time would be deducted from her talk.  I mounted the platform
and told Beckmann that I was donating the time for my talk to
Svetlana.  He announced this, and Svetlana and many other
participants protested my decision, since they wished to hear
what I had to say.  I went to the floor microphone and stated
that my talk was merely an abstract of my book THE FARCE OF
PHYSICS, that I had plenty of condensed preprints for anyone that
wanted them, and that Svetlana had shown me the material she
would present and that in my opinion her talk would eventually be
considered to be the most important event in science in the 20th
century.  Svetlana then had plenty of time to give her
presentation that was essentially an indepth confirmation by a
professional astronomer and mathematician of my 1969 paper on
this question.  Her evaluation of the published mathematics used
by the professionals who had analyzed the modern solar system
signal data, was that the classical theory was confirmed since
the equations with the second order terms empirically found by
investigators coincide with the classical formulae, and not the
relativistic ones!  Prof. Beckmann later made a translation of
her talk from Russian to English, and published it in his journal
GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS.[151]  The Cultural program that night
was in the Grand Hall and consisted of singing, music, and
Russian folk dancing.
   I delivered Prof. John E. Chappell, Jr.'s paper THE PROBLEM OF
INTOLERANCE IN AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, AND THE PATH TO A NEW
NATURAL PHILOSOPHY as the first paper to be delivered during the
Thursday afternoon session in the Grand Hall.  After the talk
there was an extended applause, and when it stopped I said that
since it was not my paper, I would not answer any questions, but
that he had given me copies of the talk and other material to
hand out to anyone who was interested.  As soon as I reached my
seat, I was surrounded by people that wanted his material, and I
did not have enough for all of them.  During the session there
was a very impressive well illustrated talk by a high tech
research type individual Dr. V. O. Beklyamishev, and the title of
his paper was ON GNOSIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF WALLES'S
INVESTIGATION OF THE DATA OF VENUS RADIOLOCATION.  This version
of the spelling of my name appeared a number of times during the
Conference, and seems to be how it is translated from Russian
back into English.  From the way Beklyamishev spoke, I got the
impression he was a member of a research group, and that he was
talking about a continuing research project.  In a photograph
taken at the Conference, he was sitting with a group of people
that included a man wearing a military uniform.  Svetlana had
told me that the space data was controlled by the military in the
USSR.  I have a sneaking suspicion that Beklyamishev's paper is
the opening round in a dramatic Russian research project that
will bring an end to the Einstein Relativity era of modern
physics.  That evening the Cultural program was a tour of
churches and palaces and so forth, but I did not go because of a
business meeting.  The meeting was with a man from Moscow, Dr.
Sergei Goncharov who was the General Director of
"Intertechnopark" a Economic Scientific Research Institute.  The
meeting included a number of the foreign participants and
involved tentative plans on the foundation of an international
school of advanced physics, the organization of groups to run
seminars of Soviet and foreign scholars, work on modern
textbooks, and international commercialization of advanced
technologies.
   The Friday afternoon session in the Grand Hall was titled
Problems of Scientific Ethics, and Dr. A. A. Denisov (President
Gorbachev's advisor, and the head of Commission on Ethics
problems of the Supreme Soviet) was the principle chairman.  I
was the first speaker and the essence of my talk was that the
main problem was the lack of scientific ethics in modern
scientific journalism.  I proposed that the Russian Academy would
start a new archival international scientific journal that would
be devoted to democratic journalism free from arbitrary
prejudicial and political censorship.  The talk was well received
and I was handed a number of notes from participants that wanted
to help establish such a journal.  At the Conference Banquet that
night, I was introduced to a woman who was the producer of the TV
show called "Is Albert Einstein Right?" and she said that most of
the large volume of mail that had been received had concerned me
and my radar evidence against Einstein's theories.  At the
Banquet I met a very interesting business man who had spent 4
years in prison because he had made too much profit!  He was a
fascinating person to talk to, his name was Mikchail Ivanov, he
spoke perfect English, and I learned much about current Russian
economic problems, and how he was working to help solve them.  At
a business meeting the next day, he was the advisor for the
Russian Academy, and we made plans for the new journal which will
be published in simultaneous Russian and English versions.  At
present we have plans to hold the III Conference in March 1994 in
St. Petersburg (Leningrad) Russia, and I am a member of the
organizing and editorial committee.
Chapter 7

                      Ultimate Unification

   I now suspect that the original foundation for my 1964
intuitive insight on how to create the ultimate unified theory of
physics came from a 1959 Scientific American article[106] titled
"Descartes."  The statements that probably had the most impact on
my thinking, are as follows:

