The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Astrophysics on May 09, 2018, 06:01:42 PM
-
Recently is found special Galaxy without Dark Matter, and so is concluded, what there is Dark Matter in cosmos. There is action of Dark Matter, but Dark Matter itself is not detected: it has no material interactions (no strong, no weak, no electromagnetic). A matter without matter interactions is not matter. If a matter curves space-time (and produces gravity then), why then Dark Matter curves the space-time? It is miracle! It is divine miracle! Bound before your God!
The Gravity is not material interaction, because it is not a force-field in General Relativity: the free falling body feels no-force but the weightlessness.
The Academic Science is built on the conservation Laws (latter are defined as divine-free [it means natural] mechanisms to control the Nature). Showing the violation of latter, one opens door to any models of the Reality, including the Flat Earth. But indeed, the action of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is without source: no Dark Matter was observed practically or theoretically. There are two kind of models: Flat Earth model (it uses God's Grace to bent the lights and motions, to make objects appear to any observer as being far away), and the Round Earth. The latter kind of Science came to conclusion, that "the Universe should not exist." The people, who said ``Earth is round" have said also ``There is no Earth, because the Universe should not exist".
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325022362_Violation_of_energy-momentum_conservation_Laws (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325022362_Violation_of_energy-momentum_conservation_Laws)
One video is longer, than other. But the Academic Science destroys itself:
“The collapse of physics as we know it”
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ac_1372191290
“Science v s God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it”
www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jbd7x
The Academic Science came to conclusion, that round Earth (and flat, no matter) does not exist. What is better: existing Flat Earth Model with God, or non-existing Spherical Earth without God?
"Michio Kaku - The Universe Shouldn't Exist"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esPXpagkVwY
-
Recently is found special Galaxy without Dark Matter, and so is concluded, what there is Dark Matter in cosmos. There is action of Dark Matter, but Dark Matter itself is not detected: it has no material interactions (no strong, no weak, no electromagnetic). A matter without matter interactions is not matter. If a matter curves space-time (and produces gravity then), why then Dark Matter curves the space-time? It is miracle! It is divine miracle! Bound before your God!
Dark matter is only known to be non-interacting with light. It has mass; for all we know it could have a strong interaction.
The Gravity is not material interaction, because it is not a force-field in General Relativity: the free falling body feels no-force but the weightlessness.
What are you talking about? It's not a force, relativistically speaking, but it can be simulated like any other force.
The Academic Science is built on the conservation Laws (latter are defined as divine-free [it means natural] mechanisms to control the Nature). Showing the violation of latter, one opens door to any models of the Reality, including the Flat Earth. But indeed, the action of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is without source: no Dark Matter was observed practically or theoretically.
We have a pretty good idea where dark matter is, in theory. The lack of observation through light is not evidence that it isn't there.
There are two kind of models: Flat Earth model (it uses God's Grace to bent the lights and motions, to make objects appear to any observer as being far away), and the Round Earth. The latter kind of Science came to conclusion, that "the Universe should not exist." The people, who said ``Earth is round" have said also ``There is no Earth, because the Universe should not exist".
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325022362_Violation_of_energy-momentum_conservation_Laws (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325022362_Violation_of_energy-momentum_conservation_Laws)
One video is longer, than other. But the Academic Science destroys itself:
“The collapse of physics as we know it”
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ac_1372191290
“Science v s God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it”
www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jbd7x
The Academic Science came to conclusion, that round Earth (and flat, no matter) does not exist. What is better: existing Flat Earth Model with God, or non-existing Spherical Earth without God?
"Michio Kaku - The Universe Shouldn't Exist"
https://youtu.be/esPXpagkVwY (https://youtu.be/esPXpagkVwY)
Congratulations on identifying one of the biggest open questions in science! There are many ideas that physicists have, and our lack of understanding of the history of the universe is in no way related to our knowledge of the Earth's shape.
-
.........
Congratulations on identifying one of the biggest open questions in science! There are many ideas that physicists have, and our lack of understanding of the history of the universe is in no way related to our knowledge of the Earth's shape.
Would Dr. M.Kaku say in public, that the Reality can be described by the Flat Earth Model? No, he will fly like a bird out of Proud and Ignorant Scientific Community: no access to journal Nature again! So, the Dr. Kaku always will say: "Earth is round", and "the Universe should not exists." So, I have hope for those, who dare to say: "Earth is flat, and God has created it."
