Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Weitter Duckss

Weitter Duckss's Theory of the Universe

90 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ChrLzs

Weitter, all reputable journals will forward you all of the reviews your paper receives before it is 'accepted for publication'.  I trust you will show us those, so we can get a feel for how the scientific community - especially those expert in the relevant fields - regards your submission...

For anyone not familiar with the reality of peer review and publication - here's a quick and simplified summary..  Reputable science journal organisations (like Nature), have very experienced staff who vet any papers submitted to them.  Many papers get rejected at that preliminary checking stage, or the authors will be given feedback on any glaring errors or problems that would mean the paper has no hope of passing peer review / scrutiny by the top of the scientific community.  Once the paper is accepted for *consideration*, it next goes on to be peer reviewed by experts in the field.  Again, at this stage many papers are rejected.  Finally, once that peer review has been successful and the paper is regarded as worthy, the Journal accepts it for publication.

So compare that to what happened to Weitter...?  He paid a fee to an 'organisation' and they accepted his paper for 'publication'.  Notice any steps missing?  Perhaps Weitter will provide those reviews he should have got, but I doubt it.  The journal he mentions is not a reputable one, and appears to be just one of (sadly) many scamming organisations - they are often referred to as 'Predatory Publishers' - they will generally ask a small fee for 'publication' (which often just means a link at their website), the fine print will often include handing over copyright and they will then refuse to release the paper without a fight.  They also send invoices out for fees they didn't declare, and really only exist to rip off eager (but gullible) researchers - some of which, unlike what we are seeing here, may have quite good research papers...

So, how do you tell who's real and who isn't?  It can be difficult, but you can check if it is listed at Elsevier, whether it has a decent (and genuine) 'Impact Factor' (be careful, there are also scammers in this area), whether it has a genuine Wiki page with no concerns expressed, whether it turns up in searches with lots of people asking if it is reputable or how to get their papers released...  and of course if you are at an educational institution like a University, you can just talk to the lecturers about who to trust and who to avoid like the plague.

In the case of "International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research", it passes none of those tests.  They have no standing in the genuine science community.  And this isn't about a Good Boys Club, this is about scammers setting up fake 'journals' with no peer review process whatsoever and ripping off people like Weitter...  Often there are strong pressures to get your work published (it's quite a badge of honour when the publication is at a respected journal..), so the potential profits to the scammers are very high.

 

BTW, The webpage of the IJSER looks sorta legit, but once you start digging, you find absolute gems like this, which is on their official guide to those wishing to get their research 'published':

Quote

1. Preliminary
The first activity for publishing a technical paper is to figure out your technical area of interest. Make sure the {sic} you had {sic}carried out enough studies on basics of that topic. Then you have you to update yourself with the ongoing technical happenings in your chosen field. You can do this by 
1) Reading and googling a lot of technical papers. There are a lot of journals and IEEE papers floating around in net. 
2) Go to one or more conferences, listen carefully to the best talks, and find out what people are thinking about.

Once you are done with the above mentioned steps, then you are eligible for writing a paper..

:w00t:  Wow, dat's Easy- Peasy!!!  and yup, that purty much covers it..

 

Edited by ChrLzs
quote box went wrong
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder
31 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Weitter, all reputable journals will forward you all of the reviews your paper receives before it is 'accepted for publication'

 

 

LOL Chrlzs.... do this

Google this phrase "Weitter Duckss's Theory of the Universe"    it pops up in a few places....then scroll down a page to read the comments! ouch!

heres just one
 

Quote

 

Your comments are virtually unreadable.

If you are opposed to the current consensus theory of the solar system formation? Don't bother, it is of course the expert conclusion and nothing said from a state of complete ignorance can change our current knowledge which has been painstakingly amassed by many scientists during centuries.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-06-mercury-rare-meteorite.html#jCp

 

 

:lol: One more from above link

This article was describing science, not dumb superstition. You can be an ass hat religious troll somewhere else.