     "I should consider that I know nothing about physics if I
  were able to explain only how things might be, and were unable
  to demonstrate that they could not be otherwise.  For, having
  reduced physics to mathematics, the demonstration is now
  possible, and I think that I can do it within the small compass
  of my knowledge."
     With these words RenÇ Descartes declared the viewpoint that
  placed him among the principal revolutionaries in the 17th-
  century scientific revolution.  Against the "forms" and
  "qualities" of Aristotelian physics, which had proved to be a
  blind alley, he asserted the "clear and fundamental idea" that
  the physical world was sheer mechanism and nothing else.
  Because the ultimate laws of nature were the laws of mechanics,
  everything in nature could ultimately be reduced to the
  rearrangement of particles moving according to these laws.  In
  analytical geometry, perhaps Descartes' most enduring
  achievement, he created a technique for expressing these laws
  in algebraic equations.  He thus put forward the ideal program
  of all theoretical science: to construct from the smallest
  number of principles a system to cover all the known facts and
  to lead to the discovery of new facts.
     All subsequent theoretical physics has been aimed at the
  realization of this ideal of a single theoretical system in
  which the last details of observable regularities should be
  shown to be deducible from a minimum number of fundamental
  equations, written perhaps on a single page.  Blaise Pascal and
  Isaac Newton may certainly be said to have carried on in the
  17th century the Cartesian program of looking for the
  explanation of the physical world in terms of its mechanism.
  In this century we have witnessed attempts at universal
  theories by Albert Einstein and Werner Heisenberg, among
  others.  In the vision of Descartes, however, his indisputable
  first principlesƒƒ"nearly all so evident that it is only
  necessary to understand them in order to assent to them"ƒƒwere
  not the end but the beginning of the search....
     Descartes himself came to recognize that his purely
  deductive, mathematical ideal for science had failed in the
  face of the complexities of nature and the enigmas of
  matter....
     In order to explain how the planets were kept in their
  orbits, Descartes put forward his famous vortex theory,
  according to which the fine matter of the "ether" forms great
  whirlpools or vortexes round the stars and the sun.  The
  planets are carried about in the sun's vortex, rather like a
  set of children's boats in the celestial bathwater, and the
  moon is carried round the earth in the same way.  The
  astonishing thing is that Descartes did not bother to check
  whether or not this very important part of his physical system
  agreed with the facts as expressed by Kepler's laws of
  planetary motion.  It was Newton who destroyed Descartes'
  famous vortex theory.  In fact, he may have chosen the title
  Principia Mathematica to give point to his polemic against
  Descartes' Principia Philosophiae.  Newton treated the vortex
  theory as a serious problem of fluid dynamics and utterly
  demolished it....

   My first standard radar paper was dated 12/9/67 and titled "AN
INTERPLANETARY RADAR TEST OF RELATIVITY," and it went through a
number of titles and revisions as it was submitted to, and
rejected by a large selection of journals.  I received a letter
dated October 13, 1969 from the Editor of the journal
SPECTROSCOPY LETTERS, Prof. J. W. Robinson of the Department of
Chemistry of Louisiana State University, who wrote that it had
been brought to his attention that I was interested in the
special case of relativity and that I had evidence that the speed
of light may not be c.  I submitted the paper to his journal and
it resulted in my first published paper[18] titled "RADAR TESTING
OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE," and the abstract
read:

  Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the
  relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c.

I next published a series of three more papers in that journal,
the second paper[107] was titled "COSMOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A
c+v RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT" and the abstract goes:

  The c+v relative velocity of light explains the observational
  data from spectroscopic binaries and presents evidence that the
  Universe is not expanding.  Inconsistencies between previous
  laboratory experiments that present evidence of c, and the
  interplanetary radar evidence of c+v, can be explained in terms
  of a dynamic ether.

The third paper[108] was titled "RADAR EVIDENCE THAT THE VELOCITY
OF LIGHT IN SPACE IS NOT c" and the abstract states:

  Observed-computed residuals of Earth-Venus radar time-delay
  measurements from 1961 to 1966 show variations that range to
  over 30,000% the expected error from the best possible general
  relativity fit the Lincoln Lab could generate.  The variations
  are not random but are related to relative radial velocity and
  intervening plasma.  These variations are evidence that the
  relative velocity of light in space is some form of c+v and not
  c as predicted by Einstein's general relativity theory.

The forth paper[109] was titled "EXPANSION OF A DYNAMIC ETHER
HYPOTHESIS OF PHYSICAL REALITY" and revised the models of atomic
structures presented in the second paper[107] by replacing fused
electrons with neutrons.  In a 4/4/79 letter from Dr. Robinson,
he informed me that because the very negative reader reaction to
these type of arguments he could no longer publish my papers on
mass dynamics and relativity.  In a 7/23/90 letter he expanded on
his first answer by saying that he had received completely
unsavory and unobjective anonymous letters and phone calls.

The fifth paper[19] I've published on this was in the prestigious
journal FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS, a journal that many prominent
scientists have published papers in over the years.  The paper
presents the current foundation and the fundamental equations of
my work on a unified theory based on mass dynamics.  The title of
the paper is "The Unified Quantum Electrodynamic Ether" and the
abstract reads:

  The basic evidence and doctrines of physics and astronomy are
  examined and found to contain a simple, consistent unitary
  nature.  It is proposed that all physical phenomena may be
  better explained in terms of a single physical entity if one
  accepts a conceptual advancement of presently accepted
  doctrine.  The modification postulates that the inertial mass
  of matter is the same entity as the virtual mass of a photon
  and that a circular motion of speed c is transformed into a
  linear motion of speed c when mass is transformed into energy.
  The logical expansions of the modification seem to give simpler
  explanations for basic phenomena and the infinite and eternal
  nature of the universe.

In part of section, 2. THE UNIFIED QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMIC ETHER,
of the paper, I wrote:

     I think that Dirac's idea of reintroducing the ether in a
  modified form[65] has a great deal of merit.  A viable theory
  must operate within the limits of man's psychological
  limitations.  The word "ether" seems to have a more desirable
  descriptive potential than Einstein's use of the words field,
  unified field, or energy in describing a unitary physical
  entity.  I think the best name for the entity would be "unified
  quantum electrodynamic ether" or "dynamic ether" for short.
     The dual wave-particle nature of radiation and matter forms
  the basis of quantum mechanics.  The conceptual difficulty of
  understanding quantum mechanics resides in Born's probability
  interpretation of the wave nature in terms of the distribution
  of particles.  The wave-particle paradox occurs only if one
  insists on describing the physical entity as a wave or as a
  particle.  If, on the other hand, one describes the entity as a
  quantity of a compressible fluidlike ether moving through
  space, the paradox disappears.[107,109]
     A photon's momentum is normally stated as E/c, which is
  equivalent to mc since E = mc2, the average physicist
  considering the m of the photon as virtual mass which is
  somehow different from the inertial mass of matter.  When a
  thermal positron and a thermal electron are transformed into
  two photons moving in opposite directions, the virtual mass of
  the photons is equal to the inertial mass of the particles, the
  difference being that the particles had almost no linear
  motion, while the photons have a linear motion of velocity c.
  The fact that the center of mass of a particle is at rest does
  not automatically mean the mass does not have an internal
  motion.  This in essence is the flaw in the conceptual basis of
  the average modern-day physicist; he ignores the obvious, the
  possibility that a circular motion of speed c of the mass of
  matter is changed into a linear motion of speed c of the mass
  of a photon when matter is transformed into energy.  The
  penalties he must pay for ignoring the above possibility are
  substantial; he must invent inconsistent additional hypotheses
  such as: (1) The virtual mass of a photon is somehow different
  from the inertial mass of matter.  (2) When matter is
  transformed into energy, somehow motion is created.  (3)
  Momentum is conserved if it is created or destroyed in equal
  and opposite amounts, etc.  In order to rectify this situation,
  I would like to advance current doctrine with the following
  basic postulate: "An internal circular motion of speed c of the
  mass of particles is changed into a linear motion of speed c of
  the mass of photons when matter is transformed into energy."
  The following is an attempt to determine some of the possible
  consequences of this basic postulate:

    I.
    The conservation of mass; dynamics ether can neither be
    created nor destroyed.

    II.
    The conservation of momentum; the momentum of dynamic ether
    can neither be created nor destroyed.

    III.
    The equality of action; when two quantities of dynamic ether
    meet, they both experience an attraction that changes the
    direction of their motion by an amount proportional to their
    masses.

  If the above three properties are correct, they should describe
  all physical phenomena in a consistent manner....

In sections 2.1. Photons, and 2.2. Electrons and Positrons, I
define the basic equations that form the foundation of Mass
Dynamics.  In section 3. THE FIRST POSTULATE OF RELATIVITY, I
presented Einstein's former research associate's argument[73]:

  In the foregoing, I have pinned the breakdown of the principle
  of relativity to the background radiation: but this is only by
  way of emphasis.  One can construct local frames of rest also
  by averaging over the observed proper motions of the
  surrounding galaxies; the field of direction obtained by this
  procedure will not deviate grossly from the one gained from
  observing the background radiation.  Either way, permitting
  large-scale samplings to enter, one is led inexorably to the
  breakdown of the principle of relativity.

Then in the next section 4. THE SECOND POSTULATE OF RELATIVITY, I
presented a short review of the interplanetary radar evidence
that the speed of light in space was not a constant of speed c.
Then in section 5. RELATIVISTIC DILATION OF TIME, I wrote:

     Hafele and Keating[74] have used commercial jet flights and
  atomic clocks to present convincing empirical evidence that
  tends to resolve the relativistic clock "paradox."  They found
  that the relativistic dilation of time was a function of the
  clock's speed relative to an absolute coordinate system at rest
  relative to the distant galaxies.  The clocks that
  circumnavigated the earth in the eastward direction ran slower
  than the clocks at rest on the earth's surface by an average of
  59 billionths of a second, while the clocks that traveled
  westward ran faster than the clocks at rest on the earth's
  surface by an average of 273 billionths of a second.

In the next section 6. THE INFINITE, ETERNAL UNIVERSE, I argued:

     Arp[110] has discovered observational evidence of galaxies
  joined by luminous bridges that have completely different red
  shifts, thereby casting doubt on the assumption that the red
  shift is a Doppler effect.  Pecker et al.[111] have presented a
  photon-photon interaction theory that explains the red shift as
  an energy loss in which the lost energy goes into a soft photon
  pair.  The transformation characteristics of matter and energy
  imply the potential of explaining the eternal nature of reality
  in terms of recycling photons back into matter.  The attractive
  nature of the dynamic ether operating over vast time and
  distances could transform the energy lost in the red shift into
  huge columns of dynamic ether.  Where these columns collide,
  energy would be transformed into matter.  A likely candidate
  for such a collision event would be the nearby irregular galaxy
  M-82.  A hydrogen-alpha photograph of M-82 taken by the 200-in.
  on Mount Palomar shows a spectacular array of hydrogen
  filaments that extend more than 14,000 light-years above and
  below the galactic disk.  Photographs reveal that the galaxy
  cannot be resolved into individual stars, although at its
  distance, normal stars should be visible.  The light from the
  filaments is highly polarized, indicating a regular, large-
  scale magnetic field aligned predominantly along the axis of
  rotation.  It is obvious that conventional thermonuclear
  reactions are not adequate to explain the phenomenon.[112]
     Since the heavier atoms are considered to have evolved from
  hydrogen fusion, it seems obvious that the age of a galaxy
  would be proportional to its interstellar hydrogen.  Radio
  astronomers have found that some irregular galaxies have as
  much as 30% of their mass as interstellar hydrogen.  In Sc
  spiral galaxies, the hydrogen content runs as high as 14%,
  while in Sb spiral galaxies, the content is about 1%.  In
  galaxies with little flattening or spiral structure, they have
  been unable to detect any interstellar hydrogen.[113]  Recent
  evidence shows large amounts of extragalactic hydrogen falling
  into the spiral arms of our galaxy.[114]  The quantity of
  infalling hydrogen is sufficient to explain the formation of
  new stars and the spiral nature of the arms.  It seems obvious
  that the hydrogen expelled from an irregular galaxy such as M-
  82 would eventually fall back to the galaxy, forming the spiral
  arms.  The evolution of galaxies would be from irregulars to
  Sc, Sb, Sa, and E, finally ending their lives as quasars.  The
  compact starlike nucleus of a Seyfert galaxy is similar to a
  quasar, indicating the possibility that the quasar is a huge
  super-massive star that forms from the dense nuclear material
  of a galaxy, Quasars release far more energy than can be
  accounted for by known physical processes.  From the beginning,
  theorists have postulated that some form of matter annihilation
  must be involved.[115]  The planet Jupiter radiates 2´ times
  more energy than it receives from the sun and it is impossible
  to explain the energy generation in terms of conventional
  theories.  The energy generation of stars seems to be
  proportional to their density.  This all seems to indicate the
  possibility that the dynamic ether orbital structure could be
  disrupted by sufficient pressure, causing matter annihilation,
  this being the principal energy source of massive celestial
  bodies.  The quasar would be expected to be an efficient
  mechanism for transforming the matter in a galaxy back into
  electromagnetic radiation.  The red shift would degrade the
  radiation and eventually it would be recycled back into matter
  in an infinite and eternal universe.

