Wallace-Byran · Source catalogue

A single plain-text DOS manuscript (code page 437; the extraction dropped non-ASCII characters such as the micro sign, degree sign, one-half and some minus signs) in which Wallace argues that modern theoretical physics is 'an elaborate farce'. Introduction and Ch.1 (Sacred Science) discuss science vs religion, pseudoscience, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Mahoney's 2-4-6 study of scientists vs ministers. Ch.2 (Pathological Physics) applies Langmuir's 1953 'symptoms of pathological science' (Davis-Barnes, N-rays) to special relativity and to quarks, and recounts Wallace's attempts to challenge QCD theorists using Heisenberg's critique of the quark hypothesis, including a 1977 $159,512 NSF proposal via Eckerd College (rejected February 1978 by the NSF program officer, who wrote that reviewers saw 'no reason to abandon conventional and remarkably successful theories of electron and quark interactions'), and confrontations with Gerald Brown and Steven Weinberg at APS meetings. Ch.3 (Mathematical Magic) argues mathematics is a language (Gibbs anecdote). Ch.4 (Publication Politics) and Ch.5 (Light Lunacy) present Wallace's central empirical claim: Earth-Venus radar time-delay residuals 1961-1966, computed on the assumption that light speed is c, vary over about 3 ms against an expected error of about 10 microseconds ('30,000%'), with components tied to Earth's rotation, a 30-day term and Earth-Venus relative velocity, which he reads as evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v. He reports that Irwin Shapiro, at the 1968 Texas Symposium (Dallas), admitted the analysis assumed constant c and that c+v had not been tested (Wallace's account of a conversation; Shapiro is an interested party and his side is not given), and describes a Physical Review Letters episode in 1969 where, per Wallace, editor Goudsmit sent a revised paper to a referee whose report was strongly negative after a first referee had been positive, and admitted a mistake. He also relays Santilli's allegations that Coleman, Glashow and Weinberg blocked his salary (Santilli is an interested party, quoted second-hand). Ch.5 also links relative light speed to Strategic Defense ('Star Wars') programme secrecy, citing a 1983 Science article; the connection is Wallace's inference. Ch.6 (Relativity Revolution) gives the publication history of his papers (Spectroscopy Letters 1969-71 under editor J. W. Robinson, who per Wallace's quoted letters of 4/4/79 and 7/23/90 stopped publishing him after hostile reader reaction and anonymous letters and calls; then Foundations of Physics 1973). Ch.7 (Ultimate Unification) states the unified theory: the inertial mass of matter is the same entity as the virtual mass of a photon, and an internal circular motion at speed c of a particle's mass becomes linear motion at c in a photon when matter is converted to energy. The single substance is a compressible, fluid-like 'dynamic ether' (credited to Descartes, Kelvin, Dirac) obeying three stated properties: conservation of mass, conservation of momentum, and 'equality of action'. No equation of mass dynamics is printed in the book; the equations are said to be in his 1973 Foundations of Physics paper, which is not in the folder. The chapter describes a 3D 'mass-in-cell' computer model (12 cells of radius 2.8e-15 m per particle, all cells moving at c, time step 1e-25 s) from 'Computer Simulation of Mass Dynamics in Electrons' (J. Clas. Phys. 1982) and 'Speculations in Science and Technology' 1986, claiming it reproduces photon emission at c, a 1/r electron mass distribution, photon-electron and electron-electron interactions, spin forces, gravity (via a surface tension term, quoted as matched to 3 significant figures out to 1e-11 m) and nuclear forces (a neutral pion of '104 [or 10^4]' electrons and positrons). A Lorentz-force comparison is said to deviate below about 1.1e-14 m separation (the one quantitative, in-principle testable prediction). Atomic models with 'fused electrons' (1970) were revised to use neutrons (1971); the book gives only that single sentence. The chapter also argues: the Copenhagen interpretation fails (non-locality, Bell, Bohm, de Broglie, Dirac, Vigier; photon self-interference rejected citing Pfleegor and Mandel 1967); the universe is infinite and eternal with redshift not purely Doppler (Arp, Pecker-Roberts-Vigier, M82 filaments), matter being re-created from redshifted energy 'columns of dynamic ether' and pressure-induced matter annihilation powering massive bodies; Hafele-Keating clock results indicate dilation relative to an absolute frame at rest with the distant galaxies. Wallace's own Eckerd College experiments (with W. Block, R. Rhodes II, C. Floyd) were an H- glow-discharge ion source (Rev. Sci. Instrum. 