20190320

What keeps things together?


PSI Blog 20190320 What keeps things together?

From Abhi, one of our best respondents:

“You wrote that ‘for the balloon to keep its shape, it simply must have enough pressure inside (submicrocosms in motion) to counteract the pressure outside (supermicrocosms in motion). This is true for all microcosms (things). Decrease the pressure inside and the microcosm implodes; decrease the pressure outside and microcosm explodes. The velocities of the submicrocosms and supermicrocosms are secondary.’

But all microcosms do not behave like balloons. For example, a pot has a rigid shape and size which does not change even if we change the pressure inside or outside it. Can you please look deeply into this?”

[GB: Thanks Abhi for another excellent question.

The answer goes back to the formation of baryonic (ordinary) matter from aether particles in the first place. In Infinite Universe Theory I assume aether particles have short-range velocities analogous to those of nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere. In other words, we know individual nitrogen molecules travel 50% faster than the wave motion produced by that medium (i.e., 343 m/s X 1.5 = 515 m/s). For aether, this would be: 300,000,000 m/s X 1.5 = 450,000,000 m/s.

The formation of baryonic matter simply involves the process of slowing some of the aether particles down long enough for them to form complexes of aether. This would never happen if all aether particles were identical—some of them must be larger than others. The required deceleration is similar to what occurs when aether particles are decelerated during gravitational acceleration.[1] The decelerated aether particles surround all baryonic matter and are otherwise known as “dark matter.”

Back to the balloon example: Everything we know consists of aether complexes. Each complex is in motion, from high-velocity aether pairs to the most massive, slow-velocity chunk of lead. The balloon is an excellent example of univironmental interactions. It clearly shows why a microcosm might stay in one piece instead of simply flying apart. So why doesn’t the pot fly apart when the air pressure inside and outside is not equal? That is because solids, unlike the gases in the atmosphere, have fewer “degrees of freedom.” In other words, they consist of atoms comprised of aether particles that previously were pushed together by still higher velocity aether particles and aether complexes. Of course, even an iron pot can “fly apart” under appropriate conditions. It simply would have to absorb enough motion to do so. That is what overheating does when you forget to turn off the stove. Heat is a vibratory motion. Enough of it and the atoms in your pot will attain more “degrees of freedom,” possibly turning into a river of liquid with any plastic parts turning into gases.

The deceleration of high-velocity aether particles can occur in many ways in addition to that which produces the “dark matter” halo around other microcosms. Of primary importance is the formation of vortices. In this case, much of the otherwise linear motion of aether particles is forced to travel in a circle around some more massive aether particle or complex. I say “forced” because the more sluggish aether particles tend to be pushed around by the more active ones. In the figure below, microcosm A, because of its size, provides shelter for microcosm B, possibly resulting in a new aether complex.

    



The upshot: The macrocosm (environment) is of utmost importance for the formation and continued existence of any microcosm (portion of the universe). That is why a finite universe surrounded by perfectly empty space makes no sense at all.]





[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165.
[2] IUT, Chapter 16.4, Where does matter come from?, Figure 46.


20190313

Another regressive outrage--negative gravity

PSI Blog 20190313 Another regressive outrage--negative gravity

Thanks to Jesse for this news article showing how math assumptions control regressive speculation:
He writes:

“Too good. These mathemagicians never give up. Negative gravity.....what’s next?”

https://nypost.com/2018/12/06/this-theory-may-explain-why-95-of-the-universe-is-missing/amp/?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

In response to what's next, Piotr writes:

“I'm betting on negative & infinite dimensions.”

The "scientific" paper is published in Astronomy & Astrophysics.





20190306

An Open Response to Johanna Miller’s Column: Sorry Crackpots

PSI Blog 20190306 An Open Response to Johanna Miller’s Column--Sorry Crackpots

Guest Blog by Steven B. Bryant

An Open Response to Johanna Miller’s Column: ‘Sorry, Crackpots’

On February 1, 2019, Johanna L. Miller, an editor of Physics Today, published an article entitled “Sorry, Crackpots: A Physics Today editor explains why we’re never going to publish your cockamamie theories”. As an independent researcher, one Ms. Miller would improperly label as a crackpot, I believe that her position dangerously stifles scientific advancement and innovation. To illustrate my point, I show how bias and name calling prevents us from having a serious scientific conversation.