-
Would Dr. M.Kaku say in public, that the Reality can be described by the Flat Earth Model?
No, because it can't be described by the flat Earth model.
And again, our lack of understanding of the universe's history has nothing to do with our actual understanding of Earth's shape.
-
Would Dr. M.Kaku say in public, that the Reality can be described by the Flat Earth Model?
No, because it can't be described by the flat Earth model.
And again, our lack of understanding of the universe's history has nothing to do with our actual understanding of Earth's shape.
Follow the hands:
1. If Earth is flat, then only God could have made it.
2. Because the God exists in Flat Earth Model, then the Universe must exists.
3. Dr. Kaku says, that Earth is round, and it should not exists.
-
Would Dr. M.Kaku say in public, that the Reality can be described by the Flat Earth Model?
No, because it can't be described by the flat Earth model.
And again, our lack of understanding of the universe's history has nothing to do with our actual understanding of Earth's shape.
Follow the hands:
1. If Earth is flat, then only God could have made it.
2. Because the God exists in Flat Earth Model, then the Universe must exists.
3. Dr. Kaku says, that Earth is round, and it should not exists.
You're really misunderstanding the point that Kaku was making. He is referring to the antimatter asymmetry problem (https://home.cern/topics/antimatter/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem), or the paradox that, although experiments show that antimatter is created in 50:50 proportions to normal matter, the observable universe has almost no observable antimatter.
Once again, knowledge of the history of the universe has nothing to do with knowledge of the Earth's shape.
-
................
You're really misunderstanding the point that Kaku was making. He is referring to the antimatter asymmetry problem (https://home.cern/topics/antimatter/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem), or the paradox that, although experiments show that antimatter is created in 50:50 proportions to normal matter, the observable universe has almost no observable antimatter.
Once again, knowledge of the history of the universe has nothing to do with knowledge of the Earth's shape.
Do not hypnotise me. I know, that "He is referring to the antimatter asymmetry problem (https://home.cern/topics/antimatter/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem), or the paradox that, although experiments show that antimatter is created in 50:50 proportions to normal matter, the observable universe has almost no observable antimatter." But I am not "really misunderstanding the point that Kaku was making.".
-
So what is the flat earth model explanation for dark matter, or neutrino oscillations, or anything else? What's the math behind the motion of the planets in your model? Because the math on the Academic Science side is pretty solid.
-
................
You're really misunderstanding the point that Kaku was making. He is referring to the antimatter asymmetry problem (https://home.cern/topics/antimatter/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem), or the paradox that, although experiments show that antimatter is created in 50:50 proportions to normal matter, the observable universe has almost no observable antimatter.
Once again, knowledge of the history of the universe has nothing to do with knowledge of the Earth's shape.
Do not hypnotise me. I know, that "He is referring to the antimatter asymmetry problem (https://home.cern/topics/antimatter/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem), or the paradox that, although experiments show that antimatter is created in 50:50 proportions to normal matter, the observable universe has almost no observable antimatter." But I am not "really misunderstanding the point that Kaku was making.".
Did you actually read my post or did you copy-paste it?
So, what do YOU think Kaku's point is?
-
Flat earth can't even explain the motion of planets or how the sun is held above the earth... Good on you for "reaching for the stars" but I think dark matter is a bit beyond you (and me)
-
Flat earth can't even explain the motion of planets or how the sun is held above the earth... Good on you for "reaching for the stars" but I think dark matter is a bit beyond you (and me)
Have you red the file I have linked to? There is section called "Synge argument explains the Dark Matter and Dark Energy". If you have found a mistake in calculation or formulas, then please say.
Did you actually read my post or did you copy-paste it?
So, what do YOU think Kaku's point is?
He said it himself: "By rights we should not be here. By rights we should have been disintegrated in the moment of Big Bang." The atheism is the self-denial. His point is self-denial.
So what is the flat earth model explanation for dark matter, or neutrino oscillations, or anything else? What's the math behind the motion of the planets in your model? Because the math on the Academic Science side is pretty solid.