 

 

Edited by seeder
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

I think all you're trying to say, is "it is dark in space, except what is radiated (matter) when it is struck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

@ aquatus1, ChrLzs, seeder

It was one of the ways to minimize the plagiarism that has reached major proportions. 2004 official science was light years away from the Theory of Zadar, today she is breathing down my neck (constant plundering of) through "respectable" magazines.
Emphasis of this was only for "Your knowledge of science is totally non-existent."
We should not look at other comments, these ones here can not, no one put to shame.
Only one person visited article without reading all the other comments provide no insight into the topic, by heart.
Continuation of the article is (part):

When observing the arrival of a comet, initially we can see only the object and the dark around it. Light starts to appear around it when the object starts releasing the particles which create the tail of the comet. The common thing to Earth and the comets is matter (particles). 1,2

The evidence are so obvious here that no explanation is needed (only visible matter is shining). The only thing that requires an explanation is, why matter is shining, which makes light to appear. The example can be made out of heat spreading from hot objects. A hot object is emitting waves, which we perceive as heat (there are no photons,  "heatons", etc.). Microwave oven is the most obvious example. There is no heat source, only waves, but in the collision of waves and matter, a meal becomes warm and it can also get burned. Nothing is needed between a star (Sun) and an object (the atmosphere of Earth), except waves or radiation. Constant waves' blows warm up the visible matter, which starts shining. Now it is clear why the temperature on the light side of Moon reaches 390°K (about +120°C), while on the dark side it is only 100°K  (about -170°C). No photons are needed as there is by far no valid explanation that they really represent light or that the light from Sun is traveling to Earth and other objects.

There is also the speed of light, which is also considered to be an undisputable fact. How can light have a defined speed, when there is no light between the objects in the space? If there was some, it would be a light space between Sun and Earth, not a dark one. There is only the speed of radiation or waves. Dawn, or morning light, appears much earlier than the actual appearance of Sun (this is called diffraction or secondary effects of wave blows that transfer sideways from the collision of waves and matter; this occurrence is not present on Moon and objects with no atmosphere).

Heated objects (stars)

Let's stay with light and convince ourselves why the objects (stars) are shining, i.e., why they become heated objects. They start shining, depending on a few factors (are they independent objects or they are orbiting around a star). The objects that are orbiting start shining already when they reach the size of Earth, even earlier. In our system – beside Sun – Earth and Venus are shining and there are increased levels of radiation on Jupiter and Neptune. If you have visited an active volcano, or have been near one (it is calculated there are some 500 active volcanoes3), or have seen a TV show about volcanoes, you can immediately realize that Earth is shining or emitting its own radiation. Besides, it is known that it is very hot under the crust of Earth, i.e., there is a melted matter ("the analyses imply the temperatrure of the Earth's core is about 5700 K and the pressure is variable, around 330-360 gigapascals"4).

The claims that there is a radioactive disintegration need to be dismissed as incredible; more than half a million of people live only around Vesuvius in Italy and they are not irradiated. Lava can be hot, but never radioactive. The conduct of matter in blast furnaces for melting iron is known; therefore, it is also known that hot mass is dislocating, which means that radioactive elements should be equally present in lava now and 4,5 billion of years earlier – but, they are not "(Ultramafic (picritic): SiO2 <45%, Fe-Mg> 8% and up to 32% MgO, temperature up to 1500°C))". 5

The mass which creates pressure and the effects of the gravitational forces of Sun are responsible for the melted core. That is the reason why Venus is more warm than Earth and has more active volcanoes, although it is smaller than Earth6.  Therefore, there are convincing and verifiable evidence for the objects to shine. They start shining when they reach a sufficient mass if they are in a distant orbit or are independent, or when they reach a sufficient mass and the effects of the gravitational forces if they are closer to the central object (the most often, to a star). Earlier, people were taught that for an object to become a star, it would be sufficient to reach 10% of Sun's mass. Now, the ever-improving technology is providing more and more new evidence to change that mass level. That mass level has become even more blurred through the discovery of exoplanets and more detailed observation of brown dwarfs, because the mass level was unable to provide the needed answers7. By observing two adjacent objects (so-called binary objects), like Sun-Venus, Earth-Moon, etc, the existence of a strong activity of gravitational forces, combined with the movement of objects in an orbit and rotation of one or both objects  were discovered. (So-called binary system is a rarity; it rarely happens so that there are only two objects in a relation, so this term will be used instead of two concrete objects, like Pluto and Charon, although Pluto has four more satellites.) The speed of rotation of a central object also influences the reduction of mass, for an object to start shining. If there are two stars with the same mass and different speeds of rotation, the star that rotates faster is warmer. These effects are automatically transferred to the orbiting object. It goes the same for such an orbiting object. The faster rotation creates more matter friction inside the object, which results in a higher temperature and stronger magnetic field (if the object has an independent rotation).
It is enough to observe the mass of an object, its relation to other objects, the rotation of an object as well as the rotation of a central object, the composition of an object and the orbital distance to make a valid estimate for every object, without the need for nuclear fusions, fissions and matter combustion.