Let's begin with statements with which everyone should agree:
  1. The average (or arithmetic mean), ξ, of two expressions s and can be found using the equation: ξ = 0.5*(s + t). It can also be found using an equivalent equation: ξ = t - 0.5 *(t - s). If you use the second equation but fail to recognize it as an average, this does not enable it to take on new magical properties.
  2. Mathematically, a circle (2D) or sphere (3D) is axiomatically defined as, the set of all points in a Euclidean plane (2D) or space (3D) that are a constant distance from a common center. If you find at least two points that belong to the same set and those points are not the same distance from a common center, then the shape is not a circle or a sphere.
  3. If given the distance equation, distance=time*velocity, you can solve for any variable if the other two are known. However, you cannot use this equation to determine a velocity if you replace distance with grams, volume, cycles, or shoe size.
Now, let's create some statements with which few people should agree. I'll call these statements elements of a crackpot test:
  1. On a sheet of paper. Draw a circle, an oval, a straight line, and a squiggle. Convince yourself that each of the shapes is a circle.
  2. Convince yourself that each of the following equations are equivalent and will properly find the velocity of a moving object: velocity = grams/time; velocity = cycles/time; velocity = volume/time, and velocity = shoe size / time.
  3. Imagine a train approaches you with a bright light on top of the locomotive. You know the wavelength, x', of the light. You measure the light's wavelength as the train approaches and again as it moves away from you as, s = x'c/(c + v) and t = x'c/(c - v). Find the average Doppler equation, ξ. Convince yourself that the average Doppler shift is the train’s spatial position.
Now for the test question: If someone builds a “cockamamie theory” (Ms. Miller's words, not mine) based on at least one of the above statements, would you label them as a crackpot and dismiss their theory?

Before you answer the question, recognize that a key theme of the scientific process is independent validation. To this end, review Einstein’s 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Systems, and Michelson and Morley’s paper discussing their interferometer experiment and see if you can find each of the anomalies (above). Why do I ask that you find it yourself? Because when you do, it's no longer about someone telling you what they've found. Instead, finding them independently allows us to come to the table as peers and engage in a scientific conversation rather than an emotional argument. Even if we disagree on whether a finding is "right" or "wrong", we're discussing the same finding.

Ideally, you've independently found each anomaly mentioned above. But, if you’re struggling to see the problems in the original works, you can (optionally) review an academic poster presentation that I delivered in February 2019 (see: https://goo.gl/8kaF3N ). However, I still encourage you to review the original works and confirm each finding yourself.

Returning to the test question: If you answered yes (and you've done the research mentioned above), not only have you dismissed Einstein’s theory of relativity as a “cockamamie theory”, you’ve labeled Einstein as a “crackpot”.  This is why name calling is so dangerous. While I believe relativity is invalid, I would never use such terms to describe Einstein or his work. It is this type of labeling and name calling that turns a scientific conversation into an emotional argument; at which point serious discourse no longer occurs.

So, Ms. Miller, please join me in changing the tone of the conversation. Let's agree to stop the grade school name calling because labeling someone as a crackpot does nothing but perpetuate a culture of bias and discrimination. Let's also agree to stop hiding behind the excuse of peer reviews when editors, many of whom share your biases, have no intention of publishing works that disagree or challenge their beliefs - no matter how well-argued and researched that work might be. Name calling and exclusion were (ineffective) tools we used as kids on a playground when we didn't know any better. But as mature scientists, we owe it to ourselves and to the broader community to find more effective ways of handling crucial conversations. Fortunately, I've met many scientists who are quite open to exploring material that challenges their beliefs. We can use them as role models.

Scientific innovation and discovery advance best when we examine what others have to say and remain open to reexamining our most deeply held beliefs. I think it would be a huge benefit to the scientific community if more journals were open to publishing well-researched, critical submissions that challenge our understanding. Ms. Miller, will you please join me in moving the conversation from the playground to places more appropriate for serious scientific discussions?


