sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Pentcho Valev - why not peer reviewed publication?

Subject: Re: Pentcho Valev - why not peer reviewed publication?
From: PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, fr.sci.physique, fr.sci.astrophysique

On Jul 25, 5:29 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:33:12 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> >   Especially when the empirical data shows the articles
> >   to be without merit.
>
> All experimental evidence points to light being 100% ballistic in a pure
> vacuum.

Well, let's see...
Since you would claim that light being in a pure vacuum is
unobservable, because the fields in light destroy the vacuum, then
perhaps a more accurate rendition of your clumsily constructed cipher
is:
All experimental evidence is consistent with light being 100%
ballistic in a pure vacuum, though there is no experimental evidence
that directly tests light being ballistic in a pure vacuum (because
all observations don't deal with light in a pure vacuum). Moreover,
all experimental evidence points to light being not only 100%
ballistic but steadily decelerating in Neverland.

PD

>
> 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.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>