Rotation of an object and its far-reaching effects

The effects of the rotation could be analyzed through the rotation of an object and total rotational effects of a smaller or larger system (Universe). Nevertheless, it is not good to divide these two features, because they originate one from the other and influence each other inseparably. It will not be analyzed here, what it had been like earlier and how it all had been developing, but instead, the analysis of the Universe and its objects as they are right now and the omnipresent relations within it.

All the objects, observed by the astronomers, are moving, rotating and creating interrelations. The gravitational forces define the direction or the shortest way from one object to the other, while the movement of a central object and its rotation bend and prolong the way of approaching. If an object is approaching vertically to an equator and movement direction of a central object (which, by definition, needs to be a larger object, which can dictate the rules), the gravitational forces need to adjust the direction of the created movement length of a central object in every single point, thus changing the direction slowly to a curve. At the final stage, the rotations of both objects, with the speed included, place the incoming object into the orbit. If a classical gravitational force in isolated conditions is to be analyzed, the direction would never be prompted to change into an ellipse; there would always be the collision, like in the example of an apple and Earth. To ascribe the formation of orbit to the speed of an incoming object is simply not satisfying, because the classical gravity only attracts an object independently of its speed. The creation of orbit needs to include the rotations of objects, as well as the movement of a star in the orbit inside the galaxy and the movement of galaxy inside the cluster of galaxies.

Rotation can be analyzed in the broader way, too. Just like with the magnets, it is not only an object that rotates – but its gravitational forces rotate, too. For example, if there is an eruption that makes a large emission of radiation (waves), which last equally or more than a single rotation, then radiation also rotates in the direction of rotation and its constant blows correct the movement direction of an object. This needs to be analyzed also in the relation of the size differences of two objects. Sun possesses 99.86% of the whole system's mass and it influences with a significant, consequential force on a small object.

Opposite to the process of rotation there is the approaching of an object to the poles of a central object, where there are no orbits created, but only collisions of the incoming objects with the central object. These objects also have a speed, just as the objects that approach straight or with an inclination towards the equator do, but these speeds neither create orbits, nor there are observations to support such claims. If there is no rotation, there is also no orbit, no matter what the speed of the incoming object is.

Besides rotation around the axis, every object also has an orbital movement direction: a star system is rotating around a galaxy, a galaxy is rotating around a cluster of galaxies, while these objects are rotating around the Universe. By observing the stars in our galaxy, it is easily noticed there are bright and hot stars on one side and red, colder stars on the other. Also, bright stars are rotating fast, while red stars are rotating slower and are colder. There is a regularity that red stars make up to ¾ (76,45%) of stars in our galaxy, while blue stars (or, "O" type stars), which are rotating very fast, make up to only 0,00003% 8.  If published articles are consulted, an opposite ratio is found: everyone is writing about the shiny, colossal stars. Insufficient information are there about the main feature of our galaxy – smaller, red stars. It should never be forgotten that, besides red color, smaller stars could also be brown, yellow and white. White dwarfs are very fast-rotating and very hot stars.
A central object's speed of rotation is directly related to the orbital speed of planets and their total mass. If two objects have the same mass, but different speeds of rotation, the object with the faster rotation has more objects in the orbits, beside a smaller radius, higher temperature, stronger superficial gravity. Faster and very fast rotations also create more significantasteroid belt and gas disk. This is the only reason why Pluto has no rings, because his slow rotation (6,4 days) – with a small mass – is insufficient to create rings; gas, dust and smaller objects end up on the planet or its satellites. The objects withoutan independent rotation (such as Venus, Mercury, etc.) can't direct the other objects into their gravitational field. The same principle goes for the objects with rotation when an incoming object arrives to the polar region, where only the gravitational force exist.

