|
|
On Jul 18, 4:10 pm, hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:50:09 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
>
> <pva...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On Jul 16, 4:53 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >wrote in sci.astro:
> >> PentchoValev - why not peer reviewed publication?"
>
> >> Instead of endlessly pumping out the same material to people in this
> >> group who don't seem interested or convinced by what you write why not
> >> just prepare an article for peer reviewed publication.
>
> >> If the evidence is as overwhelming as you would have us believe the
> >> well known scientific journals would jump at the opportunity to
> >> publish your work.
>
> >> Martin Nicholson
> >> Daventry, England
>
> >They did jump but for different reasons. Philip Ball, the editor of
> >Nature, even found it suitable to convert so much jumping into money
> >and wrote a book about me:
>
> > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sun-Moon-Corrupted-Philip-Ball/dp/1846271088
> >"The Sun and Moon Corrupted" by Philip Ball
>
> Hmmm. 27 used ones on offer at Amazon.
> Everybody wants to get rid of, obviously.
> You are not that interesting, Pentcho.
Yes in the intepretation of Philip Ball I am not at all interesting.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@xxxxxxxxx
> >I am trying to counteract but without much success:
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/66743bacba47371c?
>
> >So my countless attempts to publish in "peer-reviewed" journals
> >brought calamity on me and fortune on Philip Ball. Why should I
> >continue?
|
|