Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Mismanagement at Cornell-Los Alamos Arxives

Mismanagement at Cornell-Los Alamos Arxives

It happened again. Cornell-Los Alamos Arxives, where I emphasize the word
Cornell, managed to censor my work again. Here is the file describing some of my efforts.

As I was saying, I emphasize Cornell due to its continued support of censorship even though this activity has been brought up to its attention by several lawsuits. If this is not condoning censorship, I don't know what it is.

You might ask what is the point of having Ginsparg dressed like a chicken in my site. Of course, I enjoy the sight, would love to be offensive etc... I think that the worse thing I can call Ginsparg is Censor. This job was always performed by the Church, State or any other evil entity. Scientists, specially when there was some scrutiny and visibility, would and should not censor other ideas. There is plenty of visibility now-a-days.
The real point I am trying to make is that the person in the helm of the most import outlet of Physics ideas should be above childish behavior. The fact that one sees a Ginsparg Chicken should never make Ginsparg to blacklist my ideas. This is the most important job in Physics and due to Physics importance to Mankind, a very, very important job to hold.
Ginsparg did a great job creating the Los Alamos arxives, although it would be created by him or someone else. It was a state driven initiative, not unlike the internet, the atomic bomb etc.. Someone is always at the helm of those initiatives. That said, I hope Ginsparg, like Faust, will recover his soul someday and move back into the Light...:)
Of course, roughing up some feathers is necessary sometimes to bring up a good point.
I sincerely hope that Cornell University and Paul Ginsparg will raise to occasion and perform their jobs accordingly.
Up to now, they have done an unspeakable job.


Wednesday, August 29, 2007

A. Chicken Thieves ..:)

I hope that the picture above doesn't distract you...:)

It was the only picture I was able to find with someone holding a chicken...:)
When I finally decided to blog my theory, I took some precautions like registering the papers in the Library of Congress, sending the paper to at least two places and finding a visible and dated repository for them.

Blogger has dates. I am sure they also have a backup some place... The internet has a memory (web arquiving services). So I thought it would be "safe".

I wrote the paper, published in the internet at the General Journal of Science http://www.wbabin.net/papers.htm

I also posted in innumerous places and explained it at length in many list servers like the several yahoo groups : toe etc..

I know that Mankind is full of copycats, chicken thieves etc... Some people will do anything to gain glory or money on someone's else work..>:)

I faced a few who contacted me and said...:) "Hey, take a look on my idea... it is like yours..:) "

Fortunately for me, these were only crackpots with no ideas at all...

The Hypergeometrical Universe is extensive and fit together perfectly. This means that Chicken Thieves would have to steal the Whole Chimichanga, not just part of it...:)

There are two currents of thought inside my brain about Chicken Thieves. One tells me that one should ignore Chicken Thieves since you are shedding light on silly copycats - Historians will sort things up. The other tells me that if you don't take a stand, they might steal your Chickens..:)

I will just take a stand in my corner of the internet.

There were two notable cases. One called Moving Dimensions. The other will covered in the next blog.

One day, the author of this "Moving Dimensions Theory" invited me to join his group. I did. I immediately realized that this was a half-brained copycat.

Just the word moving dimensions doesn't mean anything and there was nothing there other than the title.

The author of "Moving Dimensions Theory" asked me to join a site and asked me many questions which I answered and transcribed those answers in my blog:

I did not receive any reply or comments from any of detailed answers which left me with a bad taste..>:)

The fellow kept writing in list servers claims (postulates) which grew and now parallel my theory...:) While my theory has basically one postulate (The Hypergeometrical Universe Topology), Moving Dimensions is only postulates passing as conclusions.

It is a shame.

In any event, I confronted the person at this list-server.


It is like a bad xerox copy.



Below is the reproduction of the blog I wrote as soon as I had the unpleasant experience of explaining my theory to someone that might be a Chicken Thief...:)



Peer Review

Sometime ago I received an email inviting me to join a group Physics, Astronomy, Math, & Philosophy Forums just after I seeing a posting on about Moving Dimensions on one of those scientific list servers . This happened more than a year after I made my work public.

When I joined that group, I considered that it would be a trap. Someone would pretend to read my theory and then put it down, thus making the so called "Moving Dimension Theory" the only one in town..:) That had happened before at the TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com.

