On Jul 18, 9:58 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 18, 4:07 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

On 18 Jul, 14:50, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 16, 4:53 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
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Pentcho Valev - why not peer reviewed publication?"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...@yahoo.com

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.
2. A number of experimental consequences that were predicted by the
emission theory of light that turned out to be wrong.

The fact that the MMX alone cannot discriminate between the two
theories is irrelevant.

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!"

PD