|
|
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:25:06 -0700 (PDT), Rock Brentwood <markwh04@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>On Jul 18, 9:58 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Mass conspiracies, as the instability and collapse of the USSR in a
>mere few decades proved, are fundamentally impossible. Even in the
>USSR there were many countervailing points of view widely-known and
>widely published.
>
>An Orwellian monolith cannot happen in ANY group beyond a certain
>size. However, it's invocation can, itself, be seen as the shibboleth
>of one with an agenda intent on pursuing such ambition.
>
>Even in North Korea -- the closest real-life analogue to Orwell -- you
>have bridges filled with anti-government graffiti.
>
>In any case, the whole premise is out the window even before it
>starts. There is, in fact, a very large industry IN the peer-reviewed
>literature dedicated to the further development of Galilean relativity
>and Newtonian Physics. It is an absolute necessity for several basic
>reasons: (1) to clarify what actually distinguishes physics based on
>the Poincare' group (aka Relativity), vs. that based on the Galilei
>group (aka Newtonian physics) ... and to clarify what distinctions do
>NOT apply that most people think do; (2) to more precisely define the
>Galilean limit for various modern theories; (3) to complete (and
>correct) what was left undone or done wrong before the advent of
>relativistic physics; (4) to retrofit the newest Physics and related
>Mathematical formalisms (e.g. the curved space-time foundation of
>gravity leading to Newton-Cartan geometry) ... which ties directly to
>(2) and (3).
>
>So, to say that you can't publish in the literature on any of this
>matter is simple BS, because it ALREADY EXISTS in the present-day
>literature. And the last I checked, something already being there
>permanently and decisively proves wrong the theory that it can't be
>there.
>
>So your theory about Newtonian Physics not being publishable is wrong
>before it even gets out of the starting gates. Newtonian Physics IS
>publishable and IS published in peer-reviewed literature. Likewise,
>the conspiracy nut-case nonsense is exposed as nothing more than the
>ramblings of a demagogue-in-waiting, since such ramblings (even in
>Orwell's depiction) are never anything more than the handmaiden of the
>demagogue.
>
>In order to have Orwell, you have to have a complete absence of the
>countervailing points of view. The literature is completely open in
>all regards. It's simply you that are not.
>
>To answer the other person's question: you can't publish in the peer-
>reviewed literature if you're spending all your time posting 600+
>articles a month on the USENET (which only geezers stuck in the old
>Internet world read anymore), It takes time to prepare and write a
>paper, much more than one can have when putting out 20 articles a day,
>spending all day doing it and nothing else (as you can clearly see by
>looking at Pentecho Valev's profile via Google).
>
>One would even ask: why would a person spend so much time
>communicating to a forum that nobody listens to if they weren't
>INTENDING on not being heard, listen to, or taken seriously?!
Anti-Einstein articles will never be published in establishment run journals
for the simple reason that too many eminent reputations would be destroyed as
the truth emerged.
Uncensored electronic publishing will take over completely in the near future
and enable the relativity myth to be finally exposed as the hoax it is.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein
cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
|
|