• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Middle Ages God under scrutiny of XX century peers. Can peer-review be too peer?

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
My SSRN paper and its discussion are here:
Top science problems solved in top e-journal

A reviewer might write:
"But, let's take a very brief look at your work from your abstract in SSRN:
My testable prediction that they will never find weakly interacting Dark
Matter particles is well-realized up to today.
That's interesting. You state that "they will never find" is a "testable prediction".
How is that a "testable prediction"? How can you make an assertion
using the word "never" and expect to be taken seriously? As far as
your publication, first, it does not meet the criteria for a falsifiable
hypothesis, because it proposes a negative hypothesis. Scientific
hypothesis and theories cannot falsify negative propositions by definition.''

To which I am answering: "You are looking too
strict (i.e. extremely peer) on the paper. You are trying to argue
over every single word I have used. Why? You are trying to reject the
paper. Try to accept it, at least a bit try. I have a firm and 100 %
sure results in the paper, for example in the section "abrupt geodesics''.
But I can reject your attack: the prediction: "they will never detect
the Dark Matter particles''. If it is false, then already next year they
would detect the particles. Thus, at least in principle, the prediction
can become false. Thus, one can falsify a negative hypothesis.

"You only get what you want to get,
You only see what you want to see,
When your heart not open"
(Madonna, "Frozen").

APPLICATION: Theology.

The 5 ways of the Dr. Thomas Ackvinas of God proving were peer-reviewed by
atheists and have not passed the critics (as the atheists think):


Why? Too strong wishful thinking to kill the manuscript
is making too merciless peer. Understand the fact: the
desire of the reviewer plays part in reviewing the manuscripts. No author can
pass the negative desire firewall, because the last argument is simply: "the reviewer
can not find mistakes at the moment, but has a bad feeling about the
manuscript: the mistakes are most likely to be found after the publication.
To prevent the loss of journal reputation, the reviewer does not recommend
the publication."

PLEASE CHECK THE following video on reviewing the 5 ways, is there perhaps a
positively minded reviewer?

The positivity of reviewer's mind does not spoil the truth of the review
but is making the chance for the manuscript to be accepted.
I mean, they accept to academic publication any nonsense that comes out
Steven Hawking's mind, for example, "we are not alone in the Universe. The
first contact will happen during the next 10 years." And he writes in
academic publishing house the bestseller "Grand Design" with that
on the first page: "Philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with Physics."
and further in the book: "because there is law like gravity, the Universe
can and will create itself."
The peers simply love that atheist Hawking blindly.


He was a sick, sick, sickiest atheist. Indeed, in the paper: "Chronology Protection Conjecture" he writes (to my memory): "the time-machines create the closed timelike loops, which create infinite energetic backreaction, which destroys time-machine; that is not so in case of time-machine made of wormholes." But he has not explained why "that is not so in case of time-machine made of wormholes." It is just his random collection of words from his sick, sick, sick mind.

Are your own papers perfect in your view?
The paper is perfect if a flaw is not found yet. If the flaw is found already, the paper is not perfect any longer. Nobody cares about the potential flaws in my papers. I look trying to find the flaws by myself, and some papers indeed have them. But today not all my papers are with found flaws.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
I mean, they accept to academic publication any nonsense that comes out
Steven Hawking's mind, for example, "we are not alone in the Universe. The
first contact will happen during the next 10 years." And he writes in
academic publishing house the bestseller "Grand Design" with that
on the first page: "Philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with Physics."
and further in the book: "because there is law like gravity, the Universe
can and will create itself."
The peers simply love that atheist Hawking blindly.