I have the according mathematics in the link in the thread (it leads to the file violationLaws in Researchgate). The math in the file proves the existence of new force field (it might be called Dark Force, but there is nothing demonic about it). And the math proves the violation of the conservation laws (including energy violation). All this is in favour of the Flat Earth Society, because without conservation laws any model of Reality is safe and sound.
-
Flat earth can't even explain the motion of planets or how the sun is held above the earth... Good on you for "reaching for the stars" but I think dark matter is a bit beyond you (and me)
Have you red the file I have linked to? There is section called "Synge argument explains the Dark Matter and Dark Energy". If you have found a mistake in calculation or formulas, then please say.
Did you actually read my post or did you copy-paste it?
So, what do YOU think Kaku's point is?
He said it himself: "By rights we should not be here. By rights we should have been disintegrated in the moment of Big Bang." The atheism is the self-denial. His point is self-denial.
So what is the flat earth model explanation for dark matter, or neutrino oscillations, or anything else? What's the math behind the motion of the planets in your model? Because the math on the Academic Science side is pretty solid.
I have the according mathematics in the link in the thread (it leads to the file violationLaws in Researchgate). The math in the file proves the existence of new force field (it might be called Dark Force, but there is nothing demonic about it). And the math proves the violation of the conservation laws (including energy violation). All this is in favour of the Flat Earth Society, because without conservation laws any model of Reality is safe and sound.
Time for you to study mathematics and physics. Math can't prove violation of conservation laws. Only experimentation can, and virtually no experiments have suggested it. Typically, the most ignorant on physics and mathematics also claim to know the most and make sweeping claims. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect.
-
Time for you to study mathematics and physics. Math can't prove violation of conservation laws. Only experimentation can, and virtually no experiments have suggested it. Typically, the most ignorant on physics and mathematics also claim to know the most and make sweeping claims. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect.
\section{The war with rude opponents, or Love your enemy, says Jesus}
Opponent on scientific forum:
- Thank you for your research, I laughed at this.
Me:
- Why to laugh? Are we in circus?! No. Thus, I ask for huge amount of respect. Moreover: you are human, I am human. Why am I defected human, but you are not?!
Opponent:
- One does not ask for respect. One earns it. Imho you are not a defect human being. You are just a human being, nothing more, nothing less.
- If I am not defected human, then I am respected one. Correct? German: "Ich bin nicht der Untermensh!" The Presumption of Innocence: everybody is like the God (and, thus, must be treated as like you would treat the God right from beginning), until opposite is proven. Not ``respect must be earned'', but the disrespect ``must be'' earned.
- No. The default position is neutral; neither respect nor disrespect. I would treat no one like a god, no one deserves to be treated like that fictitious evil piece of shit.
- You are not neutral. Being neutral with stranger means to be respectful with 100 percent (otherwise the stranger will sue you). You have said word "shit" in relation to my Religion. It is not being neutral. It is part of WW3 war, and you are on the evil side.
What? No mistakes in General Relativity, because it is tested (like by the project ``Gravity Probe B'')?! Have you heard of Nihilism? The Nihilism is philosophy of deliberate lie. For example, a nihilist knows, that $2+2=4$, but says: $2+2=7$. Some one of Conspiracy Theories is right. The atheism is expression of Nihilism. Hasn't it Mister Donald Trump explained what ``fake news" are? Therefore, even reading a Physical Review paper, use your own brain.
Opponent: ``Looks like some failed scientist are trying to misuse ResearchGate to spread their weird ideas.''. I would fail only, if I will arrive at hell. Russians never surrender (``Fight like you've never fought before -- First Knight'' YouTube).
Without extensive support of Flat Earth Community (I would turn for support to the Creation Science Society and the UFO--Alien Research Society with my Light Force as well, I would never stop) I can not make the paper fairly peer-reviewed. Without such review it fails the Scientific Method.
Opponent: ``So basically what you are trying to say is it’s all just pie in the sky wishful thinking, or nonesense, take your pick.''
It is if you prefer negativism. I prefer positivism, thus I am saying: it is output of my brain, and my conscience is in piece with it. I think, that on this dirty world the results will not be (fairly) peer-reviewed. But I hope for the investigation in afterlife.
Do not call names (like ``idiot'') your brother -- me. All humans are blood relatives (look up in Wikipedia: Mitochondrial Eve and Adam.) So, by destroying me, you are destroying yourself. Self-destruction is sin.
