To Bernhard Haisch - Let's get constructive; let's prove
- From: "Vesselin Petkov" <vpetkov@...>
To: "Bernard Haisch" <haisch@...>
Cc: <kklingon@...>; <matpitka@...>;
<afme@...>; <Postmaster@...>; <swimp@...>;
<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@...>;
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'être. 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