"Ether or vacuum"

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
3 hours ago, South Alabam said:

I think all you're trying to say, is "it is dark in space, except what is radiated (matter) when it is struck?

Please See continuation of the text that do not I repeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Oy Vey  :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

In space, no one can hear you scream. I think ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
18 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

@ aquatus1, ChrLzs, seeder

It was one of the ways to minimize the plagiarism that has reached major proportions. 2004 official science was light years away from the Theory of Zadar, today she is breathing down my neck (constant plundering of) through "respectable" magazines.
Emphasis of this was only for "Your knowledge of science is totally non-existent."

That's what I'm saying.  Thinking that showing people this is going to convince them you have the critical mindset of a scientist is going to have the exact opposite effect.  It is just going to make them think you are gullible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir

Image result for push/pull door meme far side

Edited by Thorvir Hrothgaard
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
5 hours ago, South Alabam said:

Article is like and the second only "deception".
We're talking about the area immediately outside the significant atmosphere, 150 kilometers away. Mercury (body without atmosphere (significant)) that goes immediately beyond the surface, it does not matter in which direction, because the space between Mercury and the Sun is dark.
Here we see only the present.
The background microwave radiation:
"Goes with the similar devices for measuring background radiation, which estimate the distance from the source to the device, i.e. Earth.
Let's assume it originates from the Big Bang. If the background radiation from 13 billion of years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting salary into account - how is it possible for them to meet now? What is the calculation that explains it?

Background radiation arrives from the distance of 13.7 billion light-years of. These data are the same as the distance of the most distant space objects that have been observed. Background radiation arrives from the end of the Universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

 

@Habitat

The voice is also a wave. Communication with astronauts on the moonwas the normal (a delay signals we and on Earth).

@ aquatus1

Naive? Probably. There is no better way. Vrbas (river) will be a long run to the finish. However, my main goal is erasing misconceptions from science. The effects of the rotation of cosmic bodies today realize the serious and negation are rare. At the beginning (prior to less than 3 years) posting here it was the opposite, etc.

@Thorvir Hrothgaard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
5 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

 

@ aquatus1

Naive? Probably. There is no better way.

There is a MUCH better way, it's called education. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
10 hours ago, Habitat said:

In space, no one can hear you scream. I think ?

I've heard that...but in my den my dog can hear me scream. Some UM threads have caused me to scream...this is one of them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
8 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

@ aquatus1

 

Naive? Probably. There is no better way. Vrbas (river) will be a long run to the finish. However, my main goal is erasing misconceptions from science.

You are failing.  You keep giving examples of why you should not be considered credible, the belief that naivete is the best path towards credibility merely the latest.

Even if you are correct, you will never be acknowledged for it, because, for all intents and purposes, you don't give any indication of having come to your discovery through rational, or critical means.  You can't explain the logical path, you can't explain why your idea is a better explanation than our current theories, you can't explain the current theories either, you can't give any method of verification of your idea, you can't provide any measurement, metric, or theoretical abstraction for people to examine--frankly, you are in no better position than a 12-year old who read the wiki on quantum physics and is pretending to have come up with M theory.

How can someone be taken seriously as a scientist if they do not understand the basic tenets of science?  If they do not show even a recognition of the prerequisites of scientific methodology?  If you present the academic equivalent of a fake driver's license?  You walk onto the court and claim you are here to revolution the game of basketball, but you don't know how to dribble, any of the rules of the game, and believe your Air Jordans make you a player.

But wearing the trappings doesn't make one a player.  If you don't know how to play, all you are is a poser.  And no one is going to tolerate a poser telling people who actually work in the field that they are wrong about how things should be done.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
8 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

There is a MUCH better way, it's called education. 