Hawkings papers are not the same as his pop-science where he gives thoughts on science AND metaphysics and philosophy.
The peers love his actual papers.
Which sound more like:

"Abstract
The wave function of the Universe is usually taken to be a functional of the three-metric on a spacelike section, Σ, which is measured. It is sometimes better, however, to work in the conjugate representation, where the wave function depends on a quantity related to the second fundamental form of Σ. This makes it possible to ensure that Σ is part of a Lorentzian universe by requiring that the argument of the wave function be purely imaginary. We demonstrate the advantages of this formalism first in the well-known examples of the nucleation of a de Sitter or a Nariai universe. We then use it to calculate the pair creation rate for sub-maximal black holes in de Sitter space, which had been thought to vanish semi-classically."

Grand Design is a book? There are also books by reputable publishers that say bronze age myths are real.

When you write this many papers at this level people will be interested in a book of your thoughts also.
Physical Review Journals - The Work of Stephen Hawking in <i>Physical Review</i>
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
The peers love his actual papers.
Which sound more like:
He was a sick, sick, sickiest atheist. Indeed, in the paper: "Chronology Protection Conjecture" he writes (to my memory): "the time-machines create the closed timelike loops, which create infinite energetic backreaction, which destroys time-machine; that is not so in case of time-machine made of wormholes." But he has not explained why "that is not so in case of time-machine made of wormholes." It is just his random collection of words from his sick, sick, sick mind.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
He was a sick, sick, sickiest atheist. Indeed, in the paper: "Chronology Protection Conjecture" he writes (to my memory): "the time-machines create the closed timelike loops, which create infinite energetic backreaction, which destroys time-machine; that is not so in case of time-machine made of wormholes." But he has not explained why "that is not so in case of time-machine made of wormholes." It is just his random collection of words from his sick, sick, sick mind.
Sick mind because of his motor neuron disease or because of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Or because you disagree with his scientific findings?
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Are your own papers perfect in your view?
The paper is perfect if a flaw is not found yet. If the flaw is found already, the paper is not perfect any longer. Nobody cares about the potential flaws in my papers. I look trying to find the flaws by myself, and some papers indeed have them. But today not all my papers are with found flaws.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
He was a sick, sick, sickiest atheist. Indeed, in the paper: "Chronology Protection Conjecture" he writes (to my memory): "the time-machines create the closed timelike loops, which create infinite energetic backreaction, which destroys time-machine; that is not so in case of time-machine made of wormholes." But he has not explained why "that is not so in case of time-machine made of wormholes." It is just his random collection of words from his sick, sick, sick mind.

No he does explain that? It's an idea for a time travel solution with traversable wormholes.
Check your "memory" on that.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
No he does explain that? It's an idea for a time travel solution with traversable wormholes.
Check your "memory" on that.
Why backreaction does not occur in case of time-machine made out wormholes - HE MUST HAVE EXPLAINED IT. BUT HE HAS NOT.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Why backreaction does not occur in case of time-machine made out wormholes - HE MUST HAVE EXPLAINED IT. BUT HE HAS NOT.
The wormhole could possibly defocus the beam so it would not cause infinite energy density.

Hawking showed calculations that demonstrated this in that paper.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
russell.jpg

it appears to be so peer that it is hard to distinguish from queer.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
No, he has not.


I cannot find a copy of the paper. Are you saying Hawking did not source the earlier Kip Thorne paper from 1988 on the idea that a traversable wormhole must be threaded by some exotic stress energy to prevent collapse? Because Thorne showed calculations.
Why wouldn't Hawking also show the calculations?
How does referencing Thorne constitute "sick sick sick"?
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I cannot find a copy of the paper. Are you saying Hawking did not source the earlier Kip Thorne paper from 1988 on the idea that a traversable wormhole must be threaded by some exotic stress energy to prevent collapse? Because Thorne showed calculations.
Why wouldn't Hawking also show the calculations?
How does referencing Thorne constitute "sick sick sick"?
Yes, the Hawking as a nearly perfect specialist, knows about the exotic energy-momentum tensor. But he has not demonstrated, what using the wormholes we can avoid the catastrophic energy backreaction, which would destroy the time machine. He just stated the thesis but has not calculated the backreaction of energy if we would use wormholes. In the remaining time-machine cases, the backreaction is calculated.
 
Top