Of course, I believe that my theory should be challenged, otherwise it would be in the same league of the God Sent Theories of the 23rd Century (String Theory) or God Like Theories (Inflation Theory suspends the laws of physics when it is convenient), thus I always joined the groups and always answered all the questions. Many times, I tried to make my peer to fully read the documents in this site. Eventually my initial perception of entrapment became irrelevant after I realized that my peer - in good faith, I believe - was asking very specific questions and that it would be beneficial if I were to recreate my answers on that site.

The concept of Moving Dimensions Theory is not a novel one. First of all, I have a full Grand Unification theory based on a Universe as a 4-Dimensional Shock Wave, which of course, has a metric that contains a translation (Radial Expansion at the speed of light).

Second, anyone can say that the Universe is moving some place, but unles you provide a topology and an absolute reference frame, this is a meaningless statement. It is still a meaningless statement if you don't derive meaningful conclusions from it. One can never prove that the Universe is not on an inertial motion going somewhere!...:) One can easily say that the Universe is pagelike and moves upwards.... or sideways.. That doesn't mean anything.

Every time someone proposes that the speed of light or the gravitaional constant might not be constant one would end up with a Moving Dimensions Theory, since the metric depends upon C and G and different regions of the Universe are traveling (Hubble Expansion). Thus this is not a new idea nor a non-trivial conclusion. Of course, my theory states that G is time dependent, since it depends upon the radius of curvature of the shock wave Universe, but C is always constant...:)

I made an effort to be clear and thorough. Please visit the site and let me know if I forgot something. I even mentioned elements of my next Blog- He ain't heavy, He is my Brother...

I still have the rest of the weekend to work on that Blog. So I will be brief.



I will reproduce the answers I gave in that site to two questions:

a) Explain succintly all your hypotheses.

b) What is the reason for/Explain Non-Local Phenomena?


I value your comments...

In any event, some of your misunderstandings are my fault. I wrote 30 blog entries explaining the theory. It is difficult not to rely on them when I explain my theory in another environment - this site for instance.

I went into the net in search of intelligent dialog and tried as hard as I could not to put people off for being critical of their misunderstandings... I believe that it is from discussions that enlightment is created and I would be the last person in the Universe to run away from a critic...
I have to thank you for asking me the question about the non-local phenomena... I solved that problem and published it in the blog...

I have to make a comment about that requirement. No theory out there explains non-local phenomena, thus it would be an unfair test for my theory... Since I solved the problem, I shouldn't mind it and should thank you for that...

Let's limit the number of elements in this iteration. I will focus on a few elements of my theory and my review of Action at Distance Phenomena.

These are the hypotheses used in the theory (plus or minus one or two that I might had forgoten...)

a) The first hypothesis is that the whole Universe is a hyperspherical surface expanding at the speed of light. This is supported by the equation E=mc^2 which is the energy of a body traveling at the speed of light. Further analysis of this equation show that it can be recast as a Pythagorean addition of two linear momentum components: one equal to p (3D linear momentum) and another perpendicular to the first one and equal to m0c (where m0 is the rest mass). Of course, this motion cannot be denied nor easily proved since it is an inertial motion and one cannot detect inertial motion. This topology is also what one would expect from conservation of momentum after a explosion, constant speed of spacetime deformations etc...

It is aesthetically pleasing to know that everything in the Universe is treated equally - like traveling deformations of 4-D space). It also provides a simple explanation on the why the speed of light is the limiting speed. It becomes clear that everything we send in our glorious 3-D shell is just a change in k-vector or a lateral change of direction of a constant magnitude lightspeed vector. Since this is just a change in direction and not in modules, it becomes clear the speed limitation. The maximum speed one can observe in the 3-D shell is c, which would correspond to a local rotation of the lightspeed vector by 45 degrees with respect to the Radial direction. Please see the link to the cross section of the Universe.

