Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

To Bernhard Haisch - Let's get constructive; let's prove

Expand Messages
  • Vesselin Petkov
    From: Vesselin Petkov To: Bernard Haisch Cc: ; ;
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 31, 2000
      From: "Vesselin Petkov" <vpetkov@...>
      To: "Bernard Haisch" <haisch@...>
      Cc: <kklingon@...>; <matpitka@...>;
      <afme@...>; <Postmaster@...>; <swimp@...>;
      <astauffer@...>; <milo.wolff@...>;
      <tessien@...>; <Soucoupes-Volantes@egroups.com>;
      <haisch@...>; "Hal Puthoff" <puthoff@...>; "Alfonso
      Rueda" <arueda@...>; "Peter W Milonni" <pwm@...>; "Paul
      C W Davies" <pdavies@...>; "William G Unruh"
      <unruh@...>; "Paul Wesson"
      <wesson@...>; "Daniel Cole" <dccole@...>; "Trevor
      Marshall" <trevor@...>; "Alexander V Sergienko"
      <AlexSerg@...>; "Tom Van Flandern" <tvf@...>; "Wolfgang
      Rindler" <rindler@...>; "Andrei Linde"
      <linde@...>; "Mirjam Cvetic"
      <cvetic@...>; "Paul Wesson"
      <wesson@...>; "Bahram Mashhoon"
      <physgrav@...>; "Jayant V. Narlikar"
      <jvn@...>; "Giovanni Modanese"
      <giovanni.modanese@...>; "Stanley Jeffers"
      <stanj@...>; "Geoffrey Hunter" <ghunter@...>; "George
      Hathaway" <ghathaway@...>; "Cynthia K Whitney"
      <dwhitney@...>; "Scott Little" <little@...>; "Michael
      Ibison" <ibison@...>; <bill@...>;
      <cyrano@...>; <david.finkelstein@...>;
      <jfirmage@...>; <ignacio.ramonet@...>;
      Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:45 PM
      Subject: To Bernhard Haisch - Let's get constructive; let's prove
      what we claim

      This email consists of two parts:
      I. A constructive proposal to prove what we claim;
      II. Final comments on your mail "A few facts" which are provoked by
      your portraying yourself as the victim; in my view, this is nothing
      short of a distortion of the facts beyond recognition.

      I. You wrote: "I truly want to see some revolutionary discoveries
      take place in physics that will benefit the entire world ... and it
      does not matter who gets the credit". I believe Dr. Hushwater shares
      this position as I do as well.

      1. So let's create a discussion egroup and start discussing openly
      Dr. Hushwater's and my current research - we are very probably
      working on the same thing (as I have written I strongly suspect that
      he is working on the research project I sent to you in December
      1998). The reason for this proposal is not only that I do not believe
      the bare statements that my claim is false; the major reason is that
      everyone will benefit from such a discussion group, especially CIPA.
      The other CIPA fellows can take part in the discussions as well - we
      will be discussing precisely the subjects that constitute CIPA's
      raison d'ĂȘtre. This will also be an excellent opportunity for all
      colleagues to see that you hired applicants who are more qualified
      and competent than me as you wrote.

      2. I firmly believe that the anisotropic velocity of light plays a
      key role in the phenomena of inertia and gravitation. That is why we
      can also try to resolve our disagreement over the anisotropic
      velocity of light in non-inertial reference frames. In addition to
      the astronomical (aberration) test proposed by you (which contrary to
      your claim still does not prove anything; see bellow) and to the
      experiment proposed in one of my papers (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-
      qc/9912014) we can also discuss experiments involving the Global
      Positioning System - it measures the isotropy in the speed of light
      to within 12 meters per second. To test what I claim the precision
      should be increased to 0.3 m/s.

      II. I am trying hard to understand what personality you possess that
      allows you to claim, after everything you have done, that you have
      been the victim ("he launched that attack on me").

