Robert Alexander Speers

Renowned people (Brian Greene, Roger Penrose, etc) write idiotic ideas in peer-reviewed journals.

This is a forum. If you have an argument, you present it... if you don't have it...:) What I say: you are lacking.

Peer-reviewed journals will not provide a peer review if they don't want the ideas or criticism in the article to be published.

I offered my work for peer review here, despite the fact that the vocal majority are crackpots with their crackpot ideas.

I can only guess you are one of them. Do you have your own "Theory"?

You are more than welcome to pick up one of my articles and criticize to your heart's desire. Just let me know of the discussion and I will be there to defend it.

What is the value of a community of "scientists" if not for double-checking each other's work quality?

# HU-The Big Pop Cosmogenesis

https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5012159

# The Hypergeometrical Universe

https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5012064

# Debunking NASA

#Reevaluating_Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Constraints_on_Epoch_Nature.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5188030

In these papers, I provided a new model for matter, replacing the Big Bang, correcting Relativity, and debunking NASA's 39-year-long Laser Lunar Ranging Project CONCLUSIONS. I don't debate NASA's data collection. I just disagree with the conclusions.

I debunked other arguments about Earth's Thermal History and the use of the Stellar Candles Hypothesis.

So, when I criticize an article, I do so because they are too bad... poorly written, poorly thought out, without predictions or confirmations of observations.

In other words, people think that Science is pontificating Postulates about Reality.

By the way, this Forum is not "unreviewed" unless you consider yourself not being a scientist.

This is the opposite of "non-reviewed".

The review is presented. Anyone can disagree. The author can defend his work publicly.

If the community had real scientists, this would be the perfect approach to improving science.