Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #586367 > unrolled thread

Pentcho Valev

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Pentcho Valev Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-24 11:17 +1000
    Re: Pentcho Valev jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-24 02:04 +0000
    Re: Pentcho Valev Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 07:34 -0500
    Re: Pentcho Valev "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> - 2016-06-24 19:39 +0200
    Re: Pentcho Valev "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 17:33 -0700
    Re: Pentcho Valev Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 17:50 -0700
      Re: Pentcho Valev jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-25 05:11 +0000
        Re: Pentcho Valev Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 00:30 -0700
          Re: Pentcho Valev jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-25 15:40 +0000
            Re: Pentcho Valev Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 10:05 -0700
              Re: Pentcho Valev jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-25 20:22 +0000
                Re: Pentcho Valev Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 13:32 -0700
      Re: Pentcho Valev Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 12:58 -0500
    Re: Pentcho Valev "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 19:54 -0700

#586367 — Pentcho Valev

Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?

He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just 
wonder at his motivation.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#586369

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?
> 
> He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just 
> wonder at his motivation.
> 
> Sylvia.

Abnormal brain chemistry, like a lot of others.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586382

On 6/23/2016 8:17 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?
>
> He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just
> wonder at his motivation.
>
> Sylvia.

 From what I can tell, he just perceives himself to be a gadfly, 
spouting propaganda. Not really interested in the physics, he just wants 
to voice his objections.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586397

In article <dt3g1cFk3ntU1@mid.individual.net>
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
> Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?
>
> He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just
> wonder at his motivation.

Simple, he's nuts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586480

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 6:17:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?
> 
> He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just 
> wonder at his motivation.
> 
> Sylvia.

Here I'll attempt to re-write from memory a post on the 
Pentcho Valev as was sent in the puny Google poster 
outage of yesterday past.

Pentcho Valev is an Einsteinian who is disgusted with 
Einstein worshippers who don't know why.  His viewpoint 
seems to eventually deflect from the backlash against 
Einstein when something else has to give.

He refers generally and specifically to various seminal 
experiments about the principle of relativity and theories 
of the special theory of relativity and the general theory 
of relativity, correspondingly, about that various factors 
of the experiments reflect special configurations in terms 
of then the outcomes and their scientific import.

His noted and quoted opinions are usually of the experiment 
and the configuration, instead of, for example, the derivation 
of the theory, then that variously there are decisions within 
the usual derivations that, given different branches, wouldn't 
maintain the same outcomes, then with regards to other features 
of the theories of the physics, as physics yet is to establish 
some "unified field theory" or "grand unified theory" or "theory 
of everything", and various speculations these days are 
mutually incompatible.


The crux of his point has a summary in the Doppler effect, 
and, the instantaneous rate of change (of c) that is zero 
or infinitesimal and for which Doppler only exists as it 
is non-zero.

Let's see if this gets through, then.



Then, plain naive Einstein worshippers are better than 
dumbphone-worshippers, but, not so much.  But, that's 
my opinion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586486

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 6:17:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?
> 
> He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just 
> wonder at his motivation.
> 
> Sylvia.

Valev is doing the world a service. Science should be challenged and falsified, not corroborated. Otherwise, it becomes a religion. Question science always.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586538

Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 6:17:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?
>> 
>> He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just 
>> wonder at his motivation.
>> 
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Valev is doing the world a service. Science should be challenged
> and falsified, not corroborated. Otherwise, it becomes a religion.
> Question science always.

Puerile.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586550

On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 10:31:07 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 6:17:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?
> >> 
> >> He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just 
> >> wonder at his motivation.
> >> 
> >> Sylvia.
> > 
> > Valev is doing the world a service. Science should be challenged
> > and falsified, not corroborated. Otherwise, it becomes a religion.
> > Question science always.
> 
> Puerile.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

I prefer the word 'childish' myself. It sounds a lot less pompous and less, well, childish.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586588

Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 10:31:07 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 6:17:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> >> Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?
>> >> 
>> >> He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just 
>> >> wonder at his motivation.
>> >> 
>> >> Sylvia.
>> > 
>> > Valev is doing the world a service. Science should be challenged
>> > and falsified, not corroborated. Otherwise, it becomes a religion.
>> > Question science always.
>> 
>> Puerile.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jim Pennino
> 
> I prefer the word 'childish' myself. It sounds a lot less pompous and
> less, well, childish.