Do not be rude. I am a respectful one with papers in Physical Review E, European Journal of Physics B, etc. Opponent: ``Your last regular paper is from 2006, the others are from 2001-2003. Everything after that is going more and more into the direction of complete nonsense. I'm not rude, whatever reputation you once had, you destroyed it by yourself.'' Because in General Relativity the Universe is 4 dimensional, one can not destroy anything inside the Universe. My top academic activity (the glorious activity!) is in the 2006, 2001-2003 (``Frank Sinatra -- New York, New York'' YouTube).
-
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
Oh look! I can do LaTeX too! Too bad it doesn't work on a forum... Why would you even do this?
I never called you an idiot. I said that the most ignorant on a subject (in this case, math + physics) also tend to make the most sweeping, wrong claims and give themselves too much credit for knowledge they have. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect. This happens in Flat Earth because the most ignorant on the subject are completely unaware of all of the corroborating experiments that have led to modern theory.
You need to stop ranting about nihilism and all of the other stuff... I don't even see how it has any relevance. If you've written scientific papers published in a reputable journal, my non-existent cat is the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
I don't even know what the blob you posted in reply is supposed to even argue or mean.
\end{document}
-
.......... If you've written scientific papers published in a reputable journal, my non-existent cat is the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
I don't even know what the blob you posted in reply is supposed to even argue or mean.
\end{document}
If your cat were in oval office, no war ever would have been started. Correct? There is problem with peer-review: it has huge "human factor" in it. If a theory is sound and solid, but is hurtful for many people, it is being rejected. The humans in the peer-review are almost all - nihilists, it means: truth haters.
-
What are you even talking about? I described the cat as a joke on vacuous truth, not as anything serious, notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary-General of the UN does not work in the Oval Office.
What does peer review have to do with nihilism? It's just a mechanism for ensuring that junk doesn't get published and important people don't waste their time reading it. How in the world is peer review a force against truth? This sounds like nonsense to me.
You may think that your theories hypotheses are sound, but they're nonsense to anyone who's an actual expert in the field, who have brought forth things like lasers, while you have only brought forth some poorly-written drivel.
-
What are you even talking about? I described the cat as a joke on vacuous truth, not as anything serious, notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary-General of the UN does not work in the Oval Office.
What does peer review have to do with nihilism? It's just a mechanism for ensuring that junk doesn't get published and important people don't waste their time reading it. How in the world is peer review a force against truth? This sounds like nonsense to me.
You may think that your theories hypotheses are sound, but they're nonsense to anyone who's an actual expert in the field, who have brought forth things like lasers, while you have only brought forth some poorly-written drivel.
Let us talk next time in afterlife. My Jesus loves the truth, and He is with me.
-
If a theory is sound and solid, but is hurtful for many people, it is being rejected. The humans in the peer-review are almost all - nihilists, it means: truth haters.
If a theory is sound and solid, then it gets through peer review. End of story. Peer review is intended to stop confirmation bias, statistical errors, and holes in a proof. Nothing more.
He said it himself: "By rights we should not be here. By rights we should have been disintegrated in the moment of Big Bang." The atheism is the self-denial. His point is self-denial.
His point isn't "we definitely shouldn't exist", the point is "we don't know why we exist". That's not atheism.
-
What are you even talking about? I described the cat as a joke on vacuous truth, not as anything serious, notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary-General of the UN does not work in the Oval Office.
What does peer review have to do with nihilism? It's just a mechanism for ensuring that junk doesn't get published and important people don't waste their time reading it. How in the world is peer review a force against truth? This sounds like nonsense to me.
You may think that your theories hypotheses are sound, but they're nonsense to anyone who's an actual expert in the field, who have brought forth things like lasers, while you have only brought forth some poorly-written drivel.
Let us talk next time in afterlife. My Jesus loves the truth, and He is with me.
Yeah, keep it on topic. There is a forum for religion if you want to espouse how much Jesus loves you. The whole thread is bordering on being moved to Complete Nonsense.
Warned.
-
Flat earth can't even explain the motion of planets or how the sun is held above the earth... Good on you for "reaching for the stars" but I think dark matter is a bit beyond you (and me)
Have you red the file I have linked to? There is section called "Synge argument explains the Dark Matter and Dark Energy". If you have found a mistake in calculation or formulas, then please say.
