1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by questfortruth, Sep 28, 2020.

  1. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,890
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    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:
    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.

    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.
     
    #1 questfortruth, Sep 28, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
  2. Tambourine

    Tambourine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2020
    Messages:
    2,484
    Ratings:
    +1,186
    Are you argueing with yourself?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,046
    Ratings:
    +358

    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>
     
  4. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,890
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    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.
     
  5. Amanaki

    Amanaki Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    11,784
    Ratings:
    +7,125
    Religion:
    Sunni Islam
    Sick mind because of his motor neuron disease or because of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
    Or because you disagree with his scientific findings?
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  6. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,890
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    His papers, public speeches, and books are not perfect. God is God of perfection.
     
    #6 questfortruth, Sep 29, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
  7. Amanaki

    Amanaki Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    11,784
    Ratings:
    +7,125
    Religion:
    Sunni Islam
    Hawking was a human being not a God :)
     
  8. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,890
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Allow me to talk to you as well, listen to me. Why? The Jesus is teaching to love me.
     
  9. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,890
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    "Be perfect like your God is perfect." (Prophet Jesus Christ)
     
  10. Amanaki

    Amanaki Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    11,784
    Ratings:
    +7,125
    Religion:
    Sunni Islam
    Are your own papers perfect in your view?
     
  11. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,890
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    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.
     
  12. ecco

    ecco Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    11,581
    Ratings:
    +5,698
    Religion:
    atheist
    The one this thread is about has been found to have flaws.
     
  13. columbus

    columbus yawn <ignore> yawn

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    25,164
    Ratings:
    +16,312
    Religion:
    None
    But nobody knows anything important about God.

    Tom
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,046
    Ratings:
    +358
    No he does explain that? It's an idea for a time travel solution with traversable wormholes.
    Check your "memory" on that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,890
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Why backreaction does not occur in case of time-machine made out wormholes - HE MUST HAVE EXPLAINED IT. BUT HE HAS NOT.
     
  16. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,046
    Ratings:
    +358
    The wormhole could possibly defocus the beam so it would not cause infinite energy density.

    Hawking showed calculations that demonstrated this in that paper.
     
  17. MNoBody

    MNoBody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    2,223
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    Religion:
    UNdecided [they all appear to be equally true]
    russell.jpg
    it appears to be so peer that it is hard to distinguish from queer.
     
    #17 MNoBody, Oct 2, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2020
  18. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,890
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    No, he has not.
     
  19. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,046
    Ratings:
    +358

    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"?
     
  20. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,890
    Ratings:
    +276
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    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.
     
Loading...