Hyperspherical Universe Cross-Section

b) The theory is a geometrical representation of the Universe and thus Mass, Force etc has to have an equivalent representation. Some constructs might be not relevant to this first theory, hence they are not recreated. The theory anchors itself on Lorentz transforms on a non-compact five dimensional spacetime. This means that the metric describing this spacetime can be easily constructed by a translation -due to the hyperspherical expansion and two rotations. One around the direction perpendicular to Cosmological Time Phi and X by an angle arctanh(v/c) and another around the direction perpendicular to Radial Direction R and X by an angle arctan(v/c). This reasoning is done for simplicity starting from a preferred referential with X perpendicular to R - relaxed local spacetime - but could be done on any initial inertial frame.

c) The 3-D Universe is considered to be the expanding hyperspherical surface traveling outwards at the speed of light. All the elements of the Universe are represented in terms of metric waves (dilatons) and metric wave generators (dilators).

d) Standard Quantum Mechanical Description of 4-D space deformational potential is used. Particles are modeled as coherence between two states of a four-dimensional rotating double well. This is a simple quantum mechanical picture which has perfect analogy on the coherences that gives rise to electromagnetic fields. Electronically excited molecules contains coherences at the moment of light emission. These coherences generate a time dependent observed electric dipole - like an antenna. This oscillating electric dipole is dephased through interaction with surrounding electromagnetic fields.

e) In the case of protons and electrons, the theory states that they are the two states of the same coherence, thus being the same particle. How come this is possible? It should be clear, but if now, you will have to await until I publish the pictures. It is difficult to explain something like this in words... although it is quite a simple hypothesis... Let me emphasize what I just said: Proton and electron are the same particle; they have exactly the same mass, with a caveat.

They have exactly the same mass as probed by their 4-D space trajectory while they perform the Radial motion. When they interact with the rest of the 3-D Universe, they have the mass associated with just one of the sides of the potential well. A Neutron is just a dimmer and thus all basic matter is made of the same stuff, a coherence between the two lower states of deformation of the 4-D space. An unconstrained deformation will propagate and the propagation will always be the speed of light. Spin is modeled as a tumbling motion as the radial expansion takes place. In my blog, "The Meaning of Material Existence" I explained the constraint on spin. For anything to exists, that is, to be able to interact with the rest of the Universe, it has to be in phase with these dilatons and traveling the same shock wave Universe. The phase requirement also applies to spinning motion, thus the quantization of spin.

f) Time driving the Radial expansion (motion of the Universe perpendicular to the 3-D space) is Absolute and continuous. Continuous in the sense that I did not find anything that would absolutely require a quantized time, although I came close to it. Since this is a 5-D spacetime, relative velocity creates two rotations: a) one is a rotation perpendicular to R and X by an angle arctan(vx/c) and b) a rotation by an imaginary angle given by arctanh(vx/c).

g) In my theory, there is an Absolute Time - in addition to local time projections or proper time and a Preferential Direction in Space but these cannot be easily determined, they are not observables. The only thing one can easily observe is the relative angle between proper times. Thus one can only observe relative time flow as required by Relativity.

h) Using Dilators and Dilaton fields generated by One Kilogram of Matter and One Kilogram of Charge, I was able to recover Gauss Law of Electrostatics, Newton's Law of Gravitation and the complex vectorial Biot-Savart Law of Magnetism. They are all derived from the aforementioned assumptions and that is an indication of a highly physical (as opposed to a Mathematical Stratospheric Digression) theory. Everything people do in this field is to guess a metric, guess a meaningless Lagrangian and derive Black Holes related geodesics... over and over again, without the benefit of Physics Intuition. When I say physical intuition I am not referring to some sixth sense, but to an emsemble of well grounded and logically supported hypotheses, which can replicate what we already know. Current theories cannot say anything about reality.

The last item of my current essay is the answer to what you asked me before:

What is Action at Distance or Non-Local Phenomena?
My answer is simple... They do not exist.
Non-local phenomena as in the photon polarization experiments will be taken as an example. In the experiment that gives rise to this kind of speculation, an excited medium is placed between identical two arms, each arm having a polarizer and two detectors. Light excitation is kept low such that coincident photons can be counted. Photons are emited by the excited medium in pairs with k-vectors defined by the physical setting of the experiment and are polarization correlated photons. Their polarization is correlated by the short lifetime of the electronic transitions with respect to rotational periods and by the angle between transition dipole moments in the molecular frame of reference.