Did you actually read my post or did you copy-paste it?
So, what do YOU think Kaku's point is?
He said it himself: "By rights we should not be here. By rights we should have been disintegrated in the moment of Big Bang." The atheism is the self-denial. His point is self-denial.
So what is the flat earth model explanation for dark matter, or neutrino oscillations, or anything else? What's the math behind the motion of the planets in your model? Because the math on the Academic Science side is pretty solid.
I have the according mathematics in the link in the thread (it leads to the file violationLaws in Researchgate). The math in the file proves the existence of new force field (it might be called Dark Force, but there is nothing demonic about it). And the math proves the violation of the conservation laws (including energy violation). All this is in favour of the Flat Earth Society, because without conservation laws any model of Reality is safe and sound.
Now if we are trying to relate a Flat Earth to current physical laws, we will get know where. If the Earth is Flat and the flying magic lamp is illuminating it with stars that are very near, the law of gravity is destroyed. FE people however dont require a law of gravity since the Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g along with the magic flying lamp (sun) and the mysterious stars. For these simple facts to be true it would mean that we are living in a very different universe from the current scientific model hence all current theory and laws become hogwash.
-
...... moved to Complete Nonsense.
Warned.
So, again the author of Physical Review has produced complete nonsense and was warned by a man without record in Physical Review.
-
...... moved to Complete Nonsense.
Warned.
So, again the author of Physical Review has produced complete nonsense and was warned by a man without record in Physical Review.
What the heck is this Physical Review stuff? I've certainly never heard of it.
-
...... moved to Complete Nonsense.
Warned.
So, again the author of Physical Review has produced complete nonsense and was warned by a man without record in Physical Review.
What the heck is this Physical Review stuff? I've certainly never heard of it.
https://www.etis.ee/CV/Dmitri_Martila/est?tabId=CV_ENG (https://www.etis.ee/CV/Dmitri_Martila/est?tabId=CV_ENG)
-
Recently is found special Galaxy without Dark Matter, and so is concluded, what there is Dark Matter in cosmos. There is action of Dark Matter, but Dark Matter itself is not detected: it has no material interactions (no strong, no weak, no electromagnetic). A matter without matter interactions is not matter. If a matter curves space-time (and produces gravity then), why then Dark Matter curves the space-time? It is miracle! It is divine miracle! Bound before your God!
The Gravity is not material interaction, because it is not a force-field in General Relativity: the free falling body feels no-force but the weightlessness.
The Academic Science is built on the conservation Laws (latter are defined as divine-free [it means natural] mechanisms to control the Nature). Showing the violation of latter, one opens door to any models of the Reality, including the Flat Earth. But indeed, the action of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is without source: no Dark Matter was observed practically or theoretically. There are two kind of models: Flat Earth model (it uses God's Grace to bent the lights and motions, to make objects appear to any observer as being far away), and the Round Earth. The latter kind of Science came to conclusion, that "the Universe should not exist." The people, who said ``Earth is round" have said also ``There is no Earth, because the Universe should not exist".
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325022362_Violation_of_energy-momentum_conservation_Laws (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325022362_Violation_of_energy-momentum_conservation_Laws)
One video is longer, than other. But the Academic Science destroys itself:
“The collapse of physics as we know it”
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ac_1372191290
“Science v s God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it”
www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jbd7x
The Academic Science came to conclusion, that round Earth (and flat, no matter) does not exist. What is better: existing Flat Earth Model with God, or non-existing Spherical Earth without God?
"Michio Kaku - The Universe Shouldn't Exist"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esPXpagkVwY
Astrophysics is irrelevant take that off your name.
-
...... moved to Complete Nonsense.
Warned.
So, again the author of Physical Review has produced complete nonsense and was warned by a man without record in Physical Review.
What the heck is this Physical Review stuff? I've certainly never heard of it.
https://www.etis.ee/CV/Dmitri_Martila/eng?tabId=CV_ENG (https://www.etis.ee/CV/Dmitri_Martila/est?tabId=CV_ENG)
According to this, you've published 3 papers in Physical Review E, and one in the European Physical Journal B. Neither deals with cosmology or quantum physics, so I'm not sure how you can credibly make arguments based on those.
