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.

---------------------------------------------------------
Submission:

Paper: hep-ph/0610362
Title: The Hypergeometrical Universe
Authors: Marco A. Pereira
Comments: 23 pages, 8 figures.Please, send all the
correspondence to Dr.Pereira at ny2292000@yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------
Rejection:
Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators, who determined it inappropriate for the hep-ph archive. Do NOT under any circumstances resubmit to the original arXiv before first explaining the reason to moderation@arxiv.org AND receiving a positive response. Please direct all questions and concerns regarding moderation to the moderation@arXiv.org address.
--
arXiv admin

---------------------------------------------------------
Final Review
Dear XXX,
The moderators feel that the submission content has serious issues that need to be reworked before the paper will be at a publishable level. The paper contradicts or ignores many well-accepted physical theories without acknowledging these omissions or explicitly challenging the foundational literature. arXiv is not a repository for otherwise unpublishable material, and
the moderators do not feel this submission is appropriate for any subject within arXiv. You should seek feedback from a conventional journal.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Thanks,

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....:)