I now think that the quasars are globular clusters that form in
the dense nuclear regions of a galaxy, rather than single massive
stars.  The n-body dynamics would suck up the dense material and
the pressure mass annihilation mechanism culminates with massive
stars exploding as supernovae.[152]  The clusters could be
expelled from the nucleus by uneven massive gas pressure, and
then orbit the galaxies as normal globular clusters.  The last
two sentences of paper's 7. CONCLUSION, read:

  ...I think the ultimate task of physicists should be to invent
  the simplest possible consistent unified theory that would fit
  all known empirical information.  The theory would rise in
  status as it became possible to program advanced computers with
  the basic equations and the fit between computer readout and
  empirical information improved.

   The sixth paper[82] I've published was in collaboration with
Prof. Wilbur Block and Prof. Richard Rhodes II at Eckerd College,
and marked the experimental phase of my career as a scientist.
The paper also reflected my interest in the electron as the
possible fundamental building block of the heavier particles.
The paper was published in the prominent journal REVIEW OF
SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS, and the title of the article was "Glow
discharge source of H- ions."
   The seventh paper[83] was also in collaboration with Block and
Rhodes, as well as a senior student at Eckerd, Carey Floyd, and
the paper was published in the prestigious journal The Journal of
Chemical Physics.  The title was "Crossed beam electron-electron
scattering at 90¯ and 300 Ev" and the abstract read:

  An extensive search of the literature has revealed no evidence
  that a primary isolation type experiment such as crossed beam
  electron-electron scattering has ever been performed at low
  energies.  High energy scattering was first performed by a
  colliding beam technique at a total energy of 600 MeV in 1966.
  In the usual cathode ray tubes the density of residual gas
  molecules far exceeds the density of electrons.  An analysis of
  crossed beam scattering equations revealed that if the electron
  beams intersected each other at an angle of 90¯ the energy E˛
  of electrons scattered in the direction of the c.m. velocity
  vector could range to as high as twice the primary beam energy
  E.  Since electrons scattered from the residual gases would be
  expected to have energies Û E, it seemed possible to separate
  the electron scattered electrons from the gas scattered
  electrons with an energy analyzer.  We performed an extensive
  series of experiments using a parallel plate energy analyzer
  that revealed no significant results above the rather large
  background count.  The experiments showed how difficult it is
  to detect the scattering with conventional apparatus.  We next
  constructed an apparatus designed to detect almost all the
  electron scattered electrons that had energies greater than the
  retarding potential of a grid.  The experiments were performed
  with beam energies of 300 Ev and currents 1.2 and 1.3 ÊA.  The
  experimental results were compared to predictions based on
  M˛ller's quantum mechanical model for electron-electron
  scattering.  A computer was programmed to numerically integrate
  M˛ller's nonrelativistic c.m. differential cross section
  equation and the crossed beam equations due to Morse and
  Bernstein.  We found the experimental results to agree well
  with theory.

   My eighth published paper,[66] and the third and last one done
in collaboration with Block and Rhodes, was published in The
Journal of Classical Physics and was titled "Computer Simulation
of Mass Dynamics in Electrons."  The abstract of the paper read
as follows:

  Werner Heisinberg contends that modern particle theory is
  little more than a "super review of particle properties" and
  that we will not understand the nature of matter until we
  devise a theory of natural law and boundary conditions defining
  the dynamics of matter.  In order to address this question we
  have devised an initial computer model of possible natural law
  that is based on two simple first principles and the equation
  for mass dynamics.  Simulated experiments based on the model
  give high resolution explanations of the experimental evidence
  of photon emission at speed c and the 1/r mass distribution of
  rest and moving electrons.  The model also tends to give low
  resolution first principle explanations of the nature of
  photon-electron interactions, electron-electron interactions,
  electron spin forces, gravitational forces, and nuclear forces.

   My ninth, and last research paper[67] to date, was published
in the journal Speculations in Science and Technology, and the
abstract reads:

  Einstein's dream of a causal unified theory of physics is
  coming true.  The dynamic ether has the potential of explaining
  all microscopic and macroscopic physical phenomena in terms of
  simple first principles.

