Letters

From Paul Cook, Tempe, AZ:

"I've just read your book, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets. Twice, in fact. I think it's the most important book I've ever read in science (and anomalistic studies). I'm recommending it to all of my students at Arizona State University (where I teach American literature). ... I would also like to mention that I am a publishing science fiction writer. If just a fraction of your ideas are true, then all of science fiction will need to be revised."

From Tim Seward, Santiago, Chile:

"Thank you for writing Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, which I found to be truly inspiring and refreshing. ... Many of the professional astronomers who address themselves to us seem to believe that we're a little slow on the uptake. Or at least they tend to talk down to us in a rather paternalistic fashion. You do not do this at all. Your voice is wonderful, ... I also found your book to be deeply disturbing, and I am not referring to whatever happened to Planet K. The disturbing part is your focus on the systematic way in which mainstream astronomy has fallen headlong into a real black hole, the kind from which a breath of fresh air can hardly ever escape. ... your book has inspired a story, tentatively called The Krypton-Terrestrial Boundary, which I hope I am writing more in the spirit of science-fact than science-fiction."

From Paul C. White, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada:

"Just read Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets .... then read it again -- finally a little sanity in science."

From Don Swaner, Chevy Chase, MD:

"William Corliss's Science Frontiers notes the anomalous nature of deep earthquakes -- according to theory, the rock at that depth is at such pressure and temperature that it is fluid, prohibiting sudden breaks. In the Meta Model of gravitation, there would be increased shielding from C-gravitons in the earth's interior -- possibly yielding a different model of the earth's internal structure which hopefully might explain deep quakes."

From Christopher Maricaille, Lisieux, France:

"Van Flandern's book is really a different book, something rather special, where the unexpected comes up at every page. Imagine someone more original and heretical than Velikovsky, with a strong scientific background, and you get the man. It is sometimes a bit far-fetched, but after reading it you cannot think about the universe the same way as before."

From Robert L. Henderson, Sun City, AZ:

"It is a fact that the scientific community is no more objective now than was the church in Galileo's time: it is a difficult time for true scientists. It is my belief that most of the theoretical scientific papers now appearing in the scientific literature (such as Science) should be more realistically published as further adventures of Alice in Wonderland. I believe that the next true advances in the understanding of the real world will be found in the literature published outside the dominant scientific press, such as the books both you and Halton Arp found it necessary to publish in order to get your views exposed to the public." [RLH is the author of an interesting monograph critical of relativity. . -- tvf]

From C. Leroy Ellenberger, St. Louis, MO:

"After the Meta Model, origin of comets, orbits, capture and sphere of influence -- all of which are enlightening to me -- the further away you get from the core of your expertise, the less impressed by the soundness of your often admittedly amateur opinions and conclusions I am. The first time I tripped was with your attitude towards plate tectonics, which like other non-Earth scientists you call continental spreading rates. You await VLBI results to test plate spreading rates; but VLBI results have been available since at least 1984 confirming plate tectonics. Richard Kerr reported VLBI results in Science, 12 June 1987, p. 1425, for the motion of Hawaii toward Japan and Atlantic spreading that confirmed the geological rates. ... I do not understand how your book could be so off-base on such a fundamental issue. ... You write that the opposition to your planetary breakup model stems from it being an extraordinary hypothesis. I'd say it's more likely the opposition stems from the absence of a convincing breakup process, just as Wegener was opposed because he had no good process for moving the continents in his drift model."

From Ronald R. Hatch, Wilmington, CA:

"While I disagree with some of your fundamental arguments there is much that is very interesting and much that looks good. ... Best wishes for your own fight against the blind acceptance of consensus." [Ron is the author of the book "Escape from Einstein", a challenge to relativity. -- tvf]

From Alexey V. Arkhipov, Kharkov, Ukraine:

"Chapters 20 and 21 seem valuable especially. Your criticism of scientific method's limits closely correlated with my thoughts about the problem of anomalous phenomena.."

From Allen Barwick, Potomac, MD:

"I loved your book Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets. ... I don't know what I enjoyed the most -- your footnotes full of hypotheses and the unscientific method, or Mercury's an ex-satellite of Venus. ... I have gone directly to the places that I can immediately use in teaching physics at Woodrow Wilson H.S. ... I sincerely hope your text receives the attention that it deserves from the scientific community."

From Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., Urbana, IL:

"I have finished reading your Dark Matter book, which you kindly sent me, and found it a rare treat. The centerpiece is the hypothesis of an exploding planet. The evidence you muster for it is most impressive. You have done a remarkable job as a sort of astronomical Sherlock. ... On your generalities about the sociology of modern science I found things to agree with on almost every page. For instance you will find your excellent advice, we should never impute superior judgment to specialists, encapsulated in my definition of an expert as somebody who does not make small mistakes." [Tom is the author of "Heretical Verities: Mathematical Themes in Physical Description". -- tvf]

From John M.J. Gretchko, Cleveland, OH:

"I very much like the way you lay out your thought on pages xxxii and xxxiii. It is very challenging. All books should be this way. I also like when you say that everyone should be his own expert. You are challenging people to think, which also challenged authority, which also challenges jobs and security. Thinking is dangerous, especially if carried to conclusions. ... I see references to the so-called faces on Mars. I think it is admirable that you should bring that up. I'm sure none of your colleagues would have dared touch the subject, whether or not it should prove to have merit. You mention the Velikovsky affair somewhere and how stupidly the scientific community handled it. I'm not sure that Sagan put an end to the Velikovsky business. His adherents still thrive and have their own publication."

From James Ellison, Redondo Beach, CA:

"Your depiction of scientific inertia and its resultant destruction of the scientific process is so true to my personal experience that I could not more passionately endorse it. ... The cumulative greatest losers are, of course, science and humanity. ... Parts of your Preface, Introduction, and Prologue should be required reading for every science, engineering, and math major, as well as every person aspiring to manage researchers, whether scientists, engineers, or mathematicians!"