 Steven B. Bryant is a futurist, researcher, and author who investigates the innovative application and strategic implications of science and technology on society and business. He is the author of DISRUPTIVE: Rewriting the rules of physics, which is a thought–provoking book that shows where relativity fails and introduces Modern Mechanics, a unified model of motion that fundamentally changes how we view modern physics. DISRUPTIVE is available at Amazon.com, BarnesAndNoble.com, and other booksellers!


20190301

Video review of my Blog on regressive name calling

PSI Blog 20190301 Video review of my Blog on regressive name calling

David de Hilster, president of the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society, gives a spirited and detailed analysis of the attack on critics of relativity and the Big Bang Theory:




20190227

Defending the Big Bang paradigm by name calling


PSI Blog 20190227 Defending the Big Bang paradigm by name calling

Readers are familiar with the durable marriage between the Big Bang Theory and relativity. Without Einstein’s massless light particle and its perpetual motion the universal expansion interpretation and the BBT would be toast. Anyone who objects to the absurdity must be denigrated and any suggestions for change must be rejected out of hand.

In what eventually will be a classical opinion piece, the editor of Physics Today, published by the American Physical Society, summed up the situation:


The editor mentions letters from those “who believe they’ve arrived at some startling new insight heretofore unknown to the professional physics community, often about how the work of Albert Einstein was all wrong.”

And goes on to restate a familiar defense of the great man:

“If some error were to come to light in, say, the theory of general relativity, the discovery would almost certainly be based on a similarly sophisticated level of understanding. The theory has withstood all the tests experimenters have thrown at it. What’s more, every measurement by GPS device requires a general relativistic correction to account for the slightly different speeds of clocks on satellites and on Earth’s surface. If it somehow turned out that the theory was nevertheless flawed, and the accuracy of GPS was all just a coincidence, that would be a big deal.”

Astute readers know that much of relativity (except for the E=mc2 equation borrowed from Maxwell) involves Einsteinisms (predictions right for the wrong reasons). GPS does not use General Relativity Theory.[1] It does require a correction for altitude. In Aether Deceleration Theory I explain the altitude effect as a result of increasing aether pressure and decreasing aether density with distance from Earth.[2] Like the atmosphere, entrained, decelerated aether forms a halo around Earth. This is the physical reason for what is claimed to be curved empty space in relativity. Not only is the increase in aether pressure responsible for gravitation, but it also causes clocks to run faster.[3] Again, in General Relativity Theory, these effects were claimed by Einstein to be a result of curved empty space and time dilation. Because light velocity is a function of aetherial pressure, the waves from any source are stretched out slightly. Each detection of the resulting so-called “gravitational redshift” is claimed as a confirmation of relativity and the magical “space-time curvature” and “time dilation.” Einstein was right—but for the wrong reason.

Readers also know there are over 9,000 dissidents opposed to various claims of relativity and its birthright, the Big Bang Theory.[4] I know of no other discipline having such great opposition from so many angles. True, most of the suggested reforms are no better than relativity itself. It would be overwhelming for the editor of a news magazine like Physics Today to choose among them. It is much easier to assume “Einstein is always right.” Any mention of him in a less than favorable light gets the circular file.




[1] Hatch, Ronald R., 1995, Relativity and GPS, 3rd Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, p. 1-26 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Hatch-GPS].

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, p. 242 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165.

[4] de Climont, Jean, 2018, The worldwide list of alternative theories and critics [http://go.glennborchardt.com/declimont16dissidentlist].



20190220

What is the cosmological redshift?


PSI Blog 20190220 What is the cosmological redshift?


I explained this many times, but apparently did not do a very good job of it, because the question still appears to be on the table.

As mentioned in Infinite Universe Theory[1], there are many types of redshift found in astronomy. Here, we are concerned only with the one responsible for the erroneous idea that the universe is expanding. Light from all sources loses energy as a function of distance (Figure 1). Note that the dimmest sources, farthest away, have the highest redshifts (Figure 2). The cosmological redshift also is termed the “Hubble redshift” for the astronomer who first discovered it.

The velocity of a particle or wave is determined strictly by the medium through which it travels. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that perpetual motion is impossible. No microcosm or motion can go on its own from point A to point B without losing energy. You can observe this when standing under active electrical transmission lines. The hum you hear is indicative of the energy losses that are inevitable during the transmission.




Figure 2. Typical redshift vs. distance plots calculated as erroneously assumed recessional speeds. This is part of an animation prepared by the Institute for Astrophysics and Space Science, Western Kentucky University.[3] 

With the velocity of the waves being controlled by the aether medium, the Second Law losses must show up as increases in wavelength. This is the “tired light” effect favored by Hubble in his opposition to the expanding universe interpretation commonly misattributed to him.

The current view, however, was adopted from Einstein. I have termed it his “Untired Light Theory.[4]” The theory requires eight ad hocs, highlighted by the assumption that light is a massless particle traveling through perfectly empty space. The hypothesized light travels from galaxy to eyeball with no loss of energy. Amazingly, regressives still appear to accept this illogic without question. It is responsible for the Big Bang Theory and many of the associated absurdities so prevalent in mainstream journals today.


[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 349 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[2] http://go.glennborchardt.com/Wikiredshift. Georg Wiora (Dr. Schorsch) created this image from the original JPG. Derivative work:Kes47 (File:Redshift.png) [CC BY-SA 2.5 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5), GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons.] [Figure 53 in IUT.]
[4]   Ibid. p. 53.


20190213

Why is there something rather than nothing redux?


PSI Blog 20190213 Why is there something rather than nothing redux?

Here is a heads up from George Coyne:

Glenn:  This BBC article titled “Why is there something rather than nothing?” sums up the orthodox view in physics and cosmology.  In that article, they say:

“Their admittedly controversial answer is that the entire universe, from the fireball of the Big Bang to the star-studded cosmos we now inhabit, popped into existence from nothing at all. It had to happen, they say, because "nothing" is inherently unstable.”

I prefer your answer to this question, which is the universe exists because "nothing" would not be a possible alternative.

The author also writes:

"Linde offers a simple but mind-bending answer. He thinks universes have always been springing into existence, and that this process will continue forever.  When a new universe stops inflating, says Linde, it is still surrounded by space that is continuing to inflate. That inflating space can spawn more universes, with yet more inflating space around them. So once inflation starts it should make an endless cascade of universes, which Linde calls eternal inflation. Our universe may be just one grain of sand on an endless beach."

For many years you have logically and properly contested this idea. You may want to rationally critique the many dubious concepts in the article:


[GB: Thanks for the easy one George. At least these regressives are consistent. Remember “nothing,” that is, “perfectly empty space” is an idealization. Like all idealizations, it cannot possibly exist. It is one of the ideal end members of the “empty space-solid matter” continuum. The empty space idea, however, has been a favorite of religious idealists for millennia. Despite claiming to be an atheist, Einstein was one of these. That is where he got his “there is no aether” and the empty space needed for his erroneous theory that light was a particle that therefore could travel from galaxy to eyeball without losing energy.

Enter Hubble’s discovery that light from distant galaxies was redshifted. There are many ways this could happen, but regressives grabbed onto the Doppler Shift as the reason for that. Magically, everything in the cosmos supposedly was going away from us (species egocentrism anyone?). The alternative was some sort of “tired light effect,” which commonly befalls classical particles after their initial acceleration. That is what happens to a football or baseball after it is thrown. Only former patent officer Einstein could be the first to claim perpetual motion and get away with it. The result, of course, was the “expanding universe” interpretation that became the foundation of the Big Bang Theory.

Now, the folks you quote are reformists trying to handle data implying the universe is much larger than the one containing the 2 trillion galaxies we observe (e.g., see the previous two PSI Blogs and Kashlinsky[1]). Still, they dare not immediately abandon the cosmogonic expanding universe idea, so they invent “multiverses” or “parallel universes.” Each explodes out of empty space just like the “nothingness” through which Einstein’s light is assumed to travel. As mentioned, “empty space,” that is, “nothingness” is dear to the hearts of religious folks raised on the ubiquitous propaganda that the universe had a beginning.