The paradox arises when one uses the following hypothesis: Quantum Mechanics dictates that photons will not define their polarizations until there is a measurement. In this experiment, the measurement event is the interaction between polarizer and the incoming photon. Under those conditions, information of one photons polarization choice has to reach the other instantaneously. Implicit in this hypothesis is the other hypothesis that the emission occurs through dephasing of the electronic coherence by the interaction between the oscillating dipole and zero point randomly polarized vacuum fluctuations. I reached the conclusion that the implicit hypothesis is incorrect.

I know that the detectors have resonances at the photons energies they are suppose to detect. This means that they will emit radiation at those frequencies through Black Body or Thermal fluctuations. This field together with the extreme selectivity of the experimental design assures that the dephasing event is driven not by randomly polarized zero point fluctuations of vacuum but by polarized Black Body radiation from the detectors themselves. They are polarized from the perspective of the emiting molecule. The molecule is "seeing" the detectors through polarizers!

This means that the polarization of the outgoing photons is defined at the moment of the emission and thus there is no need for any non-local phenomena.

I hope you will appreciate the simplicity of the argument and let me know if you disagree.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Spanking Science - Inappropriate Submissions...:)

Review of the "Review"

Let me make it very clear. I tried to present a non-orthodox view of science and that was censored without an appropriate justification.

Just in case you don't realized it, the argument below is a cynical or ironical consideration.

It is cynical because a conclusion of conspiracy//collusion can be easily derived from the obstacles Los Alamos (i.e. the moderators) place on the intellectual production of the people who doesn't review their grants or papers, see them in conferences etc...- the unafilliated people.

I have a hard time stating what I am stating, since I know crackpot literature... Half-backed ideas and I don't like them... On the other hand, it takes me just a few minutes to find some flaw in their argument and move on. So there is no need for censorship. Categorizing is enough.

I have to do the same for crackpot ideas from affiliated people (university affiliated people).

A simple solution to the problem can be easily achieved by providing a subsection on the site for speculative science by non-afilliated people. One can envision the same kind of reviewing protocol as in Philica.com and a larger and searcheable abstract. If necessary one might limit the volume of contribution to some arbitrary size, such that prolific people concentrate on their best ideas... but that should be larger than a large manuscript... Sometimes people have something interesting to say which requires lots of explanations...:)

This would eliminate the need for the horrendous barrier of finding an endorser. I tried to contact many potential endorsers and they certainly didn't give me the time of the day. This in itself is a tremendous censorship of new ideas.

Since I've just provided a simple solution to the problem, censorship has to be the goal of the moderators...Q.E.D.

In addition, the moderation process is not described in the submission protocol. I don't really understand how one can substitute the discussions I had with my endorser - who is a particle physicist and who published on the High Energy Physics section in the past - by a moderator's glance of my work.

Irony and Cynicism Below...:)

It is a shame that Los Alamos Archives betrayed to such great level the goals set forth by their founder Paul Ginsparg . Paul envisioned the creation of an e-print sharing system where quality wouldn't suffer while the access from the disenfranchised developing countries would be achieved. Special consideration was even taken to make sure that papers were not too large such that slow modem connections in African countries wouldn't become a barrier to knowledge.

The goal was a Level Playing Field..:)

I highly respect the concepts and the initiative and I praise Paul Ginsparg for that.

It is not clear that the endorsement system - a barrier I was able to overcome with tremendous difficulty - plus an extra level of moderation just for me doesn't constitute an unleveled playing field...:) I feel extremely sorry for those Poor African Scientists...:) Good Luck finding an endorser...:) and then passing through this kind of moderation!!!!!

I wonder if Paul Ginsparg knows about this kind of shenanigans..>:)

Well... if the moderation added something to the process, I would be the first to accept it. As you can see, the moderator's email contains nothing substantial. It seems in bad faith...:) It lacks intellectual courage, that is, if you have some stupid or smart concern about the paper, take a deep breath and put it in writing...:) I did it... and it certainly took courage.....even though, these are just ideas...:)

Final Remarks

I created the logical framework. I also created a publication you can refer to support your own ideas (pro or con) on the subject.

