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