Nothing New in The Front...:)
I have to say that I am disapponted with Los Alamos ArXives... I was hoping to receive some hint on why did they considered my paper INAPPROPRIATE...:)
I tried to guess why... but guessing might lead to errors..>:)
I think "INAPPROPRIATE" is a strong word for a brave new idea... It takes courage to state a new idea... it takes tremendous effort to publish it... The stablishment is just not friendly to creativity from others...:) and I was a scientist in the past... and still am one at heart...
As a scientist, I learned that Science made their quantum leaps when challenged... I presented a full frontal challenge to current Science and instead of being embraced, my theory was shunned - wait a second... it didn't have a chance to defend itself... It was censured......:) It is a shame... a dark day in Science...
I can understand that the most backwards sectors in society might consider it INAPPROPRIATE... dangerous ideas... but Science... The Moderator, who I suppose is a scientist, should had recognized the self-consistency of the theory and how it provides an alternative explanation to our reality... The innovative character of the theory jumps into the reader's mind, off from the Abstract... The allusion to an Universe described only in terms of geometrical constructs, where we all travel at the Speed of Light..:) has to be intellectually appealing... and not scary...:)
One should not be scaried about new ideas...:) If they make sense, they are what creates the introspective reevaluation of WHAT THE BLEEP WE KNOW...
Once I had my insight, I revised all Science and still have a lot to say... but I need to say that to someone that talks back... Science ...:) Not to a shy Censor...:)
I sent the email below to Professor Gizparg and to the moderator... but it seems that my address has been added to Los Alamos Arxives spam filter...:) I tell you, you have to admire the scientic mind...:)
Considering that I was the main author in my paper and that my submission requested that all the correspondence to be directed to me, it is a surprise that I am caught in a spam filter...:)
Cheers,
MP
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Professor Ginspard,
I recently submitted a paper to the Los Alamos ArXives after going through the trouble of finding an endorser and explaining my theory in detail.
That is the level of moderation or barrier that is advertised on the Los Alamos arXives site. To my surprise, the paper was still rejected and that after a lapse of at most 5 hours.
I consider it callous to substitute the lengthy discussions with my endorser and his careful reading of the paper with a few minutes review. I am supposing the moderator didn’t read only my paper during the elapsed five hours.
I kindly requested the moderator any example of the only and vague criticism contained in the rejection but never received any acknowledgement of the reception of my email or any reply.
I would expect more from a scientist.
Could you please review the moderation procedure and direct someone to provide me a meaningful reason why my paper was censured.
The reason why I made such an effort to publish at Los Alamos is because I value criticism and feedback. I receive neither from the moderator.
I just want for my idea what every idea should have. In a scientific debate you present your idea, receive/accept criticism, and respond with facts or logical arguments.
Accepting the moderator’s answer as a final critique would be to abdicate from what science has of most valuable – rational criticism. I am not about to do that. This is a scientific paper. Not a religious argument. Nobody should be protecting or hiding behind dogmas – I am not.
The paper is attached for your convenience.
Thanks,
Marco Pereira
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission:
Paper: hep-ph/0610362
Title: The Hypergeometrical Universe
Authors: Marco A. Pereira
Comments: 23 pages, 8 figures.Please, send all the
correspondence to Dr.Pereira at ny2292000@yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rejection:
Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators, who determined it inappropriate for the hep-ph archive. Do NOT under any circumstances resubmit to the original arXiv before first explaining the reason to moderation@arxiv.org AND receiving a positive response. Please direct all questions and concerns regarding moderation to the moderation@arXiv.org address.
--
arXiv admin
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Review
Dear XXX,
The moderators feel that the submission content has serious issues that need to be reworked before the paper will be at a publishable level. The paper contradicts or ignores many well-accepted physical theories without acknowledging these omissions or explicitly challenging the foundational literature. arXiv is not a repository for otherwise unpublishable material, and the moderators do not feel this submission is appropriate for any subject within arXiv. You should seek feedback from a conventional journal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir or Madam,
The paper is about a geometrical theory - that is, it models matter as a metric modulation. It proposes a new model for matter in which a single dilator would account for most matter in the Universe.
A coherence between two 4-D space deformation stationary states (dilator) is used to create a continuous modulation of the spacetime (5D)metric (dilaton).
It also proposes a new topology for the Universe - a four-Dimensional Shock Wave topology.
Under these conditions, it is a given that this paper would differ significantly from current views.
As any theory, it should be judged within its own logical framework and on how it might disagree with "experimental" data available.
It is important to emphasize the word "experimental" because there are many constructs which cause paradoxes left and right in Science. These paradoxes have been taken as true as a matter of faith.
If a theory proposes a solution to some of these paradoxes, the solution should be evaluated within its logical framework.
Could you please provide a couple of examples supporting this statement: " The paper contradicts or ignores many well-accepted physical theories without acknowledging these omissions or explicitly challenging the foundational literature. "
I will do my best to provide you a convincing answer from within the paper. If not, I will be happy to change it to reflect your critique.
Thanks,
Marco Pereira
No comments:
Post a Comment