Letters from Readers

1. Don Pauly, December 2002
2. J.P. Wesley, January 2000

From: "Donald E. Pauly" <:trojancowboy@mgci.com">

You have made an abysmal fool of yourself with your Einstein on the Carpet,
"http://www.einsteinonthecarpet.com" . The General and Special theories of
relativity are confirmed daily. Electrons hitting the screen in the computer monitor that you are using to read this are moving at about one-third of the speed of light. Their mass is therefore about 5% greater than normal. If it weren't for special relativity your screen would be 5% wider without adjustment. GPS satellites take into account the 1e-10 increase in frequency of their signal due to falling from a 10,000 mile high orbit to earth. This frequency error is a hundred times greater than their original frequency accuracy.

Another Jew, Irvin Shapiro devised a test of the General Theory that Einstein never dreamed of. It involves the 190 microsecond delay of radio signals passing near the sun. This was confirmed by the Viking Orbiters in 1976. Every new test devised has confirmed the General Theory and the Special Theory is beyond argument by anyone having an education in modern physics.

Please don't ruin your newsletter with trash like this. Next you will have a story of Jews being behind UFO alien abductions. The best proof of the non-existence of UFO's is that they haven't destroyed all of the world's Jews. On those rare occasions when a Jew is right, you lose the moral high ground when you do not give it credit. Einstein was right, whether he stole some or all of his ideas is an open question.

While I am not an authority on this subject, I have read his papers and am
inclined to believe that he was their originator. I have also read his one U.S. Patent on a camera photocell device. Clearly he learned how to write a patent application during his time in the Swiss Patent office. It is just like a Jew to get a cushy government job and make good use of his free time. Einstein was my hero because he was a fellow Zionist, even though we certain differences on National Socialism. I want you to publish this letter.
Donald E. Pauly > Zionist

To Donald Pauly

I am saying that the speed of light is relative to observers who are moving relative to each other. What is your empirical evidence that contradicts my statement?
Bob Lavaggi

Mr Lavaggi:

The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second regardless of the motion of transmitter or receiver. This is in fact, the modern definition of the meter, and is proven daily by measurement. Any college physics book will explain that to you.

OK Cowboy,

I agree with your statement below, but do you think that the light from one source passes 2 observers moving relative to each other at the same speed? The fact is that when you move toward a quantity of light it passes you faster. The fact is that when you move away from a quantity of light it passes you slower.

All the definitions and text books in the world can not suppress this empirical evidence.

Mr Lavaggi:

Yes of course, and I will bet my life on it. Each will see a different color due to Doppler effect (both classical and relativistic) but those colors will arrive at exactly the same speed . Get an education. This is 100 year old news. Don't bother me any more until you have spent a month studying a physics book. You will need to learn Newton's laws, gravitation, electricity, magnetism, and light propagation.

Having an education in a subject does not, in and of itself, prove that the information learned is true.
Bob Lavaggi

Mr Lavaggi:
Your assertion: "Having an education in a subject does not, in and of itself, prove that the information learned is true.", is absolutely correct. As a general rule of thumb however, if you don't have an education in a subject, your opinions are not worth hearing. That is clearly so in your case and I have no time to argue with fools.

Get a college physics book and I will help you learn it. It will take you at least a year, judging by your current intellectual level. When you have mastered it, you will have answered all of your stupid questions by yourself. You remind me of a theologian arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.



Donald, Ranking down the messenger is a sign of insecurity. Remember it was
you who responded to a message about me from someone else. "General rules of
thumb" are about as scientific as "angel on a pin" You don't know how
many books I have read on S.R. or how many Physicists I interviewed in the
past 20 years.
Bob Lavaggi


Reader Feedback


Frequently Asked Questions

Email Robert Lavaggi

From: J.P. Wesley, Ph.D., Physicist, Blumberg, Germany, January 27, 2000

I have just read your delightful little book, Einstein on the Carpet. As a mature physicist with a doctor's degree, many years working in government labs and for governmental agencies, with over a hundred papers published in physics journals, with my name on eight books (four as sole author and four as editor or co-editor), with my biography in Who's Who in the World, and with twenty-five years of studying space-time physics, I agree with you:

"Special Relativity" is simply silly nonsense — like extrasensory perception, dianetics, astrology, psychoanalysis, numerology and many other such popular crazes.

Most physicists are ignorant of the large body of experimental fact that does not support traditional orthodox 'physics.' Traditional orthodox 'physics' is perpetuated solely as a religion. Only a few selected facts, usually misinterpreted, are admitted. The large body of experimental fact that is in conflict with accepted orthodoxy is eliminated from textbooks and is not permitted to appear in 'reputable' physics journals. Only men professing complete faith in the verity of accepted orthodoxy are allowed professorships, prizes or recognition. Thus, the same old litany is heard year after year; 'establishment physics' has stagnated and remained rigidly unaltered for almost the last 100 years.

The typical physics professor is as ignorant as any layman off the street of physics as an empirical science.

For example, your own experience at Columbia and at SUNY typifies the prevailing ignorance of actual physical phenomena by typical physics professors:

(1) There is no valid experiment revealing a slowing of moving clocks (in orbit)!