1975) and crossed-beam electron-electron scattering at 90 degrees and 300 eV, beam currents 1.2 and 1.3 microamps (J. Chem. Phys. 1977), which he reports agreed well with Moller's standard cross section. Wallace states the c model is 'little more than a first-order approximation' and that a c+v model 'will have to be developed'; he does not say how the frame in which the internal speed is c is defined. The reference list has 156 items (1904-1993) and includes Santilli's Il Grande Grido (1984) and Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics I and II; Santilli is not used in Ch.7's physics. Additions from the QE deep reads (all documented only in Wallace's book unless stated). Radar case beyond the 1969 paper (Ch.5): Wallace says at the 1968 Fourth Texas Symposium (Dallas) Shapiro admitted calculations assumed constant c, c+v was untested, and that the AU values showed large variations beyond the error estimates (Wallace's recollection, not a transcript; in his 3 Apr 1969 letter Wallace writes 'I have quoted your remarks as I remembered them'). Shapiro's side of the 1969 correspondence is only ever paraphrased: 13 Jan (agrees with Dingle's comments), 17 Jan ('the radar data are not consistent with the ballistic theory of light, but are consistent with general relativity', citing the Oct 1966 PRL on the second-order Doppler shift), 27 Mar (data did not exist in the requested form), 13 Oct, 6 Nov, 28 Nov, 9 Dec 1969 (too occupied to direct a large-scale investigation). L. M. Hollingsworth (AFCRL) wrote on 29 Sep 1969 that the requested data form did not exist but an IBM-card deck could be sent, and on 7 Nov 1969 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'; at a four-hour hotel-room meeting at the December 1969 AAAS Boston meeting Hollingsworth, per Wallace only, admitted the graphed AU values ranged over thousands of km and that the data existed but needed Shapiro's permission. Wallace wrote on 18 Oct 1969 that the data sent might be a good test and on 25 Oct that they were useless (the book does not explain the change). Shapiro published a reply, I. Shapiro, Scientific Ethics 1(2), 10 (1985) [ref 72], to Wallace's 'The Great Speed of Light in Space Coverup', Sci. Ethics 1(1), 2 (1985) [ref 71]; its content is not given in the book and it has not been read. Two charges against the Lincoln Laboratory reductions, both Wallace's inference: (i) letter of 3 Apr 1969, citing Evans et al., Astron. J. 70, 486 (1965): the group removed 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'; (ii) letter of 25 Oct 1969: the synodic variation in the General Relativity Fit of Fig. 4 (p.343) of Ash, Shapiro and Smith, Astron. J. 72, 338 (1967), could only have been removed 'by using empirical corrections similar to Duncombe's corrections' ('the only possible way' is his inference; he says 'I do not think that one should blame them'). Goodness-of-fit values attributed to Ash-Shapiro-Smith: 1.57 (Massachusetts), 0.97 (Puerto Rico), 7.10 (Crimea), undefined in the book; the paper's quoted sentence says the USSR residuals are 'systematically negative relative to the Arecibo and Lincoln Laboratory residuals' in June 1964 and 'This incompatibility cannot be removed by assuming simply that different units of time were used'. Moyer argument: Wallace says T. D. Moyer (JPL), Celestial Mechanics 23, 33 (1981), evaluates the distance at signal reception without the -tv/2 term and calls the main term 'the Newtonian light time' (Moyer's phrase, quoted by Wallace), which Wallace reads as the Galilean c+v equation (2) of his 1969 paper; his Physics Today letter 'The speed of light is c+v' (9 Jul 1984) was rejected on 4 Jan 1985 by Acting Editor G. B. Lubkin. That Moyer's equation 'is based on c+v' is Wallace's reading; the deep reader notes [memory, medium-high] that in Moyer's formulation the light-time equation is solved with speed c in the barycentric frame and the positions at reception correspond to light-time iteration. Kotel'nikov et al., Astron. Zh. 53, 1270 (1976): 1975 Venus radar measured-minus-calculated delays 'reach 3500 microseconds, which when converted to the distance from the earth to Venus comprises 500 km', with 'different characters' at different conjunctions; as quoted these are discrepancies against planetary-motion theory and the quoted text does not mention light speed; Wallace offers it as a 'hint'. 