<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How is the MM being received by the scientific community? Is it being accepted? What other cosmologists and physicists have to say about the model?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
The feedback I get is strongly positive. But that is, as we say, a selection effect -- The people with a positive view choose to write, while those with a negative view usually don't write. We occasionally publish reviews in the Meta Research Bulletin. Usually, all the constructive negative comments are published and discussed, while only a sampling of the positive remarks are published.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Tom, have you tried to published your model somewhere? There really is a strong resistence from Big-Bang theoreticals?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Alternatives to the Big Bang are not currently welcome in many journals. I don't mean that they fail peer review, but that some journals will not even send them out for review.
The MM is too large for a technical paper anyway. One paper could cover only bits of the model. That is why I wrote <i>Dark Matter</i>. In the journals, I have published specialized bits of MM, such as the Le Sage gravity model, "Quasars: Near vs. Far", "Did the Universe have a beginning?", etc. -|Tom|-