The word puerile means more than just childish.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586613

On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 8:46:06 AM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 10:31:07 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 6:17:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> >> Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?
> >> >> 
> >> >> He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just 
> >> >> wonder at his motivation.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Sylvia.
> >> > 
> >> > Valev is doing the world a service. Science should be challenged
> >> > and falsified, not corroborated. Otherwise, it becomes a religion.
> >> > Question science always.
> >> 
> >> Puerile.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Jim Pennino
> > 
> > I prefer the word 'childish' myself. It sounds a lot less pompous and
> > less, well, childish.
> 
> The word puerile means more than just childish.
> 

I don't care.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586671

Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 8:46:06 AM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 10:31:07 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 6:17:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> >> >> Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just 
>> >> >> wonder at his motivation.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Sylvia.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Valev is doing the world a service. Science should be challenged
>> >> > and falsified, not corroborated. Otherwise, it becomes a religion.
>> >> > Question science always.
>> >> 
>> >> Puerile.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> -- 
>> >> Jim Pennino
>> > 
>> > I prefer the word 'childish' myself. It sounds a lot less pompous and
>> > less, well, childish.
>> 
>> The word puerile means more than just childish.
>> 
> 
> I don't care.

Or understand why the word was used.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586674

On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 1:31:06 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 8:46:06 AM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 10:31:07 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >> Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 6:17:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> >> >> Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just 
> >> >> >> wonder at his motivation.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Sylvia.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Valev is doing the world a service. Science should be challenged
> >> >> > and falsified, not corroborated. Otherwise, it becomes a religion.
> >> >> > Question science always.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Puerile.
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> -- 
> >> >> Jim Pennino
> >> > 
> >> > I prefer the word 'childish' myself. It sounds a lot less pompous and
> >> > less, well, childish.
> >> 
> >> The word puerile means more than just childish.
> >> 
> > 
> > I don't care.
> 
> Or understand why the word was used.
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

I don't care.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586624

On 6/24/2016 7:50 PM, Louis Savain wrote:
> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 6:17:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?
>>
>> He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just
>> wonder at his motivation.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Valev is doing the world a service. Science should be challenged and falsified, not
> corroborated. Otherwise, it becomes a religion. Question science always.
>

Opposition for the sake of opposition is not particularly constructive.
Consider that any theory is tested by corroboration by experimental 
results. If every corroborative experimental result were thrown out as 
"unscientific" or "religious", then no theory would EVER pass 
experimental test. Likewise, experimental results are usually required 
to be confirmed by an independent research team before they are 
unilaterally accepted by the scientific community. (This is why there 
are both CMS and ATLAS experiments at LHC, for example.) If such 
corroboration were somehow "religious" or "unscientific", then no 
experimental result would be accepted, and then theories would become 
untestable.

So I think you carry the Viva La Oposicion flag a little too high.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586490

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 6:17:37 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Does he ever reply to a post other than his own?
> 
> He obviously spends a lot of time constructing his missives. I just 
> wonder at his motivation.
> 
> Sylvia.

Yes, there have been replies (on his own threads).

He is offended by Einstein-worship because he is 
really an Einsteinian and he sees people attribute 
wrongly to him, so he can lean on the strength of 
the Einsteinian to push off against the mediocrity 
of Einstein-worshippers who don't know why.

Also he points to the seminal experiments as of 
their configuration and as well in the various 
cases, their ambiguity that are variously at 
odds with other interpretations of what are 
deemed to be the same, but are slightly different, 
experiments.

It is of those points that you mostly see him 
(or her, or, it) post, instead of, see, some 
considerations of alternate derivations as so 
may follow from the low-energy approximations 
that are "Einstein's formulas" and etcetera.

Basically the crux of his point seems to be 
about the Doppler and some instantaneous 
rate of change (of c) which is non-zero, 
thus the Doppler effect.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web