A sampling of some of the highlights of the paper, goes as
follows:

  Much of Albert Einstein's life was devoted to searching for a
  theory that incorporates gravity and other fields into a
  generalized geometrical structure derived from the general
  theory of relativity.  Peter G. Bergmann collaborated with
  Einstein on research on this problem and in his paper `Unitary
  field theories',[116] he gives a brief review of the
  fragmentary nature and the difficulties inherent in this type
  of approach....  Banesh Hoffmann's paper, `Einstein the
  catalyst',[117] shows how Einstein's bold and iconoclastic
  style and his pioneering endorsement of other people's
  revolutionary ideas influenced many important 20th century
  physicists.  `What of Einstein's refusal to accept as final the
  indeterminacy probabilistic nature of the quantum theory that
  he had done so much to bring into existence?  There was a time
  when it was almost professional suicide for a physicist to
  raise doubts about the so-called Copenhagen interpretation.'
  It now appears that the tide has changed in Einstein's favor on
  this question.  In 1951, David Bohm's causal pilot wave theory
  caused Louis de Broglie to abandon the Copenhagen
  interpretation and return to his original deterministic
  philosophy of quantum mechanics.[118]  In 1953, Erwin
  Schrodinger, in his paper, `What is matter?',[119] writes:
  `Physics stands at a grave crisis of ideas.  In the face of
  this crisis, many maintain that no objective picture of reality
  is possible.  However, the optimists among us (of whom I
  consider myself one) look upon this view as a philosophical
  extravagance born of despair.'  In 1957, the Soviet physicist
  V. A. Fock `went to Copenhagen and presented Niels Bohr with a
  paper in which complementarity was criticized in four different
  ways: (1) one should insist on the fact that the psi function
  of quantum mechanics represents something real; (2) the
  presence of precise mathematical laws is equivalent to a
  certain type of causality; (3) limitations in understanding
  come only from the use of a classical language; (4) no
  "uncontrollable interaction" between apparatus and system takes
  place during measurements.  After reading the paper, it is
  known that Bohr agreed on these four points.'[120]  In 1963, P.
  A. M. Dirac, in his paper, `The evolution of the physicist's
  picture of nature',[65] writes: `one can make a safe guess that
  uncertainty relations in their present form will not survive in
  the physics of the future'.   AndrÇ Mercier reports[121] a
  conversation with Werner Heisenberg, in which Heisenberg argued
  `that even major modifications of present physical theories
  would not transform them into the desired new theory, as quite
  different and novel ideas are required.  Secondly, the impact
  of quantum theory and relativity theory on the minds of those
  scholars who helped found them during the first half of our
  century is conceivably such that they are imprisoned by these
  theories and thus cannot help but reason conformably, that is,
  in terms of traditional concepts; whereas the need is for a
  whole revolution of thought, which can only be carried through
  by nonconformists.'...  There is a popular myth in modern
  physics that argues that relativity and quantum mechanics are
  not ether theories.  The current publication of the translation
  of a 1922 lecture by Einstein shows that he developed
  relativity as an ether theory.[48]  He reconfirms this fact in
  his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics,[20 p.153] and argues
  that because of the `forced and artificial character of the
  assumption' he gave up on trying to devise a mechanical model
  of ether.  There are a few enlightened physicists who admit
  that the `vacuum' of quantum mechanics is really the
  ether.[122]  The problem with the static ether is the fact that
  it is a solid which if it had the shear modulus of elasticity
  no less than steel, must have a density less than that of our
  best vacuum in order to transmit transverse waves with the
  speed of light.[123]  On the other hand, the compressible-
  fluid-like mass of my c model of mass dynamics[19] is
  equivalent to a dynamic ether that moves with the physical
  phenomena, and it is a simple matter to make mechanical models
  where the elasticity and density are proportional to the
  phenomena.  The concept of a dynamic ether is hardly new.  Lord
  Kelvin developed this type of theory in the middle of the 19th
  century.  It was far ahead of its time, and Maxwell gave it a
  glowing review.[124]... Our paper, `Computer simulation of mass
  dynamics in electrons',[66] attacks the mathematics problem of
  the c model by developing a mass-in-cell technique that is
  similar to the 3D gridless charge cloud-in-cell computer
  numerical integration method used in plasma simulations.[125]
  Figure 1 plots the results from current simulation experiments
  where each particle is divided into 12 independent cells of
  radius 2.8 X 10-15 m and the differential mass of the particle
  is simulated by a computer algorithm that determines the c.m.
  of the particle and substitutes a centre cell of radius 2X10˛14
  m.  All cells move at speed c and the position of each cell was
  plotted at 2 X 10-24 sec intervals with 1/2 step integration and
  calculations at 10-25 sec intervals.  The cell surfaces are
