|
|
On Jul 18, 4:07 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On 18 Jul, 14:50, Pentcho Valev <pva...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 4:53 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote in sci.astro:
>
> > > Pentcho Valev - why not peer reviewed publication?"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
>
> > 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?
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@xxxxxxxxx
>
> 10/10 for bothering to reply to my question - I didn't think you would
> so thank you.
>
> I still don't understand why you bother posting similar material to
> these groups again and again and again. The people here are not the
> people you need to convince and the danger is that you are seen as
> obsessed with the matter to the exclusion of many other, equally
> interesting, scientific issues/cover-ups/errors.
>
> Please share your motivation with the group.
Please consider the following quotation but pay some more attention to
what is said about "later writers":
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
We have a typical Goebbels' situation: "later writers" have repeated a
lie countless times and the world is now used to it, although the
truth is almost obvious. What can I do? Repeating the obvious truth
seems to be the only possible reaction. If we lived in Big Brother's
world, your question would be: "I still don't understand why you
bother posting 2+2=4 to these groups again and again and again":
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@xxxxxxxxx
|
|