All this is an excellent example of why the switch to Infinite Universe Theory will amount to the Last Cosmological Revolution. The radical switch from the assumption of finity to the assumption of infinity is a one-time, momentous event for humanity. Either there is empty space, nothingness, and possibility of nonexistence or there is not. Once the empty space notion is gone, the expanding universe notion will be gone too. The Big Bang Theory and cosmogony will meet their timely deaths.]  




[1] Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Ebeling, H., Edge, A., and Kocevski, D., 2010, A New Measurement of the Bulk Flow of X-Ray Luminous Clusters of Galaxies: The Astrophysical Journal Letters, v. 712, no. 1, p. L81-L85. [doi:10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L81].



20190206

“Still more light found at the ‘end of the universe’” gets a video


PSI Blog 20190206 “Still more light found at the ‘end of the universe’” gets a video


Thanks to David de Hilster who just did a wonderful video on my previous blog:


You might want to subscribe to his YouTube channel on which he often critically reviews the “junk science” in support of cosmogony these days.


“The new version of Hubble's deep image. In dark grey is the new light that has been found around the galaxies in this field. That light corresponds to the brightness of more than 100 billion suns. Credit: A. S. Borlaff and others, 2019.” (Courtesy Mike Wall, Space.com).[1]

Below I give the complete list of authors. The article is 34 pages and obviously took a lot of work. Note also that the authors are from Spain, Denmark, and France—not the U.S. The paper cited is the latest breakthrough in cosmology, having been published on 20190121. Although it provides only a minor dig against cosmogony, it has not received much publicity in the U.S. Does this mean that the U.S. support for the Big Bang Theory is causing it to lose its preeminence in cosmology?  




[1] Borlaff, Alejandro, Trujillo, Ignacio, Román, Javier, Beckman, John E., Eliche-Moral, M. Carmen, Infante-Sáinz, Raúl, Lumbreras-Calle, Alejandro, de Almagro, Rodrigo Takuro Sato Martín, Gómez-Guijarro, Carlos, Cebrián, María, Dorta, Antonio, Cardiel, Nicolás, Akhlaghi, Mohammad, and Martínez-Lombilla, Cristina, 2019, The missing light of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field: Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 621, no. A133, p. 1-34.

20190130

Still more light found at the “end of the universe”


PSI Blog 20190130 Still more light found at the “end of the universe”

The observable “end of the universe” is the farthest we can see with our present telescopes, with the Hubble Space Telescope the current far-out leader. In “Infinite Universe Theory” I included this photo, pointing out that the spiral galaxies at a distance of 13.2 billion light years were no different than our own Milky Way, which is 13.7 billion years old:




IUT, Figure 9. Close-up of a small portion of the HUDF [Hubble Ultra Deep Field]. Note that these objects are various colors. Most are not red as implied by the misnomer “cosmological redshift.” Color is determined by frequency, not wavelength. Credit: NASA.


Of course, the Big Bang Theory claims that we should see younger and younger objects the farther we look out into space:




IUT, Figure 7. NASA’s official view of what the Big Bang universe should look like (seriously). Credit: NASA.

So far, there is no evidence to support that conjecture. Instead, the presence of the “elderly galaxies” in IUT Figure 9 above falsifies the theory. Now, Borlaff and others[1] have done a computer analysis of the Hubble photos, coming up with this:




“The new version of Hubble's deep image. In dark grey is the new light that has been found around the galaxies in this field. That light corresponds to the brightness of more than 100 billion suns. Credit: A. S. Borlaff and others, 2019.” (Courtesy Mike Wall, Space.com).

Once again, it looks like there is more to the universe than previously recognized. In Infinite Universe Theory (p. 289), I predicted that “Improvements in instrumentation soon will result in the discovery of cosmological objects older than 13.8 billion years.” That is the currently accepted “age of the universe.” IUT Figure 7 will be severely tested when the Webb telescope replaces the Hubble after March 2021. Will that put the kibosh on the BBT? Unlikely. Cosmogonists no doubt will invent some new ad hocs to rescue the theory one more time. Readers might remember that my prediction is that the BBT will not be discarded until 2050.