  plotted at their initial starting positions and the elapse time
  for all but the (c) and (d) experiments was 1.2 X 10-22 sec
  which gave slightly more than one rotation of a rest particle.
  The (a) experiment shows the wave pattern that results from a
  two-cell photon, (b) shows a captured one-cell photon moving
  with the mass flow of a rest electron, (c) gives the path of a
  photon moving through the electron with the mass flow, and (d)
  shows the path of a photon moving against the electron mass
  flow.  All the photon cells had one-tenth the mass of the
  electron cells.  The (e) experiment shows the repulsion of two
  electrons with opposing mass flows in the same plane, (f) shows
  electron-positron annihilation that results from the mass flows
  coming together from the same direction, and (g) shows two-
  electron repulsion from a head-on collision and the wave
  patterns of moving electrons.  The (h) experiment shows
  positron-electron bonding with mass flows moving in the same
  direction....  The use of independent mass cells can be
  expensive in terms of computer time.  Higher resolution using
  far more mass cells would be desirable, but calculation time
  tends to be proportional to n2, and it may take massive
  parallel processing computers to obtain resolution that would
  result in reasonably good quantitative results.... Figure 2
  lists a computer program called UNIFIED that introduces the
  gravitational force as due to a mass cell surface tension that
  is very small when any mass is immersed within the fluid-like
  mass of the body of the electron, but tends to approach the
  magnitude of the Lorentz-type mass flow force when the cell
  starts to separate from the surface of the electron.  The model
  postulates that the inner radius that determines the rest mass
  of the electron is similar to the inner surface of a bubble
  that is held together by the surface tension....  the FG values
  gives the predicted gravitational force in (10-43 N), and the
  FGCM values give the equivalent force derived from the surface
  tension characteristics of the mass cells.... Both the FLCM and
  FGCM results are good to within 3 s.f. of the predicted values
  out to 100,000 (10-16 m) using a PRIME 750 running BASICV at 13
  s.f.... Figure 3 shows plotted curves of the Lorentz force FL
  between two electrons moving in the same direction along
  parallel paths at the same speed that ranged from 0 to 0.9c....
  The points plot the FLCM c model values obtained from the
  UNIFIED program.  Note that at the 10-13 m interelectron
  distance there is no observable difference between the Lorentz
  and c model predictions, while at the 10-14 m distances one can
  observe a deviation that occurs for both the Lorentz and
  gravitational forces when the interelectron distance is within
  the 1.1 X 10-14 m point where the 50% electron mass distribution
  distances touch.  Analysis of weak decay of hadrons and
  simulation experiments of test cells through stacked arrays of
  electrons and positrons lead to the proposal of a neutral pion
  content of 104 electrons and positrons with mass flow binding
  energy that could carry spin might tend to explain the ~ 100X
  strong to electromagnetic interaction ratio.... In John S.
  Bell's paper `On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox',[126]
  Bell states: `It is the requirement of locality, or more
  precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be
  unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has
  interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty'
  (for causality).  If one follows Dirac's suggestion to
  introduce non-local hidden variables inside the particles
  themselves, i.e. drop the point-particle picture, then one
  opens the possibility of such an action at a distance
  propagating as phase motion.[127]  This is consistent with
  Louis de Broglie's argument[128] that a particle `could be
  compared to a small clock', and it is also compatible with the
  Figure 1 photon (a) and electron (g) wave patterns.  Modern
  laser interference experiments[129,130] clearly show that the
  old probabilistic argument that a photon interferes with
  itself, is untenable.  The experiments can be explained,
  however, by the argument that clock-like photons synchronize
  clock-like electrons in the interference area, and future
  photons then interact with the electrons.
     The evidence of energy transfer between photons in intense
  laser beams,[131] the large body of evidence of anomalous red-
  shifts in galaxies and quasars,[132] and the large-scale
  filamentary structure of the galaxies in the universe,[133] all
  tend to support the steady-state model presented in my earlier
  paper.[19]  The c model of mass dynamics is probably the
  simplest possible first principle unified theory that can be
  devised.  It is, I suspect, little more than a first-order
  approximation to an ultimate model because of the evidence that
  the speed of light in space is not constant.  A c+v model will
  have to be developed, but because of flexibility of the dynamic
  ether concept, I do not anticipate any major problems.  I feel
  that this type of approach will lead mankind toward an intimate
  understanding of the simple microscopic and macroscopic nature
  of our infinite eternal universe.  This is the dawning of the
  golden age of physics.