I hope I can create some intellectual duel of some sort... The idea is the best I am aware of and explains Everything quite well... Maybe there will be people taking sides - some saying that this theory is really, really, really bad while the other side will say NOOOO... this theory is only really, really bad...:)

I don't really care... I do care that the idea sees the light of the day...:) and the Brightness of Your Minds and Comments..:)

If you feel strongly about the subject, you are welcome to write to
Paul Ginzparg or to the or to the kid who moderated my paper ...:)



Spanking Science - The Review ...:)

This is a cynical and hopefully humorous analysis of how could such review come about. Of course, I hope to be wrong and I sent an email requesting clarification. In the event of a clear response, it will be clear to me that I didn't have any good reason to be so cynical...:)

I will keep you posted on my communications with Los Alamos.


I tried to imagine how such a vacuous review could have been written and started envisioning the events as follow:

Fri 10/27/2006 4:23 PM Paper is submitted...:)

Fri 10/27/2006 4:27 PM- Paul Ginzparg's post-doc opens his email after just arriving in office after a night partying at the "Hi Gorgeous" pub (Ithaca is full of Gorgeous Gorges- Cornel University...:) Suddenly he realized that his sweating palms are making it difficult to hold the mouse...:) He wipes the sweat from his brow and start shivering (and it is not winter yet.....:)

Oh, noooo... What to do???.. If I don't censure this paper, I might be blamed for the demise of String Theory and my future career...:) Suddenly he sees his future life passing by in a flash of light... His dreams of having one of those "Scary Black Holes in Your Neck of the Woods" PBS shows starts to fade away... The protection given by unintelligible math is gone... no Math Shielding... How can one survive in this Universe without a good Math Shielding...:) Not to mention having to learn more crap...:) Ohhhh, God Forbid!!!

Immediately, he summons up some colleagues and start a frenetic discussion about the future of Physics...:) and decide rightfully that Doing Physics is more important the Doing the Right Physics...:)

Fri 10/27/2006 4:30 PM- He submits the now infamous "Inappropriate Submission" email...:) , thinking "I have a week to come up with a good excuse for censuring this $%*& paper"..:)

He can now breath relieved...It was a difficult decision but someone had to do it...:)

A week passes by, all those cumulative examinations, reading those conjectures and curved spaces and the beer in the pub...:) they all take time...:)

Thur 11/02/2006 1:17 AM - The pub was great tonight, but now it is time to send the final review of the paper and I have nothing...:) Let's write some vague argument/critique.... One can never defend oneself from the most vague and vacuous critique...:)... That's it...that is the ticket...:) After all, what are the likelihood that this paper matters .... it is just another idea...:)

A Little Bit about Censorship

A little about Censorship

A friend of mine observed incorrectly that I seem to be using a censorship gimmick to increase the visibility of my theory. The idea is that I would be wrapping myself and my theory with the flag of Human Rights and thus validating the theory indirectly. That is not correct.

The censorship monkeys are there to show my outrage by the violation of a higher right. The right that is being trampled by Dr. Paul Ginsparg is the rights of an idea. Ideas are more important than we are. They have a life of their own and have the ability to benefit or destroy mankind.

By arbitrarily censoring my ideas, Dr. Ginsparg, tried to preclude the paradigm of the Hypergeometrical Universe from existing.

I have no powers over him. I don't review his grants, don't have the power to invite him to conferences or to give talks in my academic department, etc.

I am quite powerless with respect to that kind of obstacle, but the idea has a life of its own and managed to move on and found its own outlet.

I will take the censorship monkeys off our backs. The outrage is still here. The sense that Science has been utterly disrespected remains, but my work is almost done. I have a few blogs to do and I will be done with the theory.

So let's enjoy the ride, only remembering the good times and disregarding the little people that tried to hold us back...:)

I've heard that you people would like to transmutate lead into gold...:) I guess I can help you...

Just keep reading.



Censorship by Philip Helbig, sci.physics.research co-moderator


I guess I will have to receive the Nobel Prize before I can post anything in the sci.physics.research Yahoo Group.

One can always say that scientists are cold and calculating, but you can say that at least some of them are very, very, very sensitive...:)

These small subset need to protect their sensibilities from any challenges to what they believe is the correct interpretation of reality.

