Can you stop to write the nonsensical “conclusions”?
There are your opinions without needed justifications.
You even are unable to find my book and papers - it is such simple!
I hate to butt into your conversation with Dr. Toad, but no, there are NO links
When I have a problem then I try to find an alternative way. You can click on my name in this Forum. There is the link to my website - there is my book and 37 papers. I will not write still the link to my website because it is forbidden.
On the viXra there are projected the unique-IP downloads (for example, the paper [12] have read 330 persons). It proves that other people have no problem to find my book and papers. Just it is very simple.
you can site ALL the scientists? ALL OF THEM?
all of them agree that the peer review system is just publications of nonsensical and wrong papers?
I would like to see THAT link!
You have a problem with the links so I will write it once more.
Richard Horton editor of the British medical journal “The Lancet”:
“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
It is obvious that Richard Horton is not against the peer review process. I am as well not against this process. But Richard Horton, many other scientists and I claim that the peer review system does not act correctly. It is obvious because Horton’s journal is a part of this system.
In my opinion, reviewers should not be lawyers in their own matters. It is obvious that such system must lead to corruption. For example, the authors of renormalization should be not reviewers of my theory which proves that Nature does not need the renormalization. The same concerns the authors of mainstream inflation and authors of the model of the baryons at low energy.
Reviewers should investigate only whether a paper is coherent, free from mistakes and conformable to the methodology. It can do, for example, young mathematicians independent from authors who can be against new theories.
Today hypocrisy is everywhere. There is the political corruption, there is the economical corruption and there as well is the scientific corruption and Richard Horton wrote about the last corruption.
Generally, the scientific journals publish papers concerning the mainstream theories i.e. the General Relativity (GR), Standard Model (SM) and Cosmological Standard Model (CSM). But it is obvious that the mainstream theories are the incomplete theories so there appear many wrong interpretations and speculations (i.e. tremendous number of nonsensical peer reviewed papers), for example:
The GR and SM lead to physical singularities and infinities.
In the SM are applied the indeterminate forms (for example, infinity minus infinity is equal to a constant) and free parameters.
In the SM, the three-valence-quarks model of nucleons does not lead to EXACT mass, spin and radius of proton (it lasts 50 years). Why? It is because the quark model is incomplete and PARTIALLY INCORRECT. Within my theory I obtained perfect results because my theory is the complete theory (it starts from 7 parameters only instead at least 20 applied in SM).
Within the CMS we cannot describe the origin of the dark energy and dark matter. When it was created? Dark matter before the dark energy or vice versa, simultaneously? It is such obvious that period of creation of the most distant massive galaxies must last gigayears, not a few hundred million years or so.
All such problems are solved within the coherent theory i.e. my theory.
UNLESS YOU CAN PRESENT data and empirical evidence that is within the same constraints of the peer review system, then you are pushing a pseudoscience and this thread should be removed from a SCIENCE thread.
You completely do not understand the foundations of this Forum.
The Section “Alternative Theories” is for revolutionary theories whereas the Section “Physics & Math” is for the mainstream theories.
….then the conversation is not going to proceed.
thanks
You can read the nonsensical papers concerning singularities, infinities, three-valence-quarks model of nucleons, dark energy, dark matter or evolution of massive galaxies, in the great scientific journals. It is indeed a good alternative for the complete and coherent scale-symmetric Everlasting Theory, for the theory which starts from smallest number of parameters and gives best results. Only in my theory is described the origin of the physical constants and the calculations start from the initial conditions describing the beginning of the inflation.
Just you waste your time due to the peer-review system which is ‘biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.’
So once more: This Section is for revolutionary theories. You should discuss such theories. No one problem described within the Everlasting Theory is discussed in your posts.