Upbringing? You are (in this particular picture) obvious example. Included in the discussion just for obstruction. Upbringing is and listen, if you do not have arguments for the debate. A malicious obstruction, insult and rant do not fall into a good upbringing.
The moderator should stimulate debate and not to kill is if it is not convenient to you.
You know that it does not affect me, but you eliminate the participants of the discussion if it is not as you say.
Please, let that, others to use freedom of speech and the a public, taking out the words. You are always welcome (at my place) with arguments or without arguments (that's the rule at you) but that does not understand the other members. The father must be good for children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

@ aquatus1

"Even if you are correct, you will never be acknowledged for it ..and so on."
In this story, I am not important. "They" have no choice except to avoid disclosure of nonsense.
When I published

"The temperature of stars is directly related to the speed of its rotation. Those with slower rotation are red, while with the increase of the rotation speed, also increases the glow and temperature of a star. As a consequence, it turns white and blue. If we consult the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, it is obvious that both very small and super giant stars can have the same glow; they can be white, red or blue. The mass and quantity of so-called fuel that they supposedly burn is obviously an unacceptable answer – there are stars of the same mass, or sizes, but with a completely different glow. If we were to try to explain that by the presence of different elements, it would make no sense. Diversity of elements depends exactly on the temperature heights: the higher the temperature, the lower the diversity and order of elements. "
This was a utopia, but today it is standard and is located in the grounds of the official science (in the Wiki also).
The written word remains and will remain the data of the championship, that's good enough for the truth begins to be present in cosmology.
Today publish comments a public on Facebook to articles NASA, Guardian etc. I keep pointing out the incorrectness and why, it does not leave authors to sleep peacefully.
The main goal is that speaking the truth (not belief that is true) replace worn out speaking nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
10 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Article is like and the second only "deception".
We're talking about the area immediately outside the significant atmosphere, 150 kilometers away. Mercury (body without atmosphere (significant)) that goes immediately beyond the surface, it does not matter in which direction, because the space between Mercury and the Sun is dark.
Here we see only the present.
The background microwave radiation:
"Goes with the similar devices for measuring background radiation, which estimate the distance from the source to the device, i.e. Earth.
Let's assume it originates from the Big Bang. If the background radiation from 13 billion of years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting salary into account - how is it possible for them to meet now? What is the calculation that explains it?

Background radiation arrives from the distance of 13.7 billion light-years of. These data are the same as the distance of the most distant space objects that have been observed. Background radiation arrives from the end of the Universe.

Do you think stars remain the same color and size throughout their lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
1 hour ago, Weitter Duckss said:

@ aquatus1

"Even if you are correct, you will never be acknowledged for it ..and so on."
In this story, I am not important. "They" have no choice except to avoid disclosure of nonsense.

Again, you are not speaking like a critical or rational person.  Yes, you are important to this idea of yours, because without you, this idea does not exist.  You have given absolutely no reason for anyone to believe your idea has merit in and of itself.  If you are not important, then your idea is not important, and if you are not credible, your idea is not credible either.  Take responsibility for your idea.

All of us have the choice to avoid disclosure of nonsense.  Many of us do not.  All rationalists have the duty to confront nonsense and irrationality, and not allow it to pass without challenge.  You are being challenged, but you are not stepping up to the challenge.  You are avoiding responsibility.

Quote

The main goal is that speaking the truth (not belief that is true) replace worn out speaking nonsense.

"Truth" is a philosophical concept, and most often used (and occasionally abused) by those of a religious persuasion. "Truth" has no place in a discussion about science.  Logic, rationality, and clarity, are the tools of the scientist, not philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Do you think stars remain the same color and size throughout their lives?

This would be contrary to the processes in the universe. The bodies are growing, hits small body can speed up or slow down the rotation. Vortices or cyclones on the pole also. Greater weight with the same speed of rotation gives a higher temperature.
With increasing rotation or deceleration amended to, the color of the stars. The universe is not static and unchanging size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
18 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

This would be contrary to the processes in the universe. The bodies are growing, hits small body can speed up or slow down the rotation.

Stars do not need to be hit or gain mass to change color.  

Quote

Vortices or cyclones on the pole also.

What has that to do with anything?

Quote

Greater weight with the same speed of rotation gives a higher temperature.

This contradicts your hypothesis entirely.