   My concept of a dynamic ether was not completely original; Few
ideas are, most knowledge being built from the work of those who
have gone before.  A number of prominent scientist have advanced
this type of argument in the past, to mention a few that come to
mind, RenÇ Descartes, Lord Kelvin, and P. A. M. Dirac.  I am sure
that if I had never existed, others would eventually return to
the concept, since it is so simple and self evident.  I expect
that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant
abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as
we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the
Universe moves around it.References

 1. F.Capra,The Tao of Physics,Bantam Books,Inc.,Toronto(1984).
 2. H.W.Ellis,Physics Today,35(10),11(1982).
 3. R.B.Hall,Physics Today,36(1),111(1983).
 4. J.C.Bortz,Physics Today,36(1),113(1983).
 5. A.L.Peratt,Physics Today,36(4),15(1983).
 6. C.A.Zapffe,Physics Today,36(4),88(1983).
 7. News,Physics Today,35(2),54(1982).
 8. M.A.Seeds,HORIZONS Exploring the Universe,Wadsworth
    Publishing Company, Belmont, CA (1989).
 9. D.Dickson,Science,232,1333(1986).
10. T.Theocharis,M.Psimopoulos,Nature,329,595(1987).
11. K.R.Popper, Problems in the Philosophy of Science, editors -
    I. Lakatos, A.Musgrave, North Holland, Amsterdam (1968),
    p.163-164.
12. I.Lakatos, The Problem of Inductive Logic, North Holland,
    Amsterdam (1968), p.397.
13. The Royal Society Corporate Plan: A Strategy for the Royal
    Society 1986 - 1996 (The Royal Society, London, 1986).
14. T.S.Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University
    of Chicago Press, Chicago (1970).
15. P.Feyerabend, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic
    Theory of Knowledge, New Left Books, London (1975),p.28
16. W.J.Broad, Science, 206, 534 (1979).
17. S.Weart,Physics Today,41(6),28(1988).
18. B.G.Wallace,Spectros.Lett.,2,361(1969).
19. B.G.Wallace,Found.Phys.,3,381(1973).
20. A.Einstein,L.Infeld,The Evolution of Physics,Simon and
    Schuster,Inc.,N.Y.(1938).
21. B.G.Wallace,Physics Today,34(8),11(1981).
22. B.G.Wallace,Physics Today,36(1),11(1983).
23. R.M.Santilli,IL GRANDE GRIDO-ETHICAL PROBE ON EINSTEIN'S
    FOLLOWERS IN THE U.S.A.-An Insider's View,Alpha Pub.,
    Newtonville,MA(1984).
24. R.M.Santilli,Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics, I: The
    Inverse Problem in Newtonian Mechanics,Springer-Verlag,
    N.Y./Heidelberg/Berlin (1978).
25. R.M.Santilli,Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics,II:
    Birkhoffian Generalization of Hamiltonian Mechanics,Springer-
    Verlag,N.Y./Heidelberg/Berlin (1982).
26. A.Einstein,Annalen der Physik,49,769(1916).
27. E.J.Post,Physics Today,35(6),11(1982).
28. R.R.Wilson,Physics Today,39(7),26(1986).
29. News,Physics Today,37(7),57(1984).
30. News and Comment,Science,228,471(1985).
31. B.G.Wallace,Physics Today,36(8),13(1983).
32. B.G.Wallace,Scientific Ethics,1(3),3(1985).
33. B.G.Wallace,Physics Today,37(6),15(1984).
34. R.R.Wilson,Physics Today,38(7),128(1985).
35. News,Physics Today,38(2),76(1985).
36. T.D.Moyer,Celes.Mech.,23,33(1981).
37. A.Pais,'Subtle is the Lord...' The Science and the Life of
    Albert Einstein, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (1982).
38. R.W.Clark,EINSTEIN:THE LIFE AND TIMES,Avon Books,N.Y.(1984).
39. A.Einstein,Ideas and Opinions,Crown Publishers, Inc.,
    N.Y.(1982).
40. R.B.Fischer,Science Man and Society,W.B.Saunders Co.,
    Philadelphia(1971),p.17.
41. M.Wortman, Yale Alumni Magazine, April,34 (1989).
42. M.Rukeyser,Willard Gibbs,Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, Conn.
    (1988), p.279.
43. S.Tobias,Physics Today,38(6),61(1985).
44. N.D.Mermin,Physics Today,42(10),9(1989).
45. O.C.Wells,Physics Today,34(6),9(1981).
46. S.Chandrasekhar,Am.J.Phys.,47(3),212(1979).
47. H.Dingle,Nature,216,119(1967).
48. Y.A.Ono,Physics Today,35(8),45(1982).
49. F.Schmeidler,Sky & Telescope, 27(4),217(1964).
50. C.I.Jackson,Honor in Science,Sigma Xi,New Haven,CT(1986).
51. I.B.Cohen,The Birth of a New Physics,Doubleday & Co.,Inc.,
    Garden City,N.Y.(1960).
52. R.S.Westfall,Science,179,751(1973).
53. I.B.Cohen,Scien.Amer.,244(3),166(1981).
54. R.Thiel,AND THERE WAS LIGHT,The New American Library of World
    Literature,Inc.,N.Y.(1960).
55. L.Essen,The Special Theory of Relativity A Critical Analysis,
    Oxford University Press, Oxford (1971).
56. R.S.Shankland,Am.J.Phys.,41,895(1973).
57. H.A.Lorentz,A.Einstein,H.Minkowski,H.Weyl,THE PRINCIPLE OF
    RELATIVITY,DOVER PUBLICATIONS,INC.,N.Y.(1923).
58. R.J.Smith,Science,221,133(1983).
59. I.I.Shapiro,Scien.Amer.,219(1),28(1968).
60. G.H.Pettengill,H.W.Briscoe,J.V.Evans,E.Gehrels,G.M.Hyde,L.G.
    Kraft,R.Price,W.B.Smith,Astron.J.,67,181(1962).
61. J.B.McGuire,E.R.Spangler,L.Wong,Scien.Amer.,204(4),64(1961).
62. M.E.Ash,I.I.Shapiro,W.B.Smith,Astron.J.,72,338(1967).
63. Edited by J.V.Evans,T.Hagfors,Radar Astronomy,McGraw-Hill
    Book Co.,N.Y.(1968),p.159.
64. M.Riordan,The Hunting of the Quark,Simon & Schuster,Inc.,
    N.Y.(1987).
65. P.A.M.Dirac, Sci.Am. 208(5),45 (1963).