[1] Borlaff and others, 2019, The missing light of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, v. 621, p. A133.



20190123

Nikola Tesla and the Correct Scientific Worldview


PSI Blog 20190123 Nikola Tesla and the Correct Scientific Worldview

From George Coyne:

Glenn, these two quotes from Nikola Tesla indicate that he had a similar scientific worldview as you. The Wikipedia entry on Tesla states: Tesla was generally antagonistic towards theories about the conversion of matter into energy. He was also critical of Einstein's theory of relativity saying:

“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

"To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end" and "what we call 'soul' or 'spirit,' is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the 'soul' or the 'spirit' ceases likewise." [GB: Amen]


[GB: George, thanks so much for the heads up. This shows nicely that we are all heading toward the same conclusions in science. The universe is the final arbiter, regardless of what we say about it. Humanity is continually under the “sifting and winnowing” of ideas and the destruction of the unfittest. Einstein’s idealism eventually will fall by the wayside along with the religious notions responsible for his popularity.

Readers will remember that “perfectly empty space” is one end member of the “empty space-solid matter continuum.” Both empty space and solid matter are only ideas. Such idealizations do not and cannot exist. Reality always is something in between. The “empty space” idea may help us find a seat in the auditorium, but, thankfully, it does not describe a reality in which there is no oxygen allowing us to survive the performance.

In addition to the vacuous “curved empty space” idea Einstein assumed intergalactic space to be perfectly empty. This enabled his imaginary photons to travel from galaxy to eyeball without losing energy, contradicting the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing travels from point A to point B without losing energy. The idea that light could avoid that natural phenomenon is responsible for the ridiculous hypothesis that the universe is expanding.]


20190116

Open-Access Plan in Europe Bans Publishing in Paywalled Journals


PSI Blog 20190116 Open-Access Plan in Europe Bans Publishing in Paywalled Journals

One of the irritating characteristics of the establishment is its tendency to profit from the tax dollars we contribute to scientific research. True, publishing used to be extremely expensive. No longer. Even though publishers now contribute little to the process, they still want their money. Peer reviewers check for errors—for free, authors do the formatting—for free, and “publishers” provide the website amenable to downloading—for money. If you do not have a subscription or belong to an institution that has one, you have to pay around $35 for a digital copy of a single journal article.

If you are an independent researcher or belong to a struggling institution in a developing country, you are out of luck.

All this flies in the face of a basic scientific principle: Scientific knowledge is the property of all humanity and should be available to all. Enter the “Open Access” movement, which is trying to make this principle a reality. As a result, an increasing number of scientific papers are now available as free digital versions. Unfortunately, authors often have to pay thousands of dollars to make a paper available as Open Access.

On the other hand, research performed by U.S. government employees generally is not copywrited and pdf versions of the original government press copies are becoming increasingly available. For over a decade, NIH grantees have been required to provide copies of their peer-reviewed, published works to Pub Med Central, which charges no download fee. Now, the Open Access movement is gathering steam in Europe where the usual “paywall scheme” is the target of attack:

Thanks to Wolfgang Muss for this heads-up:



Of course, that is of dubious value to those of us who challenge the absurdities of the Big Bang Theory. The guardians of the current paradigm supposedly use a “peer review” process that nonetheless allows all sorts of illogical inanities. If you do not attack the BBT directly or mention the A-word (aether), you can publish on the explosion from nothing, universal expansion, extra-Euclidean dimensions, wormholes, immaterial fields, massless particles and their perpetual motion, etc. We should not be surprised that demands for payment are critical for maintaining the cosmogonical elite that accepts such “junk science.” In this case, the peer review system has failed miserably.