'Star Wars' secrecy inference: Wallace formed it after reading R. J. Smith, Science 221, 133 (1983); the quoted passages mention Lincoln Laboratory decoy work but not radar astronomy or light speed; Wallace words it as 'I now suspect', 'most probable', 'may have been'. Circumstantial items he cites: laser/beam-weapon classification (Physics Today 1988, 1985 items), one classified astronomical data set (Sky & Telescope 1989), and G. C. McVittie, Astron. J. 75, 287 (1970), plus a 1970 McVittie letter (paraphrased) saying Shapiro's secrecy about methods and results 'makes him wonder whether there is something to be concealed'. Publication events (Ch.4, Wallace's accounts; refusal letters are paraphrased, not reproduced): PRL 1969 (submitted 3 Jun; first referee 15 Aug 'suitable for PRL, if revised'; resubmitted 21 Aug; Goudsmit 11 and 23 Sep); Physics Today letters Aug 1981, Jan 1983, Jun 1984, Jul 1984 (rejected 4 Jan 1985), 14 Jan 1988 (no acceptance); a PRL paper rejected without referee c.1983-84; Sky & Telescope (R. T. Fienberg) 1988 declined; R. R. Wilson's APS address (Physics Today 39(7), 26, 1986: 'Then we should ostracize the culprit and hold up for years any publication by the use of our well-practiced referees', which Wallace concedes may be humour); Einstein quotations via Pais and Clark: 1912 to Zangger, 1913 to Freundlich ('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'), 1921 on Dayton Miller's Michelson-Morley repetition ('Otherwise the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards'). Ch.6 (Soviet witness accounts, all Wallace's reporting): Sekerin (Novosibirsk, letter Oct 1987); Tolchelnikova-Murri (Pulkovo, 1988 letter: 'Two scientists were dismissed because they discovered some facts which contradicted Einstein'); Wallace's visit to Leningrad/Pulkovo 10-17 Mar 1989 and a Pulkovo conference; Wallace's account that under Director Abalakin two anti-relativist women were forced into early retirement and are now reinstated (one named, A. Schpitalnaya); Parshin's modern variation of the Ives experiment, data published in a Soviet journal but theoretical analysis not (no journal or numbers given); Minsk anti-relativity conference Feb 1990; second Leningrad conference 16-20 Sep 1991 (114 participants, 14 foreign); Beklyamishev's paper on Wallace's Venus radar data (title only); Vigier's 'doubts on Prof. Shapiro's observations'; Essen quoted as saying a former Pulkovo director argued the eclipse results 'did not support Eddington's claim'; Hayden: SR 'inherently irrefutable'; Salamin's binary-star objection (c+v would give simultaneous red shifts from both members), conceded in Wallace's reply, which falls back on the solar-system argument; Beckmann (Galilean Electrodynamics) published Salamin's comments but not Wallace's reply. Wallace's stated position (Ch.6): he accepts E=mc^2 ('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') and accepts Hafele-Keating time dilation as real but relative to an absolute frame at rest with the distant galaxies; he rejects the first postulate and the second postulate. Ch.3 relativity-specific claims: F. Schmeidler, Sky & Telescope 27(4), 217 (1964): a plot of shifts for 92 stars from the 1922 eclipse 'going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way', and 1919/1922 results 'depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars' (only number given: 92; Wallace's paraphrase of a 1964 popular article), which he calls 'Trimming and Cooking', linking motive to Chandrasekhar's account of Eddington's 1917 conscription deferment; L. Essen, The Special Theory of Relativity - A Critical Analysis (OUP 1971): SR as 'a new system of units', 'no experimental support', accelerations always involved in time-dilation experiments (Essen built the first caesium clock, 1955); Whittaker/Poincare-Lorentz priority via Pais; Shankland (Am. J. Phys. 41, 895, 1973) and Ono (Phys. Today 35(8), 45, 1982) on Einstein's recollections of the Michelson-Morley experiment; Einstein's 1920 Leiden 'aether' passage. Ch.2: Langmuir's six symptoms (Phys. Today 42(10), 36, 1989) are applied by Wallace only through criteria 1 (SR and quarks) and 4 (Big Bang); the NSF rejection letter (Feb 1978, B. R. Holstein) is quoted in full by Wallace as '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' (difficulties not itemised); APS confrontations (G. Brown 1982, S. Weinberg 1979, L. Lederman 1981, C. Rubbia 1985) are Wallace's accounts, with no replies from those named; cosmology sources: P. LaViolette, Astrophys. J. 301, 544 (1986) (tired-light model fits four tests better than a no-evolution q0=0 expanding model; photons lose 5-7% of energy per 10^9 light years), Burbidge's review (Sky & Telescope 75(1), 38, 1988) of Arp's treatment (no more telescope time; 'interminable refereeing, blackballing of speakers ... denial of telescope time'; Burbidge is himself a dissenter), I. E. Segal (Phys. Rev. D 28, 2393, 1983), and 1990-91 press reports on COBE and large-scale structure. Introduction/Ch.1: a survey of science versus religion, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Mahoney's study; no new physics claims.

