Top science problems solved in top e-journal

[shunyadragon]

Now do review again, but with less peer. Do less peer while doing peer-review.

Actually you ridicule peer review, but in some way claim it in your case through Eiseview. I gave the details of Eiseview.

As far as your publication, first it does not meet the criteria for a falsifiable hypothesis, because it proposes a negative hypothesis. Second, the rest is confusing mess with theological assumptions.

 

[shunyadragon]

You said top science problems solved, nothing solved.

The possible existence of Dark Energy and Matter is only a possible cause at this point and not a conclusion. The observations are very real and objective with several possible causes. Scientists have not concluded that Dark Energy and Matter exist. Nothing less and nothing more.

Alternatives to Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Alternatives to Dark Matter and Dark Energy
Philip D. Mannheim (University of Connecticut)

We review the underpinnings of the standard Newton-Einstein theory of gravity, and identify where it could possibly go wrong. In particular, we discuss the logical independence from each other of the general covariance principle, the equivalence principle and the Einstein equations, and discuss how to constrain the matter energy-momentum tensor which serves as the source of gravity. We identify the a priori assumption of the validity of standard gravity on all distance scales as the root cause of the dark matter and dark energy problems, and discuss how the freedom currently present in gravitational theory can enable us to construct candidate alternatives to the standard theory in which the dark matter and dark energy problems could then be resolved. We identify three generic aspects of these alternate approaches: that it is a universal acceleration scale which determines when a luminous Newtonian expectation is to fail to fit data, that there is a global cosmological effect on local galactic motions which can replace galactic dark matter, and that to solve the cosmological constant problem it is not necessary to quench the cosmological constant itself, but only the amount by which it gravitates.

I should see in your bibliography the latest peer reviewed scientific publications on the cutting edge research on Dark Energy and Matter. Something is missing.

 

[questfortruth]

Actually you ridicule peer review, but in some way claim it in your case through Eiseview. I gave the details of Eiseview.

As far as your publication, first it does not meet the criteria for a falsifiable hypothesis, because it proposes a negative hypothesis. Second, the rest is confusing mess with theological assumptions.

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 firm and 100% sure results in the paper, look up 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.

 

[ecco]

Now do review again, but with less peer. Do less peer while doing peer-review.

That comment makes about as much sense as your assertions about your paper and the validity of your publisher.

It's no great accomplishment to have something on a website that will house anything in order to claim it is the largest web storage of papers. Since it's an e-site, the papers cannot even be used for cleaning up after taking a good....





ETA: I notice you had no response to:

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?

 

[questfortruth]

ETA: I notice you had no response to:

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?

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. Nobody can
pass the negative desire, 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."

 

[questfortruth]

Friends, more is in

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

 

[ecco]

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. Nobody can
pass the negative desire, 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."

Once again, your response is unintelligible. If your comments in a forum are unintelligible, one can only imagine how unintelligible your thesis must be.