Re: Questions for Pentcho Valev - Why do you feel that posting minor variations of the same Einstein related material up to 30 times a day is going to get your views accepted by the wider scientific community?

On 5 Sep, 07:47, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Why do you feel that posting minor variations of the same Einstein
related material up to 30 times a day is going to get your views
accepted by the wider scientific community?

Have you any evidence that any influential scientific figures in your
chosen field read these groups where you post so frequently?

Do you ever feel that it would be a better use of your time to submit
your material to the scientific press where it would be seen by far,
far larger audience?

Roughly how much time do you spend each day preparing and posting
your messages?

You see what he response is. I think we have crossed a kind of rubican
here. No longer is it about Relativity. It is about personal abuse. I
also think you should note the postings just below your's on young
boys. Don't open them for heavens sake. They are clearly a
blackmailing ploy. We seem to have got to this point. Genuine
paedophiles would NOT use this usergroup to get adherents.

Clearly antirelativity is of considerable importance to someone or
some organization.

You talk about publications, there is one irony here. La Reta's
website (the Einstein Hoax). has just one idea that just might be
developed into an acceptable publication. It is this.

She (I am using Italian gender conventions) talks about what amounts
to Special Relativity being implicit in quantum electrodynamics. This
is OK. There is however one major stumbling block - MASS. Mass
increases (E = Mc^2) with energy put in. You thus have to present mass
as being implicit in quantum electrodynamics and forget about the
Higgs boson. La Reta does not do this.

If an alternative view to the Higgs boson were to be presented and
argued properly I feel it might be publishable, particularly if CERN
fails to find the particle.

What we can do (in essence) is assume a rest mass, we can easily say
that we are putting energy in (that is conserved). We can see that QED
gives a relationship between energy in and velocity. We can define
mass as dE/v.dv or d/dv[1/√(1-v*v/c*c)].

In fact a bootstrap theory of mass - that quarks are their own force
vectors and themselves generate mass is a stongly relativistic theory.
It does not fit well with the rest of what La Reta says.

In view of the contributions I have seen "La Reta" is not far from the
mark. It describes antirelativity well.


- Ian Parker
.

Quantcast