Key claims

• Interplanetary radar time-delay residuals for Venus (1961-1966), analysed with constant light speed c, show variations of about 3 ms against an expected error of about 10 microseconds, correlated with Earth's rotation, the 30-day Earth-Moon term and relative radial velocity.
• The relative velocity of light in space is of the form c+v (relative to the observer or source motion), not c, so Einstein's second postulate fails.
• Irwin Shapiro stated in the Fourth Texas Symposium (1968) comment session that all radar analyses assumed constant c and that c+v had not been tested (as reported by Wallace).
• The inertial mass of matter and the virtual mass of a photon are the same entity, and a rest particle's mass has an internal circular motion of speed c that becomes linear motion at c when matter is converted to energy.
• A single compressible fluid-like 'dynamic ether' obeying conservation of mass, conservation of momentum and an equality-of-action attraction law is sufficient to describe all physical phenomena.
• A gridless mass-in-cell computer model with all mass moving at c reproduces photon emission at c, a 1/r electron mass distribution, electron-electron forces, spin forces, gravity (from surface tension) and a nuclear-scale force.
• The Coulomb/Lorentz and gravitational forces between two electrons deviate from standard predictions when their separation is below about 1.1e-14 m (the overlap of the 50% mass-distribution radii).
• The neutral pion contains about 104 (or 10^4, the text is ambiguous) electrons and positrons whose mass-flow binding energy gives the strong-to-electromagnetic ratio of about 100.
• Atomic nuclei should be modelled with neutrons rather than fused electrons (Wallace 1971).
• The universe is infinite and not expanding; redshift is not purely Doppler; matter is re-created from redshifted energy and pressure-induced matter annihilation powers stars, planets (Jupiter radiating 2.5 times its solar input) and quasars.
• Hafele-Keating atomic clock results (-59 ns east, +273 ns west) show time dilation relative to an absolute frame at rest with the distant galaxies.
• Photon self-interference is untenable (Pfleegor and Mandel); clock-like photons synchronise clock-like electrons in interference regions.
• Crossed-beam e-e scattering at 90 degrees and 300 eV agrees with Moller's cross section (a standard QM result, reported by Wallace).
• Journal referees, editors and funding reviewers suppressed Wallace's radar and mass-dynamics work (a PRL referee reversal in 1969, an NSF rejection in 1978, the editor Robinson ceasing to publish him in 1979).
• Modern physics theories (special relativity, quarks, QCD) meet Langmuir's criteria for pathological science.
• Evans et al., Astron. J. 70, 486 (1965), as cited by Wallace, shows that the Lincoln Laboratory group removed the large daily variations in Venus radar results by changing to a constant 12:00 UT observing time, even when the planet was not observed or visible (Wallace's charge; the 1965 paper has not been read).
• The synodic variation in the General Relativity Fit of Fig. 4 of Ash, Shapiro and Smith, Astron. J. 72, 338 (1967), could only have been removed by empirical corrections similar to Duncombe's corrections (Wallace's inference from the paper; method not seen).
• T. D. Moyer's JPL light-time equation (Celestial Mechanics 23, 33 (1981), appendix equation A6) evaluated at signal reception time is nearly equivalent to the Galilean c+v equation (2) of Wallace's 1969 paper, and its main term is called 'the Newtonian light time' (Wallace's reading; the speed in Moyer's formulation is c in the barycentric frame per the deep reader's memory note).
