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:
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.
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.
Last edited:
