21–30 of 41 posts
Considering how many speculative or opinion-based papers are available on arxiv with no problem whatsoever, the fact that arxiv rejected these particular three papers seems very...odd.
At first blush, this reminds me of the phenomena where, every time some problem with evolution comes up (a missing piece in the fossil record, say), the creationists pop up with "See! Darwin was wrong!" arxiv would be completely right to refuse those "take that, Darwin!" articles. On the other hand, maybe there are serious problems with standard cosmology, and other models besides the Big Bang are worth considering.…
This isn't comparable to evolution theory where we have mountains of evidence of other species that were predecessors of the current ones. Or where we even have evidence of evolution happening during our lifetimes (e.g. Covid). The Big Bang theory is extremely speculative. Empirical Science is about building theories based on observations. We have no observations that provide any kind of evidence that there was a big…
There is no other plausible explanation of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
To anyone in the field: How plausible is Loop Quantum Cosmology/Loop Quantum Gravity as a Big Bang alternative? It seems more reasonable to me, but this is like a blind man saying one painting looks nicer than another.
Is this cranks?
LPP Fusion is run by Eric Lerner, who (based on his Wikipedia article[1]) seems to be a long-time crank who's been pushing plasma cosmology since 1991. He's using his nuclear fusion development company as a megaphone for this. (I'll let someone else try to figure out if the fusion company is legit.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, taking the other approach, sure, you can publish it. Just not on arxiv. Arxiv's editors decide what arxiv publishes. That's what editors are supposed to do.
Yep, which is literally what the editors told them according to their own account.
Editors refusing to publish your work in their journal is censorship? Nature and Science have censored me a few times then (got one through though!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't comparable to evolution theory where we have mountains of evidence of other species that were predecessors of the current ones. Or where we even have evidence of evolution happening during our lifetimes (e.g. Covid). The Big Bang theory is extremely speculative. Empirical Science is about building theories based on observations. We have no observations that provide any kind of evidence that there was a big…
> The Big Bang theory is extremely speculative. There is no other plausible explanation of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
I like speculativity very much, it's just a note on it.
Editors of arxiv: "We aren't the place to publish insubstantial discussions. There are other places for that." Guys who wrote the paper: "But it's substantial!" Like... obviously the guys who wrote the paper think it's substantial, or they wouldn't have submitted it. The very idea of "we think it's good, so we want to publish this without anyone telling us it's not" is... silly. As a developer, this is like someone o…
Or, taking the other approach, sure, you can publish it. Just not on arxiv. Arxiv's editors decide what arxiv publishes. That's what editors are supposed to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Big Bang theory is extremely speculative. There is no other plausible explanation of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
This doesn't make it less speculative. What would is to incorporate less assumptions or to prove some its assumptions with practice. I like speculativity very much, it's just a note on it.
But anyway, give an alternative model that explains it. I'll wait.