(2) There are ample observations revealing the fact that the oneway velocity of energy propagation of light c* is independent of the velocity of the source but dependent upon the velocity of the observer, such that

c*=c-v, where c is the velocity of light relative to absolute space and v is the absolute velocity of the observer.

(3) Roemer's 1676 result (confirmed by Halley) is a simple consequence of this Eq.(1)

(4) Bradley's stellar aberration is also a simple consequence of this Eq.(1), where the light c* is received transversely to v.

(5) The Sagnac experiment can only be explained if the velocity of light is c fixed relative to absolute space.

(6) The Michelson-Gale experiment proves the same thing.

(7) The observed anisotrophy of the 2.7°K cosmic background radiation by Conklin yielded, for the first time, the absolute velocity of the Earth, using this Eq.(1)

(8) Marinov's most brilliant 1974 experiments utilizing the anisotrophy in the oneway velocity of light in opposite directions c*+ and c*- in the closed lab, as given by Eq.(1), obtained the best value to date for the absolute velocity of the solar system v, v=(c*--C*+)/2.

(9) The existence of absolute space is established by many observations other than those using the velocity of light, such as the Monstein-Wesley method for measuring the absolute velocity of the solar system using the anisotrophy in the flux of cosmic-ray.

(10) The many beautiful experiments of Michelson reveal the fact that the velocity of light is not altered by reflection from a moving mirror, contrary to what you would like to believe.

(11) Maxwell's electromagnetic theory fails numerous crucial experimental tests. It is not a valid empirical nor fundamental theory.

(12) The Michelson-Morley experiment reveals the isotropy of the out-and-back phase velocity of light. It does not and cannot give any information at all about the oneway velocity of energy propagation of light, which is, of course, not isotropic, as noted by Eq.(1) above. The two arms of the Michelson interferometer, being essentially cavity resonators, support precisely the same standing wave frequency for all orientations of the setup, which is a well known behavior for cavity resonators.

...As a scientist, I do not feel that subjective navel scratching (contemplation), such as Kant engaged in, has any relevancy for science.

With best regards,
Paul Wesley

Note: Dr. Wesley's books may be obtained from Benjamin Wesley, Weiherdammstrasse 24, 7712 Blumberg, West Germany

Robert Lavaggi's response, dated February 16, 2000:

As a fledgling quasi-physicist, I have focused on disclosing the faulty logic of Special Relativity. I am honored that a man of your stature would respond so comprehensively to my book. I am encouraged that you see Roemer's experiment as evidence of C*=C-V. I'm encouraged that you disqualify the Michelson-Morley experiment as proof of Einstein's Special Theory. I'm interested in the points where you and I differ.

Regarding Michelson's results, your explanation states, "The two arms of Michelson's interferometer, being essentially cavity resonators, support precisely the same standing wave frequency for all orientations of the setup..."

I am positing, based on the work of Robert Ditchburn, that it is the nature of reflection that produces the cavity resonator effect. The reflectors produce the same standing wave frequency regardless of orientation.

Other explanations for Michelson's experiment are: (2) a result of the nature of light being resonated, (3) a result of the nature of the physicality of the space of the cavity resonators, and (4) some combination of the three. I believe Einstein's theory leans toward (2) and (3).

Regarding C*=C-V, where C* is independent of the velocity of the source, please consider the following thought experiment based on my experiment on page 49.

If Craft B accelerates away from Craft A at the rate of 2 miles per second, then B would observe the 186,000 second flash from A as 186,002 seconds plus or minus its speed prior to accelerating.

If Craft A accelerates away from Craft B at a rate of 2 miles per second, then B would observe the 186,000 second flash from A as 186,000 seconds plus or minus B's speed prior to its acceleration.

C* is independent of the velocity of A.

C* is relative to the velocity of B.

Absolute space at rest is 186,000 m.p.s. away from the leading edge of any beam of light.

Regarding space-time physics, the purpose of my book is to pose a question that Einstein's Special Theory denies because of his notion of a space-time continuum. In time, what happened a year or a minute ago is not happening now physically. What will happen in a minute or next year is not happening now physically. Empirical physics means that we observe, record and reference the incident happening at its moment of physicality between the future and the past.

The question is, how much physical time is there between the future and the past? It's true that any event takes a certain time. A glass takes 3 seconds to fill, but filling the glass is not one incident. It isn't 10% full and 90% full at the same point in time. At 50% full, the 10% is history and the 90% is future.

The question remains: how much physical time is there between the beginning of half full and the end of half full?

If physics attends to the empirical evidence at the moment between the future and the past, then what is the empirical evidence that the future and the past are separated by X amount of time?

Regarding Space: If space is the subject of physics, then what are its physical characteristics? Are we obliged to believe, as Einstein believed, that space would not be space absent those characteristics? I posit that space is (nominal dimension) void of all physical characteristics. What happens in that space is a matter of physics.

As convoluted as Kantian thinking is, I do believe that he speaks to these questions of time and space.

In your book, Progress in Space-Time Physics, is space-time treated as a physical subject with inherent physical characteristics, as Einstein claims, or do you see space and time as abstract dimensions void of inherent physical characteristics and a mental framework wherein uncontaminated observation may occur?

Bob Lavaggi