Portland visit

Dear Dewey:

I want to thank you and Dorothy for all the trouble you took to make my stay with you in Portland a pleasant one. You were very kind to host me at your house as you did, and I hope I can reciprocate when you visit New York next August.

I have been reading the copy of Volume II that you gave me, and I am really amazed at the amount of progress you have made over the last year. I think the chapter on Relativity would be a useful addition to the book, because from my discussions with various scientists it is clear that they expect any new theory to be a broader generalization incorporating Relativity, just as Relativity claims to incorporate Newtonian physics. If you could show how the Reciprocal system deals with the three “proofs” of Relativity (sometimes erroneously called “predictions”), the claim of Relativity of being uniquely “successful” would no longer be tenable.

Relativity is especially vulnerable because of its logical inconsistencies, and I think that Herbert Dingle’s disproof can help clear the ground for the Reciprocal System. I may have mentioned to you that William Corliss has now ordered fifty copies of the book for his list.

I enclose a recent short article of G. Burbidge, continuing to defend the non-cosmological nature of quasar redshifts against an alternate “gravitational lens” interpretation. It is one of the few controversies in astronomy that is officially tolerated, and is interesting to watch.

The “syllogism” you sent me in your letter of September 2 can serve as an introduction to the scalar motion article, and I will make use of it in my correspondence. Regarding the quarks, I did not meant to imply that I believed they had actually been discovered; I was just looking for a possible way of addressing the physicists in their terms—but I realize from your explanation that it will not work.

I will send back the liquid state papers by separate mail.

My best, and warm regards to Dorothy,