Valev right or wrong? - this is the wrong venue for this debate

Valev endlessly investing time and trouble in talking to a group of
people who have almost exactly zero infuence on main stream scientific
thought is utterly bizarre.

Why not go down the long established route of peer reviewed
publication?

What are you afraid of?

On 29 Jan, 08:18, ukastronomy
wrote:
Valev endlessly investing time and trouble in talking to a group of
people who have almost exactly zero infuence on main stream scientific
thought is utterly bizarre.

Why not go down the long established route of peer reviewed
publication?

What are you afraid of?

I agree with you entirely. I should I feel point out that in the
process of "Peer Review" one is asked to show that you have read all
the relevant literature and commented on it.
http://sites.google.com/site/aitrans...ome/relativity

In this reference I have set out most of the relevant results in
Relativity. It is not an exhaustive list by any means. PGR will accept
unorthodox ideas. It accepted Marcus Hutter's contention that AI can
only be defined in terms of compression for example. What it will not
accept is a complete ignoring of relevant facts.

How do you explain the energy loss in pulsar pairs? The explanation
accepted by the Nobel committee (a Nobel prize was awarded) was that
the main factor was the radiation of gravitational waves according to
GTR. There are other factors like tidal friction (Valev will have to
up the tidal stakes) but they are small in comparison to GTR. In fact
if tidal friction were to be the main cause a brand new theory of the
structure of neutron stars would be needed. In fact all we know about
neutron stars goes the other way. Neutron matter is superconducting
and superfluid and this will REDUCE tidal friction.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../316027a0.html
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/neutron.asp A slightly more
popularised account.

However this is a problem common to all user groups. At least Valev
has never told people to "take their medication", never commented on
people's sexual prowess. He has never spoken of "buggering little
boys" (Rand Simberg).
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...a+author:Adams

This is one of the most disgraceful threads around. I was told to
"take my medication". What had I done? Essentially what I had done was
to show a few relevant references from the "Singularity Institute" on
the future. OK you can reject them, but at least know what they are. I
left the group at that point as I felt that with that thread all
academic respectability had been lost.

A number of groups are moderated. Moderation does increase the quality
of contributions, but it tends to destroy the spontaneity of repartee.
I would like to propose the following. The contributions from the
majority of the members of a group (all members would initially be
taken on trust) would be unmoderated. Those that made a nuisance of
themselves would have to submit to moderation or even be banned
completely.

I think all groups need vigilance sci.astro is in the category of
simply needing vigilance. sci.space.policy is now simply a group for
failed astronauts and the dregs of Republicanism. This could happen to
any group that fails to be vigilant.

Google has been less than helpful. I have reported a number of
flagrant violations but no action has ever been taken.


- Ian Parker