|
|
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:17:00 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Jul 18, 9:58 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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 Pentcho Valev - why not peer reviewed publication?"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/thre...
>>
>> > > 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."
>>
>
>That may be the case, but the acceptance of relativity does not hinge
>on the MMX. The MMX *may* have offered a peek that inspired the guess
>that Einstein made (though that isn't historically clear either), but
>what sealed relativity versus the emission theory of light are two
>happenstances that had nothing to do with the MMX.
>1. A number of other experimental consequences that were predicted by
>SR that turned out to be right.
there are none.
>2. A number of experimental consequences that were predicted by the
>emission theory of light that turned out to be wrong.
They have all been shown to be wrong.
>The fact that the MMX alone cannot discriminate between the two
>theories is irrelevant.
The MMX is just one of many experiments that supports BaTh.
>I offered this parable before:
>A plate on a table had a cloth over it that obscured some objects on
>the plate. Einstein walked up to the table, peered at the cloth and
>the veiled shapes under it and said, "It's a piece of cake and an
>apple." Valev stood nearby and spluttered, "Wait! You can't tell that!
>It could just as well be a block of cheese and a spoon! It could be a
>toy truck and a stuffed rabbit!"
>The next day, someone walked up and uncovered the plate and indeed
>there was a piece of cake and an apple.
>Valev rushed up and grabbed the cloth and covered the plate once more.
>"No fair!" he cried. "You have to judge what's on the plate when it
>was covered! It could just as well be a block of cheese and a spoon!
>It could be a toy truck and a stuffed rabbit! A piece of cake and an
>apple, indeed!"
...and jesus christ cured blind men with a wave of his hand........
Moron!
>PD
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates.
Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
|
|