Suggestion Yet another solution to the Einstein field equations

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the submission of a new solution to the Einstein field equations, with emphasis on the necessity of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal before engaging in forum discussions. A participant questions the openness of cosmology peer-reviewers to new ideas, suggesting a potential bias towards established theories like the Friedmann equations. The forum's mission statement highlights its role in discussing science as understood by the professional community, indicating that unconventional ideas may not be welcome. The original post also notes missing elements that could enhance the argument, including details on cosmological time dilation and calculations related to the particle horizon. The thread is currently closed pending further administrative discussions.
questi0ner
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
I've already got "Personal Speculation Warning" and I had a private conversation with @Nugatory, who told me, that I have to publish it in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal before it can be posted for discussion here. I replied with a question, if he is willing to believe, that cosmology/astronomy peer-reviewers are fortified with the Friedmann equations and they will not surrender their fortress. He replied
That may be, but if so this forum is not the place to take up the issue. From our mission statement (emphasis mine):
Our mission is to provide a place for people (whether students, professional scientists, or others interested in science) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.
The "new" solution is actually one of the oldest ones from the new point of view, it's based on Leonard Susskind's physical intuition and it's seemingly paradoxical. Is this forum really not a place to ask about its correctness?

PS. I chose "Suggestion" prefix, because I don't want it to be Complaint. My original post is missing a few words here and there, an emphasis on cosmological time dilation, two additional paragraphs and one extra calculation of the proper distance to the particle horizon in the radiation dominated era based on the Friedmann equations for comparison. Here is the screenshot of the latest version.
 
Last edited:
  • Sad
Likes weirdoguy
Physics news on Phys.org
From the PF rules that you agreed to when joining here:

PF Rules said:
Acceptable Sources:
Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature. Usually, we accept references from journals that are listed in the Thomson/Reuters list (now Clarivate):

https://mjl.clarivate.com/home

Use the search feature to search for journals by words in their titles.
 
Please check your PMs -- I have asked you an administrative question. Thank you.
 
This Feedback thread is closed temporarily pending the outcome of my PM conversation with the OP.
 

Thread 'RIP Vanadium 50'

I have some solemn news to report. Many in the community had been wondering where the prolific @Vanadium 50 has been. V50 hasn't posted a message in nearly a year. After months of questioning, the mentor group dug in and did some investigation and we're confident V50 passed away early this year. Few members need reminding what kind of force @Vanadium 50 was for the community and physics. A mentor for 5+ years and an annual award winner seemingly every other year. He has a top 10 post count...
View full post »

Similar threads

Suggestion New forum: PF Lounge > Peer Review
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Sticky
Physics Forums Global Guidelines
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
502K