However, I concede that you have actual academic experience, so I'll give you a chance: if you can get a paper accepted in Physical Review D, the one that deals with cosmology, I'll start taking you seriously.
-
...... moved to Complete Nonsense.
Warned.
So, again the author of Physical Review has produced complete nonsense and was warned by a man without record in Physical Review.
What the heck is this Physical Review stuff? I've certainly never heard of it.
https://www.etis.ee/CV/Dmitri_Martila/eng?tabId=CV_ENG (https://www.etis.ee/CV/Dmitri_Martila/est?tabId=CV_ENG)
According to this, you've published 3 papers in Physical Review E, and one in the European Physical Journal B. Neither deals with cosmology or quantum physics, so I'm not sure how you can credibly make arguments based on those.
However, I concede that you have actual academic experience, so I'll give you a chance: if you can get a paper accepted in Physical Review D, the one that deals with cosmology, I'll start taking you seriously.
In most cases of rejection the decision over a manuscript makes only one person: an editor. He might get it all wrong, correct? It is not objective decision. I guess, even Newton was not immidiately accepted: his book "Principia" waited many long years in the library for its first reader.
-
In most cases of rejection the decision over a manuscript makes only one person: an editor. He might get it all wrong, correct? It is not objective decision.
Physical Review D has nine editors, as well as an appeals system if they get something wrong.
I guess, even Newton was not immidiately accepted: his book "Principia" waited many long years in the library for its first reader.
[citation needed]
-
In most cases of rejection the decision over a manuscript makes only one person: an editor. He might get it all wrong, correct? It is not objective decision.
Physical Review D has nine editors, as well as an appeals system if they get something wrong.
I guess, even Newton was not immidiately accepted: his book "Principia" waited many long years in the library for its first reader.
[citation needed]
No way I ever get pass the bot in PRD! The programm demands affiliation with Institution. But I lost mine! I told Tartu University colleagues about Jesus!
-
However, I concede that you have actual academic experience, so I'll give you a chance: if you can get a paper accepted in Physical Review D, the one that deals with cosmology, I'll start taking you seriously.
I wouldn't be so fast. While the name does indeed match, and I'm more inclined to believe that he has some form of academic experience now, some things don't add up:
1. The email addresses he uses in his viXra publications are different from the academic one given in the CV.
2. The CV doesn't list anything after 2011, after which most of the stuff in his viXra profile was uploaded.
3. This guy claims 3 half a page proofs for the Poincare conjecture... Seems legit.
4. He also lays claim to a solution for the Navier-Stokes problem (also $1,000,000).
5. He claims a proof for the Riemann hypothesis.
6. He says some gibberish about the P=NP problem.
To be honest, viXra is the breeding ground for junk mathematics. If he can't even post into arXiv, then I'm probably not going to accept his science.
I suppose that's what makes P=NP so nice; it's so easy to check if someone asserts P=NP.
The real showstopper is that he's way too prolific, claiming solutions for all of the world's problems in the span of 2 years.
-
The real showstopper is that he's way too prolific, claiming solutions for all of the world's problems in the span of 2 years.
Most of my day I am improving my brain circuits. So, perhaps I am indeed, a bit smarter.
-
Astrophysics is irrelevant take that off your name.
Keep your shitposting in AR/CN. Warned.
-
In most cases of rejection the decision over a manuscript makes only one person: an editor. He might get it all wrong, correct? It is not objective decision. I guess, even Newton was not immidiately accepted: his book "Principia" waited many long years in the library for its first reader.
The editor makes first of all the decision to send your paper for peer review or not. This is based on some formal criteria (does the paper fit to the journal content first of all) and of course also on a rough scientific judgement. The main decision is made by the peer reviewers. They have criteria like novelty of the presented results, scientific value and correctness. If all of them agree to publish, the editor usually accepted their judgment. Anyway, if the their judgement is not to bad, you have a chance to reply to the criticism and demand a second review. You even have the right to reject certain reviewers in advance. It's a tough process. I know it from both sides.
-
........ You even have the right to reject certain reviewers in advance. It's a tough process. I know it from both sides.
How many reviewers would you left, if you are allowed to take them solely from the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? :D
-
That's an irrelevant question, cause I don't know any reviewers from that places...