...... 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.
Guest is the best person on this site. No, seriously, Guest is why I stay on this site.

A game in development that I'm assisting with.

...... 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

*

Offline kasai

  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Follower of Ptolemy
    • View Profile
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

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"

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
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.
Guest is the best person on this site. No, seriously, Guest is why I stay on this site.

A game in development that I'm assisting with.

...... 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
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.
Quote
I guess, even Newton was not immidiately accepted: his book "Principia" waited many long years in the library for its first reader.
[citation needed]
Guest is the best person on this site. No, seriously, Guest is why I stay on this site.

A game in development that I'm assisting with.

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.
Quote
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!

JohnAdams1145


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.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8059
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Astrophysics is irrelevant take that off your name.

Keep your shitposting in AR/CN. Warned.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
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

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
That's an irrelevant question, cause I don't know any reviewers from that places...