Difference between revisions of "Bryan G Wallace"
(Imported from text file)
(Imported from text file)
|Line 51:||Line 51:|
* 1994 - "[[The Farce of Physics]]"
* 1994 - "[[The Farce of Physics]]"
Latest revision as of 11:32, 30 December 2016
Bryan G. Wallace
|Bryan G. Wallace|
|Born||February 8, 1933|
|Died||March 19, 1997|
|Residence||St Petersburg, FL, United States|
Bryan G. Wallace of St. Petersburg, Florida died in March 1997, aged 64. He generated much local publicity for his efforts, and became known internationally after he read papers in Leningrad in 1989 and 1991, at the first two in the recent series of Russian dissident meetings. Fellow NPA members highly valued his dedication and his congenial nature.
From the website book "The Farce of Physics" about Dr. Tolchelnikova-Murri
"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 Poincar? 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."
- Spectros. Lett., 2, 361 (1969).
- Spectros. Lett., 3, 115 (1970).
- Spectros. Lett., 4, 79 (1971).
- Spectros. Lett., 4, 123 (1971).
- Found. Phys., 3, 381 (1973).
- R. A. Rhodes II, W. F. Block, B. G. Wallace, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 46, 1710(1975).
- W. F. Block, C. Floyd, R. A. Rhodes II, B. G. Wallace, J. Chem. Phys., 66, 2108(1977).
- Physics Today, 34(8), 11 (1981).
- Physics Today, 36(1), 11 (1983).
- Physics Today, 36(8), 13 (1983).
- Physics Today, 36(9), 111 (1983).
- Scientific Ethics, 1(3), 3 (1985).
- Physics Today, 37(6), 15 (1984).
- J. Clas. Phys., 1(2), 17 (1982). (with R. A. Rhodes & W. F. Block)
- Speculations Sci. Technol. 9, 9 (1986).
- Sci. Ethics 1(1), 2 (1985).
- Galilean Electrodynamics, 1(2), 23(1990).
- Physics Essays, 3(1), 94(1990).
- 1991 - "Space-time Problem in Modern Physics"
- 1986 - "[[Unified Physics Theory
- 1982 - "Unknown"
- 1969 - "Radar Testing of Relative Velocity of Light in Space"
- 1994 - "The Farce of Physics"