Can someone explain - because Valev refuses to!

Why does Valev post minor variations of his anti-Einstein diatribe on
a daily basis to an audience that doesn’t seem either interested or
convinced by what he writes.

A single peer reviewed article would reach far more people yet he
refuses to go down this route. Why?

Dear Ogle dataminer:

On Oct 29, 1:09*am, Ogle dataminer wrote:
Why does Valev post minor variations of his
anti-Einstein diatribe on a daily basis to an
audience that doesn’t seem either interested or
convinced by what he writes.

Why questions can't be answered by others. It appears he is a
"conscientious objector" to the conclusions arrived at by the "laws of
physics" and "consistent logic".

A single peer reviewed article would reach far more
people yet he refuses to go down this route. Why?

Possibly because he posts not for any hope of swaying opinion, but to
get the "strokes" from people that his psyche requires to feel
important.

Besides, there are a lot of people that have to believe that others
"in authority" are wrong, and there are even more that learned
relativity to some extent, and have since completely forgotten what
its limitations are, what its conclusions really are, and how
carefully its conclusions have to be couched to avoid sounding
entirely preposterous (aka. "paradoxes").

David A. Smith

"dlzc" wrote in message
...
Dear Ogle dataminer:

On Oct 29, 1:09 am, Ogle dataminer wrote:
Why does Valev post minor variations of his
anti-Einstein diatribe on a daily basis to an
audience that doesn’t seem either interested or
convinced by what he writes.

Why questions can't be answered by others. It appears he is a
"conscientious objector" to the conclusions arrived at by the "laws of
physics" and "consistent logic".

A single peer reviewed article would reach far more
people yet he refuses to go down this route. Why?

Possibly because he posts not for any hope of swaying opinion, but to
get the "strokes" from people that his psyche requires to feel
important.

Besides, there are a lot of people that have to believe that others
"in authority" are wrong, and there are even more that learned
relativity to some extent, and have since completely forgotten what
its limitations are, what its conclusions really are, and how
carefully its conclusions have to be couched to avoid sounding
entirely preposterous (aka. "paradoxes").

David A. Smith

Peer reviewed publication.

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/TimeLifeMezon/301-305Nature.pdf

Bailey, Borer et. al:
tau = tau0 / [(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}] = gamma.tau0
Einstein: tau = t * [(1-v^2/c^2)^{1/2}] =
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img61.gif

Somebody doesn't know multiplication from division.
Somebody is cooking the books to get the result they want.
Somebody is LYING.
While no theory can be proven, it can be disproven by example.
Bailey, Borer et. al. have DISPROVEN relativity.

So much for peer-review.