Quote

With increasing rotation or deceleration amended to, the color of the stars.

Not according to the above sentence I quoted.  Burger's star is the fastest rotating object we have observed in the universe which would mean, according to you, it should be the hottest object in the universe but it isn't, explain please. 

Quote

The universe is not static and unchanging size.

This has NOTHING to do with your so called hypothesis. 

Aquatus and others have asked you to prove your hypothesis yet there is nothing here but supposition with little or no logic involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
2 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

Opet, ne govori kao kritičan ili racionalnom osobom. Da, vi ste važni za ovu ideju od tvoje, jer bez tebe, ova ideja ne postoji. Dao si apsolutno nikakvog razloga za bilo tko da je vaša ideja ima zasluga i sama od sebe. Ako nisu važne, onda tvoja ideja nije važno, a ako nisu vjerodostojne, tvoja ideja nije vjerodostojna bilo. Preuzmite odgovornost za svoju ideju.

Svi mi imamo izbor kako bi se izbjeglo otkrivanje gluposti. Mnogi od nas ne. Svi racionalisti imaju dužnost da se suprotstave glupost i iracionalnost, a ne dopustiti da prođe bez izazova. Vi se osporava, ali ne koračni do izazov. Vi se izbjegavanje odgovornosti.

"Istina" je filozofski pojam, a najčešće se koristi (a ponekad i zlostavljani) od onih od vjerskog uvjerenja. "Istina" nema mjesta u raspravi o znanosti. Logika, racionalnost, i jasnoća, su alati za znanstvenika, a ne filozofija.

I accept your thinking.
However, there are many people who do not have the ability to access the closed circles, although their work is often worth more. Rarely them, accept eg astronomers ameteri etc.
The menu is enough to parts of the work become accepted, not to say that I will not find the way for the publication of the "big" magazines. For now it is enough to www.academia.edu, 4 article in znanost.hr, and now here, www.sdnnet.ru and www.newtheory.ru with constant Comentari on www.phys.org and www.space.com.
For "big" magazines I had to change the style and lose independence. It is now an insurmountable problem or betrayal itself.

Now I ask you about these arguments, because this is a work that was published two years before the deadline (the culprit is ChrLzs with Comentari "I'll wait until WD announces the huge changes to his website ...") and has (have) a lot shortcomings. Every comment, regardless of the content opens (in some way) the way to improve or eliminate some inaccuracies or errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
7 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

This contradicts your hypothesis entirely.

This we already passed in "The causal relation between a star and its temperature, gravity, radius and color" https://www.academia.edu/18485381/The_causal_relation_between_a_star_and_its_temperature_gravity_radius_and_color

 

13 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Stars do not need to be hit or gain mass to change color.  

What should, menu?

 

14 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Burger's star is the fastest rotating object we have observed in the universe

I have not heard that Burger's star rotating several kilometers per second. Definitely not the fastest and not the stars (I use the word body to emphasize that all the bodies are subject the same laws of physics).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
36 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

I accept your thinking.
However, there are many people who do not have the ability to access the closed circles, although their work is often worth more. Rarely them, accept eg astronomers ameteri etc.

I'm not talking about gaining access to anything.  I'm talking about what you are posting here, on this discussion forum.  Here, you have not presented any reason for people to consider you a scientist.  Here, you have not provided support for your idea, neither mathematical models nor abstractions.  You posted, with great conviction, an acceptance letter from a group that is known for making money by taking ideas and charging their owners for it.  If you cannot convince a group of people on a discussion forum that your ideas have merit, you are nowhere near ready to ask a professional journal for review.  This is not about a professional field being closed off to you because of some sort of elite bias.  Even here, in this discussion forum, among average people who work in scientific fields, you have not met the standards for credibility.

Again, until you present the logic behind your work--not a claim, not an explanation, but an actual theory, describing a specific phenomena, and providing an explanation in the form of an actual formula, abstract model, or other verifiable supporting evidence for the explanation of the specific phenomena--then it is completely understandable for people to decide that you are not a scientist.  Not because English is (I assume) a second language, not because there is some sort of elite bias in place, not because of any external excuse, but simply because you have not provided a scientific claim for review.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.