66. B.G.Wallace,R.A.Rhodes,W.F.Block,J.Clas.Phys.,1(2),17(1982).
67. B.G.Wallace, Speculations Sci. Technol. 9,9 (1986).
68. J.G.Fox, Amer.J.Phys. 33,1 (1965).
69. W.B.Smith, Astron.J. 68,15 (1963).
70. L.Essen, Electronic & Wireless World, 94(1624),126(1988).
71. B.G.Wallace, Sci.Ethics 1(1),2 (1985).
72. I.Shapiro, Sci.Ethics 1(2),10 (1985).
73. P.G.Bergmann, Found.Phys. 1,17 (1970).
74. J.C.Hafele,R.E.Keating,Science,177,166(1972).
75. J.L.Bromberg, Physics Today, 41(10),26(1988).
76. R.W.Seidel,Physics Today,41(10),36(1988).
77. NEWS NOTES,Sky & Telescope,77(5),464(1989).
78. W.Sweet, Physics Today, 41(10),73(1988).
79. V.A.Kotel'nikov, E.L.Akim, Yu.N.Aleksandrov, V.K.Golovkov,
    V.M.Dubrovin, A.L.Zeitsev,V.I.Kaevitser, A.A.Krymov,
    B.I.Kuznetsov, Yu.K.Naumkin, G.M.Petrov, V.M.Podolyanyuk,
    O.N.Rzhiga, A.F.Khasyanov, A.M.Shakhovskoi, Astron. Zh.
    53,1270(1976).
80. I.Goodwin, Physics Today, 41(9),97(1988).
81. G.C.McVittie, Astron.J. 75,287 (1970).
82. R.A.Rhodes II,W.F.Block,B.G.Wallace,Rev.Sci.Instrum.,
    46,1710(1975).
83. W.F.Block,C.Floyd,R.A.Rhodes II,B.G.Wallace,J.Chem.Phys.,
    66,2108(1977).
84. B.G.Wallace,GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS,1(2),23(1990).
85. B.G.Wallace,Physics Essays,3(1),94(1990).
86. I.Langmuir,Transcribed and edited by R.N.Hall,Physics Today,
    42(10),36(1989).
87. R.Blondlot,The N-Rays,Longmans,Green,London(1905).
    J.G.McKendrick,Nature 72,195(1905).
88. R.W.Wood,Nature 70(1904);Phys.Z.5,789(1904).W.Seabrook,
    Doctor Wood,Harcourt Brace,New York(1941),ch.17.
89. A.Hollaender,W.D.Claus,J.Opt.Soc.Am.25,270(1935).
90. W.Heisenberg,Physics Today,29(3),32(1976).
91. B.G.Wallace,Physics Today,36(9),111(1983).
92. G.Brown,Bull.Am.Phys.Soc.,27,451(1982).
93. News,Physics Today,35(4),72(1982).
94. S.L.Glashow,L.M.Lederman,Physics Today,38(3),28(1985).
95. J.F.Waymouth,Physics Today,41(7),9(1988).
96. R.W.Smith,Physics Today,43(4),52(1990).
97. A.Friedmann,Z.Phys.,10,377(1922);21,326(1924).
98. H.Kragh,Centaurus,2,114(1987).
99. G.Lemaåtre,Ann.Soc.Sci.Bruxelles,47A,49(1927).
100.B.Parker, Sky & Telescope, 72(3),227(1986).
101.P.A.LaViolette,Astrophys.J.,301,544(1986).
102.G.Burbidge,Sky & Telescope,75(1),38(1988).
103.H.Arp,QUASARS,REDSHIFTS,AND CONTROVERSIES,Intersteller Media,
    Berkley,CA.(1987).
104.I.E.Segal,Phys.Rev.D,28,2393(1983).
105.A.H.Guth,P.J.Steinhardt,Scien.Amer.,250(5),116(1984).
106.A.C.Crombie,Scien.Amer.,201(4),160(1959).
107.B.G.Wallace,Spectros.Lett.,3,115(1970).
108.B.G.Wallace,Spectros.Lett.,4,79(1971).
109.B.G.Wallace,Spectros.Lett.,4,123(1971).
110.News,Physics Today,25(2),17(1972).
111.J.C.Pecker,A.P.Roberts,J.P.Vigier,Nature,237,227(1972);
    Editorial,p.193.
112.A.R.Sandage,Scien.Amer.,211(5),38(1964).
113.M.S.Roberts,Scien.Amer.,208(6),94(1963).
114.J.H.Oort,Nature,224,1158(1969).
115.R.W.Holcomb,Science,167,1601(1970).
116.P.G.Bergmann,Physics Today,32(3),44(1979).
117.B.Hoffmann,Physics Today,32(3),36(1979).
118.G.Lochak,Found.Phys.,12,931(1982).
119.E.Schrodinger,Scien.Amer.,189(3),52(1953).
120.F.Selleri,Found.Phys.,12,1087(1982).
121.A.Mercier,Found.Phys.,1,285(1971).
122.E.H.Wichmann,Quantum Physics,McGraw-Hill,New York
    (1971),p.382.
123.C.L.Andrews,Optics of the Electromagnetic Spectrum,
    Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs,NJ(1960),p.53.
124.D.B.Wilson,Am.J.Phys.,49,217(1981).
125.C.K.Birdsall,A.B.Langdon,H.Okuda,in B.Alder, S.Fernbach,
    M.Rotenberg (Editors),Methods in Computational Physics,
    Academic Press,New York(1970),Vol.9,pp.241-258.
126.J.S.Bell,Physics,1,195(1964).
127.J.P.Vigier,Found.Phys.,12,922(1982).
128.L.de Broglie,Found.Phys.,1,5(1970).
129.R.L.Pfleegor,L.Mandel,Phys.Rev.,159,1084(1967).
130.C.Roychoudhuri,Found.Phys.,8,845(1978).
131.E.Panarella,Phys.Rev.A,16,672(1977).
132.G.Burbidge,Ann.N.Y.Acad.Sci.,375,123(1981).
133.M.M.Waldrop,Science,219,1050(1983).
134.C.Vaughan,New Scientist,126(1714),38(1990).
135.NEWS,Physics Today,38(6),55(1985).
136.R.H.Baker,Astronomy,D.Van Nostrand Co.,Princeton,NJ(1955),
    p.414.
137.PHYSICS COMMUNITY, Physics Today, 45(1), 62 (1992).
138.B.Bower, Science News, 139, 394 (1991).
139.P.Davies, Sky & Telescope, 85(1), 4 (1993).
140.I.Newton, OPTICKS, Dover Publications,Inc., NY(1952),p.lxxii.
141.H.Kondo, Scien. Amer., 189(4), 91 (1953).
142.R.Fritzius, Physics Essays, 3(4), 371 (1990).
143.W.Ritz, A.Einstein, Phys. Z., 10, 323 (1909).
144.J.A.Wheeler,R.P.Feynman, Rev. Mod. Phys., 17, 157 (1945).
145.T.L.Gill, Hadronic J., 7, 1224 (1984).
146.S.Odenwald,R.T.Fienberg, Sky & Telescope, 85(2), 31 (1993).
147.A.Lightman,O.Gingerich, Science, 255, 690 (1992).
148.C.Raymo, Sky & Telescope, 84(4), 364 (1992).
149.A.Hobson, PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, 22(1), 15 (1993).
150.G.E.Brown,Jr., Science, 258, 200 (1992).
151.S.A.Tolchelnikova-Murri, GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS,
    4(1),3(1993).
152.A.Robinson, Nature, 359, 104 (1992).
153.J.F.Ahearne, Physics Today, 41(9), 36 (1988).
154.J.Lankford, Sky & Telescope, 76(5), 482 (1988).
155.D.P.Hayes, Nature, 356, 739 (1992).
156.N.D.Mermin, Physics Today, 45(11), 9 (1992).