These people are giving Science a bad name... It is a shame... Newton, Einstein and any other scientist with a revolutionary idea would be blocked in the United States of America scientific environment controlled by Dr. Ginsparg (Los Alamos-Cornell arquives) or this Dr. Helbig. It is a shame... if I didn't mention that before...:)

It is suprising that, Dr. Helbig would consider my theory speculative and at the same time, they would publish crap about creating Universes in laboratory or inter-brane interactions etc... It boggles my mind..>:)

From this interaction you can imagine the odds of me publishing anything along the lines of what I wrote in this blog...:) Every idea I created here and tried to convey to academia were always blocked without any justification by the likes of Dr. Helbig or Paul Ginsparg- the de facto owner of the Los Alamos Arquives.

Please follow the links and look for censorship at the Los Alamos Arquives (paid by your tax dollars) by Paul Ginsparg. Here is the link


I will make another attempt to publish my little Grand Unification Theory at the Los Alamos Arquives this week.

Please write to the Dean of the Cornell University requesting that pressure be exerted on Dr. Ginsparg to provide at least an explanation why he would just deem my theory INAPPROPRIATE...:)

Carolyn (Biddy) Martin
(607) 255-2364

Or in a more tactful manner, please write or call Dr. Ginsparg and tell him about the relevance of my theory and that it deserves a few bits of storage in one of the Los Alamos servers..>:) It is not too much to ask...:)

Please do the same for Dr. Helbig, the co-moderator of the sci.physics.research Yahoo Group. Here is his email:
Phillip Helbig helbig@astro.multivax.de


Phillip Helbig X-Ray..:)
to me
show details
4:53 am (3 hours ago)

Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research isinappropriate for the newsgroup because it is too speculative.Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group andwas not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want topost it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoidingany moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVEco-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be inactive.If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you email amoderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive, causing anunnecessary delay.


Phillip Helbig, sci.physics.research co-moderator
Below is my threatening posting:
I finished blogging the assignment for all the Hyperon Family using only a single dilaton coherence - the fundamental dilator - and the three Neutrino subcoherences (ElectronNeutrino, MuonNeutrino and TauNeutrino).

This comprises the Hypergeometrical Standard Model and offers a simple and clear alternative to the Standard Model. The Hypergeometrical Universe provides Grand Unification.The site is http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to post them to the blog. Any intelligent comment, suggestion or correction would be valued and invaluable.


and my reply

Dear Dr. Heilbig,

I would appreciate if you were to give any thought to the fact that I created a model in which I replicate both Electromagnetism, Gravitation from a simple equation, modeled all the Hyperons using a simple paradigm of metric deformation coherences (fundamental dilator) and was able to calculate their masses in a simple manner and from first principles.

That should be worth a simple two paragraphs posting.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me.



Inappropriate Submissions...Communications

Maybe I was in bad mood after all...:) What can I say.... I am just human...:)

My last blog was a quasi-coherent rant (to be kind to myself) and to a high degree it did not provide a clear view of what really happened and what I think. I will organize the argument properly here.

I decided that the last blog was way tooooo melodramatic and decided to divide it into three. This one will keep the Los Alamos ArXives communications...

Last week, when I mentioned Pitch Forks and the Scientific Inquisition I was showing some trepidation in front of the incoming murderous masses...:) (irate scientists... despondent geniuses... etc).....

The reason for that trepidation was that I was finally able to get an endorser (a particle physics scientist) with whom I had lengthy discussions and had the opportunity to explain the more complex issues associated with the theory.

Eventually he was convinced that the idea should at least be heard (or read)... Any new idea has initially only one converted... maybe two in this case. In any event, I thougth that my hope of having an open and proper review of my paper was in the works...:)

Unfortunately I was being overly optimistic when I saw lynching mobs of scientist and pitch forks...:) in my future...

Below is a blow by blow report of the Los Alamos Arxives interaction with my paper.


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

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
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.

I sent the Los Alamos ArXives the following email in hope of learning something and improving my paper...:)

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.


Marco Pereira

PS- Just to clarify, the response from a peer-review journal Physics Review D was similarly vague and intellectually coward, so I couldn't learn anything from it and don't consider following the suggestion an option....:)