      1. In my email of 3 October 1999, AFTER HAVING WAITED FOR MORE THAN
      ONE YEAR after the officially announced date for CIPA's opening
      (September 1998), I SPECIFICALLY asked you to let me know what my
      chances were in order that I stop declining to sign teaching
      contracts at Concordia University. Your reply was "Sorry that I
      cannot be more specific yet. I realize that you are in a not very
      good situation" (October 9, 1999). On January 20, 2000 (already being
      aware that the first postdocs were hired) I also emailed you that on
      15 February 2000 my institutional email account would finally expire
      which was one more request to let me know whether or not you planed
      to offer me a position. You did not bother even to reply. Following
      your invitations my application to CIPA was sent on August 4, 1998 -
      so you had MORE THAN sufficient time (ONE AND A HALF YEARS) to decide
      what the fate of the application would be. On February 10, 2000 I
      sent you an email and explained that it is an advanced letter of my
      goodbye letter which I would send you officially on February 14. So
      as you see, unlike your attitude toward me, my actions toward you
      were very fair.

      Your explanation that you have been procrastinating since you wanted
      to offer me a job is simply an insult to my intelligence - YOU KNEW
      VERY WELL from my email of October 3, 1999 that I had been declining
      to sign teaching contracts while awaiting your decision. You knew
      that but did NOT tell me not to do it; therefore your response
      ("Sorry that I cannot be more specific yet. I realize that you are in
      a not very good situation") sounded like "wait a little more". So you
      perfectly knew what damage you had been causing. You let me know
      about your negative decision only AFTER you were confronted with my
      advanced letter. Should I again mention the case when TWICE you
      offered to submit a paper of mine for publication and TWICE you
      neither sent the paper nor informed me that it was not submitted. You
      have been procrastinating for what reason in this case?
      Do you still consider yourself the victim Dr. Haisch?

      2. Your explanation of the drastic change of your opinion about my
      doctoral thesis is: "The two technical disagreements having to do
      with his treatment of light propagation mentioned in my previous
      email led me to conclude that his approach was flawed." I must admit
      that this is a professional manipulation of the facts designed for
      those who do not know them well.

      (i) You know very well (since you were the external examiner of my
      thesis) that those technical disagreements do NOT affect the major
      results of the thesis. And your opinion (quoted in my previous mail)
      was naturally based on the major results.

      (ii) You wrote your favourable opinions much AFTER our discussion on
      the correct expression for the anisotropic velocity of light in non-
      inertial reference frames started. Several times I sent you the
      calculations demonstrating that the expression you believed was the
      correct one leads to contradictions. You did not address my arguments
      but amazingly still continue to claim that my approach was flawed.
      Concerning the second technical "error" last Fall you said you would
      contact a specialist to see whether the aberration data provide
      crucial evidence against my result and would let me know - you never
      did it. Even if we assume that the second "error" (my view on the
      local constancy of the velocity of light) were affecting the major
      results of my research (which is NOT the case) it is still
      unbelievable that you can refer to a SINGLE claim as the reason for
      your drastic change of opinion. You know that I do not stick to that
      claim like a lunatic - you witnessed that I almost accepted your
      aberration argument assuming that you provided the correct data. What
      strikes me is that it is you who claimed several times that I was on
      the wrong track without providing a single argument to support this.
      When you formulated your aberration argument you again made a very
      strong statement: "the following astronomical observation flatly
      contradicts your claim". It turned out that this was not the case
      (since light does not originate from the pulsar surface) - even you
      yourself backed off from it less than 24 hours later. But now again
      you are using this same argument to claim that my research was flawed.

      (iii) When I should believe you Dr. Haisch - now or in you reply to
      my advanced letter last February when you said the opposite of what
      you are saying now: "Note that this does not mean you are wrong"?

      (iv) If you yourself have been truly convinced that my approach is
      flawed why do you still consider supporting my research: "It is a
      shame, because even today I would be willing to consider supporting
      his research at some level because I empathize with his
      circumstances" (August 29, 2000)? Will you say that you would support
      ANY research solely because you empathize with the author's

      Vesselin Petkov
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.