Don’t get me wrong. Peer review generally adds value to almost every investigation. Adequate review can catch mistakes in logic, interpretation, and math before they mislead a wider audience. That is why we consider “predatory journals” to be so pernicious. They typically charge exorbitant fees for publication without suitable review.[1] Most researchers have never heard of these journals and they are seldom cited. Even legitimate websites have been hijacked, with unsuspecting researchers submitting payments to fraudsters and papers that will never be published.[2] With all the censorship accorded those who dare to oppose the BBT, how is anyone able to publish legitimate work?

Publishing for Free

That is a good question. The Open Access movement and the attack on pay walls are obvious products of the digital age. This will continue until all research is freely available. Don’t hold your breath. In the meantime, there are plenty of places to publish on the Internet. You can follow the guidelines for a suitable website (e.g., www.scientificphilosophy.com), or put your work on viXra (e.g., http://vixra.org/abs/1806.0165), www.ResearchGate.net , or www.Academia.edu, etc. EBooks and paperbacks now can be published for free on Amazon (https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/). All this is possible without having to deal with peer reviewers who think the universe exploded out of nothing!

BTW: A few journals encourage authors opposed to the current nonsense. You might try: General Science Journal (free) or Physics Essays ($137 page charge for you and $17 pay wall fee for your readers).






[1] Dadkhah, Mehdi, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, Guidelines for selecting journals that avoid fraudulent practices in scholarly publishing: Iranian Journal of Management Studies, v. 9, no. 3, p. 529-538. [http://ijms.ut.ac.ir/article_57540_c9dfe9455568d200e6c29a923ecdf887.pdf].

Dadkhah, M., and Borchardt, G., 2016, Victimizing Researchers by Phishing: Razavi Int J Med, v. 4, no. 3, p. e40304. [10.17795/rijm40304].

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Borchardt, Glenn, Lagzian, Mohammad, and Bianciardi, Giorgio, 2017, Academic Journals Plagued by Bogus Impact Factors: Publishing Research Quarterly, p. 1-5. [10.1007/s12109-017-9509-4].

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Borchardt, Glenn, and Maliszewski, Tomasz, 2016, Fraud in Academic Publishing: Researchers Under Cyber Attacks: The American Journal of Medicine [10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.08.030].

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Kahani, Mohsen, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review: Science and Engineering Ethics [10.1007/s11948-017-9960-9].

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Lagzian, Mohammad, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Identity Theft in the Academic World Leads to Junk Science: Science and Engineering Ethics, p. 1-4. [10.1007/s11948-016-9867-x].

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Mohammad, Lagzian, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, Is retraction sufficient for medical papers?: Pol Arch Med Wewn, v. 126, p. 1017-1018. [10.20452/pamw.3727.].

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Mohammad, Lagzian, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Questionable Papers in Citation Databases as an Issue for Literature Review: Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling, p. 1-5. [10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6].


[2] Andoohgin Shahri, Mona, Jazi, Mohammad Davarpanah, Borchardt, Glenn, and Dadkhah, Mehdi, 2017, Detecting Hijacked Journals by Using Classification Algorithms: Science and Engineering Ethics, p. 1-14. [10.1007/s11948-017-9914-2].

Dadkhah, Mehdi, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, Hijacked Journals: An Emerging Challenge for Scholarly Publishing: Aesthetic Surgery Journal, p. 1-3. [10.1093/asj/sjw026].

Dadkhah, M., and Borchardt, G., 2016, Victimizing Researchers by Phishing: Razavi Int J Med, v. 4, no. 3, p. e40304. [10.17795/rijm40304].

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Borchardt, Glenn, and Lagzian, Mohammad, 2017, Do You Ignore Information Security in Your Journal Website?: Science and Engineering Ethics, v. 23, no. 4, p. 1227-1231. [10.1007/s11948-016-9849-z].

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Mohammad, Lagzian, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, The Game of Hacking Academic Websites: World Digital Libraries, v. 9, no. 2, p. 131-133. [10.18329/09757597/2016/9210].

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Seno, Seyed Amin Hosseini, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Current and potential cyber attacks on medical journals; guidelines for improving security: European Journal of Internal Medicine, v. 38, p. 25-29. [10.1016/j.ejim.2016.11.014].