• Venus radar measured-minus-calculated delays in 1975 reached 3500 microseconds (500 km) with different behaviour at different inferior conjunctions (Kotel'nikov et al., Astron. Zh. 53, 1270 (1976), as quoted; relative to planetary-motion theory, not stated to be about light speed).
• The 1919 and 1922 eclipse light-bending results depended strongly on the method of reduction and on omitting individual stars, and a plot of 92 star shifts from the 1922 eclipse shows many going the wrong way (Wallace's paraphrase of F. Schmeidler, Sky & Telescope 27(4), 217 (1964); Wallace calls this 'Trimming and Cooking').
• Time-dilation experiments always involve accelerations, no symmetrical or inertial experiment has been made, and Michelson-Morley-type experiments cannot support relativity because the theory was built to explain them (L. Essen, 1971, as quoted by Wallace).
• A tired-light model (photons losing about 5-7% of their energy per 10^9 light years) fits four cosmological tests better than a no-evolution, q0=0 expanding model (P. LaViolette, Astrophys. J. 301, 544 (1986), as quoted).
• Pulkovo Observatory dismissed two scientists who found facts contradicting Einstein, and under Director Abalakin two anti-relativist women were forced into early retirement and later reinstated (Tolchelnikova-Murri's letter and conversations, reported only by Wallace).
• Halton Arp was denied telescope time and refereeing was obstructive after his work on discordant redshifts (Burbidge's review, quoted by Wallace; Arp's own account).
• A Soviet-era Ives-type experiment by P. F. Parshin gave data published in a Soviet journal while his theoretical analysis was refused publication (Wallace's report of a conversation; no journal or numbers).
• Wallace accepts that E=mc^2 is true and that 'much of relativity theory is true, but many of the original arguments are not', and accepts Hafele-Keating time dilation as real relative to an absolute frame.
• The motive for the missing radar data was military secrecy tied to the 'Star Wars' programme (Wallace's inference, 'I now suspect', formed after a 1983 Science article; the quoted documents do not mention radar astronomy or light speed).
• Shapiro published a reply to Wallace in print: I. Shapiro, Scientific Ethics 1(2), 10 (1985) (content not given in the book; not read).
• In June 1964 Ash, Shapiro and Smith found the USSR time-delay residuals systematically negative relative to the Arecibo and Lincoln Laboratory residuals, an incompatibility not removable by assuming different time units (quoted from AJ 72, 338; Wallace reads it as evidence against the c theory).

Relevance: The only document in the project and the whole source of the project's claims. It is a self-published-style manuscript by the inventor, so every claim about the radar data, Shapiro, referees and editors is Wallace's account. Chapter 7 holds the theory; the primary papers with the equations (Found. Phys. 3, 381 (1973); Spectroscopy Letters 2, 361 (1969), 3, 115 (1970), 4, 79 and 4, 123 (1971); J. Clas. Phys. 1(2), 17 (1982); Speculations Sci. Technol. 9, 9 (1986)) are not in the folder. Santilli appears only as a witness to institutional hostility, and the book does not use his mathematics. The 1969 Spectroscopy Letters paper (read as page images by the reviewers and QE) and the Moyer, Evans, Ash-Shapiro-Smith, Kotel'nikov, McVittie and Shapiro-1985 sources are not in the folder.

Mainstream conflict: Denies the constancy of light speed (Einstein's second postulate) and relies on a Ritz-type c+v emission picture that mainstream physics regards as ruled out by later tests (a mainstream view; Physicist to cite sources); the mainstream view of the Venus radar data is that range delay is fully modelled with c and general relativity (Shapiro delay), which Wallace disputes. Proposes a classical fluid ether and an internal-circulation electron model in place of point-like particles in quantum field theory; rejects the quark model and QCD, the Copenhagen interpretation and the expanding universe with Big Bang; gravity as an electron surface-tension effect; pion made of e+e- pairs. Additional conflicts from the deep reads: the eclipse light-bending claim (Schmeidler/'Trimming and Cooking'), Essen's claim that no inertial time-dilation experiment exists, and the tired-light cosmology conflict with mainstream cosmology; mainstream answers are for the reviewers (the radio-interferometric deflection measurements agreeing with general relativity to about 1e-4 are [memory, high] and need a web check).